Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 14 June 2008

Soxred93

Voice your opinion (talk page) (39/3/2); Scheduled to end 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. I think he has the smarts and everything to become an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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[REDACTED] 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)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

General comments

• See Soxred93's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/Soxred93
• Requests for adminship/Soxred93 2
• Requests for adminship/Soxred93 3

• Links for Soxred93: Soxred93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• Soxred93's activity at the present WP:ACC tool: http://toolserver.org/~sql/acc/users.php?viewuser=4. He is a developer, and an administrator there, as well as our first real user. SQL 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Due to the fact that you asked me to test out the new tool. :P Soxred 93 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Believe he will use the tools responsibly. BradV 03:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per my nomination. SQL 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, no indication user would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 05:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Trustworthy. MBisanz 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Gah! (next time you should tell me before you do something like this){full support} ·Add§hore· /_Cont 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support User has my full trust, and I feel aboslutely certain that they would not abuse tools. :-) Stwalkerster 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Although his blatant POV is obvious in his username, that might be a problem within the cabal. · AndonicO 09:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 / )} 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wisdom89's opposition is in accordance with the username policy; Majorly's whining is not. giggy _(:O) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

   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. Misplaced Pages 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. Al Tally 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Support I don't think the 'pedia will asplode if the user is given +sysop. ffm 11:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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 ~ Evidence 12:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)

    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)

12. Support. Valuable member of the community. MrPrada (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support per nom. -- Cobi 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
16. Support per nom. Vishnava _talk 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
18. Yup. MaxSem 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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 • 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support Bstone (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
24. Support editor has done good work with SoxBot and not shown any reasons to oppose. BJ 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Great bot work, and willingness to act on constructive criticism. xenocidic (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
28. I have no problem with his RfA volunteering list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. My past interactions have been positive. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Would have co-nommed but lives on the other side of the world support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, see no problems. Wizardman 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I've seen this user and his bots around the wiki frequently and he deserves it. — Wenli  22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
35. Support. Seems good. :) Anthøny 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Supper strong support.A brilliant editor. Maintains the best bots on Misplaced Pages(other than the almighty Clue Bot), wont abuse the admin tools, and only wants them to make Misplaced Pages better.Gears Of War 23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Duh. —paranomia 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
39. I fully support you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Good luck. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose - Candidate believes that "confusing" usernames should be blocked at UAA. , , , , Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 Misplaced Pages for such an innocuous reason. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 / )} 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, okay. :-) Thanks for clarifying, I think I'm leaning more towards opposing now... But first, I'm off to bed.--Koji†Dude 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 Misplaced Pages: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. SQL 05:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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.) SQL 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 / )} 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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 / )} 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   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[REDACTED] 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 (_ears) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   As the guy who blocked TommmmmmmyT, it was because he was actually vandalising the encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think blocks on all five usernames are justified. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
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 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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)

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 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I have made it less bitey, per your comments. Soxred 93 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

   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 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Per that rather strange 'volunteer RfA' list, some dodgy UAA reports and Xenocidic. Rudget (Help?) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   Did you want that in the support section? Soxred 93 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think so, hehe. :P · AndonicO 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   I just notified Shapiros about this. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)