Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwesocks

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

Wwesocks

Final (1/11/0); ended 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) - withdrawn prematurely per WP:SNOW by PeterSymonds

Nomination

Wwesocks (talk · contribs) – I would like to put myself forward for consideration as an Administrator on the English Wikipedia, in order to allow me to contribute to the project in the extra ways the admin tools allow. I've been a member since September 2006, and I believe I've made contributions that have positively added to the project. Most of my edits are in the article namespace. If successful, I will not miss use the admin tools.wwesocks 06:47, 13 June 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm intending to use the tools like deleting items meeting the CSD rather than just tagging them, and being able to deal more effectively with users abusing these areas of the project. I'd also like to make use of the tools in support of my main article subject area, solving issues with, say, persistent vandalism or users violating 3RR. I'd also like to help out in areas of dispute resolution.

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

A: I've written quite a few articles, and have made 156 edits to SKY Network Television

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: I have never been in a serious conflict before. That doesn't mean I haven't encountered disagreements, but I've resolved them by talking it out.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. What do you think about the Wikipedia:Award Center?

A: I can't find a Wikipedia:Award Center page, but anyway I will answer about what I think of Wikipedia Awards. I think they are great, because they promote WikiLove and reward users for their hard work and should never at any time be removed from Wikipedia.

I think Graeme is talking about the Award board Reward centerReward board. decltype (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Should secret pages be deleted?

A: I'd say that the deciding factor has more to do with the editor than the page itself. If Editor X (600 edits) has a secret page, which comprises of most of their entire Wikipedia edits (520), that's a problem. If Editor Y (800 edits) and has a secret page which comprises of a small percentage about of their edits(5), I'd say that's okay, because it's obvious that their sole contributions to the project aren't unencyclopedic.

6. Can you explain your understanding of fair use in Wikipedia?

A: Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the rights holders. It can be used on Wikipedia if:

• It's used for a purpose that can't be replaced by text or images.
• Its usage is fair use in United States copyright law.
• It has a rationale explaining why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law.

Additional optional questions from Coldmachine

7. You say you have "been a member since September 2006" but according to your user logs your account was registered in December 2007. Have you edited under any other accounts? If so, are you willing to (and will you) disclose them?

A: I started in September 2006 under the account Socks 01.

I created a new Wwesocks account in December 2007 and havn't edited with my old account since. I am willing to close it and will if I become an admin.

8. In the time you have been involved with Wikipedia (discrepancy aside), what are the most important things you feel you have learned?

A:I have learned about several Wikipedia policies such as fair use, deletion, editing, vandalism, speedy deletion, blocking, banning, copyrights, and behaviour. I have also learned how to edit pages properly (using wiki markup).

Additional optional questions from decltype

9. While your answer to Q6 is good, you seem to have made some mistakes in this area in the past. Would you mind explaining this?

A: Well, I made a mistake a while back which I shoudn't have. I learnt from this and havn't done this since, and it was the only time. I don't intend doing this ever again.

10. On a more positive note, can you give an example of a comment or message you received from another editor that made you happy?

A: 1,2,3, 4

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, you've been here since September of '06 or December '07? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

September 06 as Socks 01. I created Wwesocks as a new account in December 07. wwesocks But I have not used Socks 01 since. wwesocks 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Does someone want to close this as WP:SNOW? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is there always one more oppose showing up the top than there actually is down below?wwesocks 02:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Like your secret pages answer, and you seem like a good editor \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Support Per \/.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose.--Giants27 (t|c) 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While you've been here for a while, your editing stats show that you've made very little edits to the WP namespace or collaborative areas. Looking forward to support next time. :) -download ׀ sign! 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too few edits; while you've been here a while, you're clearly not very active, which is important for an administrator. I'd encourage you to come back after another thousand edits, and hopefully you'll have been into some conflicts by then (not that I really wish it on you, but you'll need the experience). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
   • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
   • My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. (iMatthew - talk) at 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Per above and for claiming to want to use the tools primarily in their area of interest. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Sorry, too few edits to be able to say whether or not I'd trust you with the admin tools. Also, it looks like you copied parts of your nomination statement and answers from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colds7ream. Jafeluv (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I am sorry, but I do not think that copying another editor's answer to Q1 verbatim was a display of sound judgment. It makes me wonder what administrative work you want to do (since the above was Colds7ream's answer to that question, not yours). Feel free to respond. decltype (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, would like to see some more experience in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Jafeluv. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Jafeluv. --Giants27 (t|c) 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. per Jafeluv and imatthew. Sorry. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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.