Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soxred93 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Soxred93

[edit]

(18/22/15) final

Soxred93 (talk · contribs) - After failing my last RfA, I believe I have worked out most of the issues brought up there. I have been on Wikipedia since December 2006, but became active in November 2007. I have experience in a wide area of Wikipedia, including the Help Desk, AIV and UAA, and ACC. I've been active in the Vermont WikiProject, Articles for Creation, and image tagging/supplying fair use rationales. I also have almost 500 deleted edits, from all my image tagging and speedy deletion tagging. Contrary to my last RfA, I have also gotten experience at AFD, giving me some more ideas on Wikipedia policies. I have AN and ANI bookmarked, paying attention to what's going on, as to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I believe that I could now be trusted with the tools. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:31, 5 March 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: There are some places where I already participate, but could do more as an admin, and other places where I just contribute, and could start to help out. I have been working at WP:ACC, creating multiple accounts. The main problem is that I can't create accounts similar to another, and I can help out there. I've also been reporting users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA, and can help out there. I have already declined requests at AIV for lack of a final warning, and also check IP addresses for shared IP's. At WP:RPP, Ive had that page bookmarked, watching over requests (and making my own), to gain the knowledge there. I believe that I now know the protection policy top to bottom, and will make absolutely no flaws there. Similar to my last RfA, I can also help out with those administrative backlogs. Such backlogs I plan to help out in is speedy pages and images with no source/license/FUR for over 7 days. Some other places include WP:RM and WP:AFD. Of course, I'll have to drop some non-admin pages, but with the ever-expanding Wikipedia, I will make sure they are set with other users before I leave them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I can't believe how little stuff I have done at my last RfA, and have strived to get more contributions to Wikipedia now. I still only have 8 articles that I can say I majorly improved on my user page (such as Robert Cormier), but that's 8 more since my last RfA. One of those articles, Bridge and torch problem, was nominated for deletion, but after my quick expansion, it got a unanimous keep. Some other non-article contributions I am proud of include my 3 bots (maybe 4), my improvements to ACC, and Images for upload. For the past few days, I have created a new tool that has gotten much usage, and helped create over 15 new accounts in 2 days. That is a significant improvement over the past method, which did not get as many fulfilled requests. I have also helped keep the backlogs down at AFC, getting 2 barnstars for my efforts. Not to mention my large amount of anti-vandal edits, plus interacting with users, and large amount of AIV and UAA reports.
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: Conflicts over editing? No. Other users caused me stress? Yes. Some examples include when my SVG map of the US, with presidential candidates was removed and replaced, an AfC I declined, but overturned by ShinmaWa, and even myself. I initially got mad at Coolkid1993 for replacing my map with one he did. I talked about it on his talk page, but then pushed it aside when I realized that this is not the first time it has happened. In the future, if something like this happens, I would first ask around if this has happened before, and also ask for advice before it gets mad. By the way, is there a "Wikipedians are people too" essay somewhere? Another issue was when ShinmaWa overturned my decline of a AfC article. The article is Bill Whitaker, and I declined it as having only one source, a primary source. The problem was that the source was a reliable source, CBS news. Bill Whitaker is employed by CBS, so that's where the confusion came in. I understand my mistake, and after reading around, one of the reasons WP:RS exists is because anyone can write a webpage, so we need trusted sources. I doubt that CBS would write a hoax biography for the purposes of sourcing a false fact in Wikipedia. Same the other way around, so other people involved with the subject of the article can't lie in their website, for the purpose of appealing to people. You also see that I pointed out the stress with myself. That is what the Wikibreak is for. At one point, I have gotten mad at myself for a mistake I made. This was in my last RfA, when I made a comment about Siva1979's oppose. I didn't read that WP:AAAD was an essay, and pointed Siva to the article. That was a mistake, and earned my a few more opposes. Because of my negligence to read, I got very mad at myself, and wanted to take that moment back. But I thought. If I wanted to try for an RfA again, blanking the page or anything would get me nowhere, and I knew where that also could get me. Instead, I took an unannounced wikibreak, what most people consider the proper thing to do.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

4. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A: I really can't come up with a good answer this question. Wikipedia is great as it is, I can't think of anything to improve. The people who have a) created Wikipedia, b) helped spread the idea of a wiki encyclopedia, and c) sustain the current Wikipedia have all done a great job. I think the one thing I would change is the length of the image names. I once tagged an image for deletion (orphaned fair use, I believe), it's name had 148 characters, excluding the namespace and extension. That image was this one. What I would change is that images have a set character limit. I know it's not great, but it prevents that long name that is messing up the edit window.
5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
A: I think IAR is one of the best policies on Wikipedia. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, and some policies get in the way. That is counter-productive to our goal. On an AfD, I would apply SNOW in multiple cases. One case is if it is done as a pointy nomination (e.g. nominating Hillary Clinton for deletion because someone likes Obama). I would do a keep due to SNOW also if there are a bunch of speedy keep votes, or if the article is a plain speedy delete article due to nonsense/vandalism. On an RfA, nominating a user with about 100 edits, all to userspace, will result in an early closure due to SNOW. Also if a user has very few supports except for moral, with the rest oppose, then it is a good thing to SNOW it. SNOW requires common sense, and every case is different. The main question to ask is, "Does this have a chance of succeeding?" Those situations I just described, plus a few other special circumstances, are likely to answer no to that question.
6. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A: As said above, I know about Wikibreaks. I know when I'm getting burned out, a) when it's interfering with my regular life, or b) when the quality of my edits is going down. When I notice either of those two things happening, I know something's wrong. But if I don't know it, I can make some mistakes. In order to control my WikiStress, I have decided to stay away from some high-drama areas, except when necessary. If I do get involved with those areas, I try to limit my other edits, so as not to get burned out. You may have noticed I have been reducing my edits during this RfA. This is in an effort to avoid stress. In the event that I do get under a unusually large amount of pressure, it is likely that I could make a mistake. When I make a an edit in a high-pressure area, I try to think of the consequences. This method can help keep me from making a bad mistake, like those three edits B pointed out. It is possibly more likely for me to make a bad mistake in low-stress situations, because it is more routine.

Optional questions from Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) '[reply]

7. Under what specific circumstances would you use a cool down block?
A: Never. Cool-down blocks are just asking to anger a user, and have a good chance of making the situation worse. While some other small wiki's allow cool-down blocks, Wikipedia does not allow it, according to policy.
8. In what specific situation/s would you enforce an indefinite block?
A: I would never block an IP indefinitely, because the address may be dynamic, and block an innocent person. However, or user accounts, there are some times when an indefinite block should be used. If I see that a user has been clearly vandalizing, with no intent of helping the encyclopedia, I would likely block indefinitely. Other reasons include a clear sockpuppet, or an inappropriate username. Most of the itmes, these require good judgement to determine the length. Here are some examples of usernames: Ghwgrkskmbniwwflg = indefinite. Bush is so gay lol! = indefinite. (company name) = Indefinite only if they have been promoting their company. Another reason is a bot running with out approval/malfunctioning (indefinite, but not necessarily infinite).
9. An outside user requests your assistance in mediating a content dispute that has escalated to a full-scale edit war on a particular article between two other users. How would you approach the situation, what course of action would you take?
A: The first thing I would do is remind the users of what they are doing. I would point them to certain policies, such as WP:3RR, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If that does not result in solving the edit war, then I would go to other administrator only tools. If it appears the users are willing to talk, then I would fully protect the page. This allows comments on the talk page, where they belong (not edit summaries). If it looks like discussion is not possible, I would go to blocks. If the users have reverted each other 3 times in the last 24 hours, the offender(s) would be blocked for 24 hours. Also, if the users are being uncivil or have a history of edit warring, a block is the better idea. If the user does have a long history of edit warring, however, a longer block may be necessary.

Optional Questions from User:Carerra

10. If you could improve anything on Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: I believe I already answered that above.
11 What lengths would you go to improve an article?
A: What does that have to do with being an administrator? Answering your question, I can work for hours on end trying to just find sources, not editing at all. When I'm improving an article, I go as far as possible at that time to improve it. Occasionally, I try to improve it more later.
12 How enthusiastic are you about fighting vandalism?
A: Mild, moderate, or severe? Severe. Ever since I started becoming active fighting vandalism has always been a favorite activity of mine. I just requested (and got) rollback, so I can revert it even faster. Sorry I can't give better answers, but there really isn't much more to say. Vandalism is a very important part of Wikipedia to me.

Optional question from Balloonman (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 What specifically have you done to prepare for your second RfA?
14 What criteria do you have for supporting an Admin Candidate?

Questions from Majorly

15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A.

16. Why do you think that?

A.

17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A.

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. Strong Support - My first first support at an RfA :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I like his answers. RC-0722 communicator/kills 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have seen this user in action on the accounts-en-l mailing list and am favorably impressed with his dedication and cordiality to the applicants. I think he will continue to be an asset to the project, and the sysop tools will help in this regard. I am comfortable extending my trust in this user's judgment. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've worked with you a lot over the creation of accounts-en-l. You've got a great head on your shoulders, and, a firm grasp on policy here. I think you'd make a great admin. I honestly thought you already were an admin, or, I would have nominated you myself. SQLQuery me! 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per above, mostly SQL's ringing endorsement Dlohcierekim 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems at all. Opposes are very weak (except the image one, but everyone makes minor mistakes). Good user...good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Everyone makes mistakes, and it may be very, very soon after your last RfA, but I still support as you are a great editor I see everywhere. Good luck! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support. Plusses: has rollback already, meets my standards, has made great contributions, appears to have learned to take himself less seriously, and has created a nice user page. Allegations of incivility make me pause. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see him all over, and I like his answers to the questions. Good luck! Juliancolton The storm still blows... 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Moral Support CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support More reasons to Support than to oppose, everyone makes mistakes. Good Luck :) Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Support Good luck! Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Some reservations about the speed of your renomination and your lack of content creation, but I don't think you're a danger, and I think you have useful skills that would be enhanced by mopship; so I'm adding my Support. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I would be on the fence but in the honor of WP:AGF I will support. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mario1987 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. MER-C 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. per majorly -- Naerii · plz create stuff 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting to improve yourself and wishing to better Wikipedia. I see abuse of the tools as prima facie evidence of power hunger Dustitalk to me 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good user, and answered questions nicely. Basketball110 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you feel any better, I would have nominated Soxred myself. SQLQuery me! 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <edit conflict> Kurt! I've been waiting! Note to nominee-- Don't let Kurt rattle you. He does this to everyone who self nom's. We've gotten used to it. We've come to expect it. Dlohcierekim 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to SQL: Well it makes me feel better, at least. Response to Dlohcierekim: Yeah, I've look through all the ArbCom cases, all his talk pages. I actually laughed when I saw the comment come, because I knew it was coming. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have co-nommed :) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken, Kurt Weber has made that exact statement numerous times. It may look like a power-hungry person trying to achieve just that, but do you read through the RfA and look at the contribs? It may also be wprth noting that self-nominating candidates may actually need the tools. Lradrama 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose rationale is worthless, and should not receive any consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it shouldn't. It's a legitimate opinion like any other. It's a philosophical view, yes, but legitimate no less. Snowolf How can I help? 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An actual "opinion" would be. Kurt's eternal cut-and-paste isn't; it's a knee-jerk Pavlovian reaction that could just as readily be inserted into every self-nom by a bot working with search terms. Now, I grant you that if RfA is indeed nothing more than a straight vote (something most RfA voters passionately deny), Kurt's vote can be on as specious and ill-reasoned a ground as any other.  RGTraynor  11:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, though I consider the above reason to be utterly silly. On at least three occasions - [1], [2], [3] - in the last week, you stuck {{subst:nld}} on images that are obviously logos and have very well-written rationales for fair use. The reason for that tag is that if a user uploads an image that he or she created and does not provide a license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc), then we have no idea what his or her intentions were for licensing reuse of the image or even if he or she has such intentions. So we use that tag. But media being used under a claim of fair use is unlicensed anyway. In probably fewer keystrokes than you can add {{subst:nld}}, you can correct the problem by simply adding the correct boilerplate fair use tag. Tagging these things for deletion instead of adding the correct tag only creates busy work. I am also unimpressed with this SSP report, which again, only creates busy work. On March 1, you asked for essentially preemptive s-protection of Universal health care. I'm sorry, but I think you need more experience. --B (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose I'm sorry. I opposed at your last RfA over a civility concern and looking at recent edits I find things where you really do need to brush up before launching an RfA. As well as issues identified by B above, You can't G4 something when it's been speedied [4] Lots to like as well, so this is a weak oppose. Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry - the deletionist attitude B presents concerns me too much. Just fix the images yourself, it's easier for everyone. That said, I loved The Chocolate War. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, per issues raised by User:B. I'm no radical inclusionist, but such tagging is really counterproductive. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Oppose per B also, admins should be more helpful. Addhoc (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My gut questions this users' judgement and discretionary ability, and per B's specifics. Daniel (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. To clarify, I would have opposed based on my general perception of this user's ability to be a good administrator (or otherwise, per my belief the user lacks the required judgement, discretion and understanding of the spirit of policy rather than the letter of it), and whether B's rationale is debunked or not is irrelevant to that point. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - A little more time needed to polish up yet. Lradrama 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per deeply unpleasant interaction with this user. Majorly (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, could you please explain which interaction was that? Soxred93 | talk bot 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a discussion where I brought up the fact User:Blofeld of SPECTRE isn't an admin, yet has created the most articles ever on Wikipedia, and is one of the top ten editors by count. I recall you got aggressive and defensive about it, and started a silly argument about whether admins should be article writers or not. Then you decided to use User:Cobi's bot as an example of something with a lot of edits, and so that it should automatically be an admin. You missed my point entirely, that some of our best contributors slave away on the articles that make up Wikipedia, yet aren't even an admin, considering the example I gave, Sir Blofeld has been around since June 2006. I brought it up as an interesting discussion point, and I found you turned it into a petty argument for no reason at all. In conclusion, I don't think you are ready - it's the people who write articles all day long who deserve adminship the most, and while you don't have to agree with my opinion at all, I feel that by comparing them to something like ClueBot is pretty silly. I also agree with the above points regarding deletion. There are too many things deleted these days far too quickly, and I think you'd rather boost your log/edit count than actually understand how fair use works. Majorly (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I had forgotten about that. I cannot deny that that event did not happen, but I did not mean for it to be interpreted that way. I have no problem with Blofeld being an admin, just not based solely on the amount of articles that were made. I did not mean either you or Blofeld any disrespect. I sincerely apologize for that dispute, and hope that we don't let that absolutely ruin our future interactions as wiki users. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, we sorted this issue out (sort of) off-wiki. I won't remove my oppose, as I don't see much point in doing so, but it may be considered abstained if the vote happens to be close. Majorly (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose IMHO, to soon since the last RfA. I believe that there should be at least three months between candidacies. Also per the issues B brought up. Xenon54 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose - This user had a lot more experience than his last RfA, but the user still, as said above, needs to look over policy a little bit more, specifically copyright and CSD policies. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sorry, but I cannot support at this time. In tagging images as {{di-no license}}, you need to be extremely careful that the image you have tagged does not show an obvious license. You cannot rely on templates themselves. Although I trust you will not abuse the tools, I am unsure whether you're experienced enough to refrain from unintentionally misusing it. In your response to Daniel, if the image tagging issue was isolated or unique, this will not be an oppose. However the mistakes were many, and exhaustive for others to clean up, and so I am unable to support this RfA. —Dark (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I have doubts about this user becoming an administrator so soon, primarily because of judgement issues, but also the image tagging issues that B brought up and overall inexperience in areas where experience really is the defining requirement. Spebi 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per B. Such elementary mistakes indicate that more experience is required for adminship. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Tagging images incorrectly means lack of experience in my eye. Come back when you have at least 1500 (preferably 2000) mainspace edits. ArcAngel (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose For several of the already provided reasons but mainly because of a)inexperience and b)short period of time since last RFA. Quite frankly it would take an outstanding candidate for me to consider supporting anyone with under a year of solid editing and while Soxred shows promise in some areas i think there is much room for improvement. siarach (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose He doesn't seem up to the challenge. I'm sorry but maybe sometime later! -- Carerra"Chatter" 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I don't think he has been on wikipedia for enough time PiTalk - Contribs 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How long is long enough in your book? And does time really reflect his ability opposed to the type of contributions he makes? Tiptoety talk 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reluctant oppose. Issues raised by B concern me. Indicates a lack in experience...--TBC!?! 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too soon after last RfA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose → B raised correct points, mainly the SSP report. Also I tend to trusts Majorly's points, just to watch them being removed. Snowolf How can I help? 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per B, Majorly, and others. While we need more admins, I feel we need fewer admins with a deletionist bent. Solely in my opinion, if the instinct on finding a "problem" article or image is to tag it (or delete it once you're an admin) rather than to fix the problem, that's just not the philosophy I think will help our goal of building an encyclopedia. Too often, I see us throwing out the bathwater without retaining the baby. While I respect your contribution to the project, I have to oppose in any case where the nominee's instinct seems to be for deletion over improvement. --SSBohio 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - Ugh, this is tough. I have to go neutral for now. I have to mull this over for a bit. I have no doubt that this user has been lurking at the relevant admin-related areas in the wiki, however, my main concern rests with the very few mainspace and talk contributions. I know this is not a decision based solely on a statistical measurement, but the breakdown for articles contributed to is extremely low. I don't understand how the user can really claim improvement of articles since last RfA with such low numbers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Grrrr. The answers to my questions were pretty good, and I was leaning toward support, but the oppose concerns are gnawing at me. Still on the fence at the moment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, my decision is going to have to be an indefinite "riding the fence". I just don't feel comfortable supporting given the issues raised above. This is indeed regretful since I see this user around a lot and they are damn productive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be overly regretful. Should this RfA not pass I have every confidence the Soxred 93 will take away positive criticism and still continue his hard work here. And when he's ironed out these issues, and demonstrated it accordingly, I look forward to offering my strongest support. Never say never and I am sure we see an admin in the making here. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - good contributions and bad image tagging cancel each other out. Will (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Stuck. I'd really like to support this, but the opposition has raised several good points. I'll check up on this later to review, but right now I just can't support. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per B. Rudget. 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agh, Neutral - How I hate neutrals, but i do not feel that I can support due to the issues raised above, but do not feel like piling on is helpful nor are they reason enough to oppose. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, I agree with the above users, in that you might need a bit more polish, but then again you do seem to know what you are doing. So, I can't really pass judgment on this one. Prodego talk 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I wanted to support, but per the oppose reason, I am going to vote neutral. NHRHS2010 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Soxred is a great guy, and I love talking to him on IRC; however, the issues brought up in the oppose sections are concerning. Also, I see existence as prima facie evidence of power hunger. ;) Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I hate pile-on opposes, but this RfA is a little too soon. GlassCobra 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral leaning toward Support - Per some of the Oppose reasons. As MOP said, you are a great guy and are always friendly on IRC, but it maybe a little too soon! The Helpful One (Review) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral a month or two premature, but still Soxred is a very good user, but there are a couple things that need to be polished up more. SpencerT♦C 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Soxred93, I'd wait at least good, full 3 months before you go for another RfA, and make sure that you clearly know fair use policy. Take this time to make many positive mainspace contributions, as well. Wait until someone offers to nominate you for an RfA. Trust me, someone will, if not me, myself... as I can tell that you will eventually make a great candidate. Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral - wait a bit longer, at least 4 months, I'd suggest. Furthermore, your problem that you "can't create accounts similar to another" really begs some questions... why would you want to? Is it appropriate for the project to have similar accounts? —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what the admins at ACC do, they create accounts for users that want a name that coincidentally is similar to another. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Can't really give you an support, as per above. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Good guy, some of the opposes seem entirely vacuous, but perhaps needs a little more time. Sorry :( ~ Riana ⁂ 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral. For lack of experience, I can't support. That would have been enough to oppose except that so many of the oppose reasons come across as pretty thoughtless that I felt you deserved better. Opposing for tagging problems instead of fixing them all? That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is so chock full of problems that we need the problems tagged so people can methodically fix them. Wryspy (talk) 04:17, 12 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Soxred93_2&oldid=1145853831"