Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sock's Favorite Puppet

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

(talk page) (1/8/2); End at 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Embellisch (talk · contribs) - I have perfect edit summary usage and over 6,000 edits under my old username, which I changed and scrambled the password of as I got into a real-life dispute which turned violent (so that's why I'm not going to disclose it here). I had email threats for weeks and weeks and somehow the vandal who I reported to AIV managed to get my home phone number and work address. I had to quit my job because of Wikipedia. I do not want this to happen to anybody else. But anyway, I want to participate in speedy deletions and XfD closures. I don't believe that other people's aggressiveness should stand in the way of building a great encyclopedia, so I'm nominating myself on the hope that Wikipedians will understand. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my current username is inappropriate, so for the purposes of this RfA I will be 'Embellisch'. I have filed a CHU request. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: CSD deletions and XfD closures. I had about 500 AIV reports under my old account (!!!) so I might dabble in AIV, UAA and RFPP too. Although my new username might suggest it, I'm not going to dive into sockpuppetry issues.

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

A: I had 2 FAs, 1 GA and 3 DYKs on my old account. That's all, article-wise. Project-wise I have reported over 500 vandals to AIV and gone on countless RC patrols. I believe mainspace contribs are the most important, because we're here to build a great encyclopedia, right?

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: As I said above, I have gotten into that violent dispute... that's the one that hangs in my mind the most. I was going to self-nominate when I reached 12 months editing but I fell short by about one month. In the future I will simply block the vandal. I did report the vandal to AIV several times but the blocking administrators neglected to block the IP range so I was assaulted relentlessly. I would make sure this never happens by asking for an IP check.

4. Question from Dlohcierekim Do you own a pet, and if so, what is it?

A.

5 Question from --Cameron (t/c) 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) When do you think a so called "cool down block" should be used, and why?[reply]

A. Never. I think that policy should always be followed, and WP:CDB is policy. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from EJF (talk · contribs)

6. What are your feelings on single user login? Do you feel your opinion on this matter will cloud your judgement as an administrator?

A.

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

• Links for USERNAME: Sock's Favorite Puppet (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/USERNAME before commenting.

I fail to see the relevance of Q4...some kind of insider joke?--Cameron (t/c) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Not an insider joke. More like a failed attempt at humor on what looks like a preposterous RfA. Dlohcierekim 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, is there any chance you could disclose your former username, whether this be here, on in a private email (link.) Could you also please clarify why you have used this account to initiate an RfA. Thanks, Qst (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. Absolutely. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 11:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry but I cannot support you on your word alone, not really knowing who you actually are. Viridae^Talk 11:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am pushing near confirmed when I say this is a troll RFA. Your account was created at 10:53, 26 March 2008 (today) which was shortly after a block on Having a wonderful time, who also ran for adminship today. Please just stop this disruption. Rudget. 11:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Rudget, I can see where you're coming from, but I am not that user. I have over 6,000 edits. Also, he (or his IP) would have been autoblocked for 24 hours. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose -- Sorry, I understand why you do no want to disclose your other account name but even though I assume good faith I must treat your Rfa according to your statistics...--Cameron (t/c) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I see. That's fine by me, as I wouldn't trust a RfA like mine. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, would need to know who you really are, before I know if I could trust you with the tools. To be honest, this RfA seems ill-conceived at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
5. Part of adminship is openness and accountability. I'm not sensing that here. Dlohcierekim 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment after comestyles per me. No evidence of ferret related edits. Would likely perpetuate anti ferret systemic bias. Dlohcierekim 11:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Assuming WP:GF to vote for a RFA.To support the admin tools ,I need to know your track and contributions.Without which it is not possible.Please disclose your real user account or try again after a few months after editing if you do not wish to disclose your indentity.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - per Dlohcierekim, we might need disclosure from you regarding your previous account since this account has under 40 edits and will be heading to WP:SNOW very soon...--Cometstyles 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Not only no basis on which to support, not even anything for a neutral. If you previously had 6,000 edits in 11 months under the old username then I suggest 3 months of solid contributions (given your experience) would likely provide a foundation on which to make a further application. Also, consider providing a senior wikipedian with your previous identity by email so they can vouch for the old account in a future nomination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral User is obviously a sockpuppet. --Charitwo ^talk 11:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Charitwo, under WP:SOCK I am allowed a new username, as I have been trolled by another (now-blocked) Wikipedian in real life. I used this username because of that. Sock's Favorite Puppet (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral until the full story behind the username/account change is made available. TheProf | Talk 11:37, 26 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.