Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snocrates

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.

Contents

[edit] Snocrates

Final (19/17/0); Candidate withdrew. 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates (talk · contribs) - Like a lot of editors involved in the various process pages on WP, I first came across Snocrates' work at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where he does a power of work reporting speediable rename candidates and generally engaging in debate. His comments on that page, and on the others where he interacts with the community, are logical, well-considered, and friendly. Snocrates himself would be the first to admit this was not always the case - in his early days on WP he got blocked after an edit war, but there has been considerable water under the bridge since then - in the last four and a half months he has made over 14,000 edits, well-spread out over a wide number of editspaces (as can be seen via Interiot's tool), with just shy of 8000 in the mainspace, and close to 1000 in talkspage. The tools of admin would no doubt be very useful in his category patrolling, and his work in the last few months shows that he can be trusted with them. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Snocrates 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As suggested by Grutness, I would primarily be interested in focusing my work as an admin on category patrolling, processing speedy category renames and merges, and in closing discussions I am not involved in at categories for discussion. Often there is a backlog with some of these duties, and I'd like to be able to contribute my time to help out.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My two main general areas of work have been in categories and in the Latter Day Saint movement wikiproject. With categories, I am particularly happy with my efforts to organize Category:Heads of state by country and Category:Heads of government by country. As Grutness mentioned, I do a lot of category patrolling and speedy rename proposals, which is fairly unglamorous "clean-up" work I guess, but I've been happy with what I've been able to accomplish. In the LDS wikiproject, I am one of the few involved non-Mormon editors, which I think has been beneficial for the project. For samples of my articles that I have been the primary contributor towards, you could look at Mormon folklore, Adam and Eve (LDS Church), William McCary, Paora Te Potangaroa, Official Declaration—2. As a combination of my two major areas of editing, I've also worked on organizing the surprisingly large number of Mormonism-related articles into subcategories of Category:Mormonism.
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: Yes, as mentioned by Grutness, I was involved in an edit war with an editor shortly after I had joined WP as an editor. When I first joined, I thought the social aspects of Wikipedia — talk pages, etc. — were a bit silly; I thought I wanted to be and could thrive as an exopedian. However, after I was blocked I had some time to think about WP and my participation, and I decided to give the social side of WP a try, and I haven't had any major problems since. Quite simply, I have found that using a talk page to discuss controversial issues/edits works very well 99% of the time when I am polite in my manner and clear in my writing. For the other 1% of cases where editors react negatively to my efforts to discuss, I have learned that one of the best things I can do is simply withdraw a bit from the issue and allow other editors to express their views on the talk page, and things go from there and usually work out. I have also learned to avoid the temptation to have an "itchy-revert finger" for edits that are not vandalistic — more often than not I find edit conflicts are simply the result of two in-good-faith editors misinterpreting the meaning or intentions of another. Snocrates 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

  • A ban removes a user's privilege of editing one or more pages. A block is a technical means of preventing a user/IP address from making edits. A block is the usual way of enforcing a ban for a user that is banned from editing all pages. A user that is banned from only editing certain pages would not be blocked. While blocks are typically performed by individual admins for garden-variety disruption and policy violations, bans are typically imposed by the WP community on editors who cause extreme disruption. —Snocrates 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

  • My first step is to begin a discussion about the issue on the talk page of the article, if one does not already exist. I would explain my disagreement there and ask any pertinent questions I have to clarify why the material was removed. I would definitely not add the material back in without having heard back from the editor and having come to some sort of consensus; with WP:BLP issues I believe it's better to err on the side of caution and only include disputed material if there is relatively broad consensus to do so. If the editor did not respond within a few days, I would post what I posted on the article talk page on the editor's talk page, since they probably didn't respond because they just didn't have the page on their watchlist. —Snocrates 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

  • I've often wondered about this — is it a good system to have WP editors be permanent barring intervention by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales? — and am pleased to see that this has started to be addressed to some degree. I definitely would be willing to add myself to the category; I think it's a good idea and is fair. —Snocrates 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

  • In the role as an administrator, those that fall within WP:BEHAVE are, in my opinion, critical. While all editors should abide by these policies, it could be very damaging if an admin violated any of them. Specific to the actions that only an admin can perform is WP:WHEEL — quite simply, don't perform admin actions when you have knowledge that another admin opposes such action. As an admin, I personally would also be very careful to not become involved in attempting to act as an arbiter in any dispute when I feel I am not a neutral party to the dispute. —Snocrates 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Geo Swan

8. You acknowledge that you have been blocked. Could you please describe, in your own words, why you were blocked? Can you tell us whether you now agree with that decision? Can you tell us, what lessons, if any, you brought away from that experience? Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure — I was blocked as a result of an "edit-war" I had with another user at Dieter F. Uchtdorf. The issue of contention was whether Category:German-Czech people would be applied to the article. I was for including it and the other user was opposed. Prior to the editor I was in the dispute with becoming involved, a third editor and I had discussed the issue on the talk page of which was the correct category to apply; after some discussion we agreed to use the category in question. Shortly thereafter, the editor I was in the dispute with reverted the edits, and so it began. The third editor reverted some of the other editor's removals, and I reverted more than 3 in 24 hours. I'm not even sure how it initially came to the attention of an admin; I think the editor I was in the dispute with may have complained, but the result was we were both blocked from editing for disruptions to that page. Do I now agree with that decision?—Yes, as I mentioned above in #3, I see it as a beneficial step for me. I guess I'd never thought about specifically whether I agreed with it before, though. From the start I always knew that I had it coming. What lessons did I bring away?—Well, I mentioned this in #3, but I believe it was a major step for me in deciding to try to use talk pages as a means of communicating nicely with other editors. Did it result in me becoming a perfect WP editor? No. But I think it was an important event which caused me to begin to engage in some degree of self-reflection on the issue. —Snocrates 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
9. On January 31st you said you were leaving the wikipedia. So, what made you change your mind? Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At the time, I believed I was being transferred with my work to a remote place where I would not have an internet connection (I discuss this below if you're interested in where this is). When I arrived at my new place, I learned that I would be able to get internet in my home. At the time of my leaving at the end of January, I was quite upset about this and for other reasons related to being sent here. I lashed out at you in particular, Geo Swan, which I regret and acknowledge was wrong. —Snocrates 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
10. On January 31st I looked at your contribution history, because you didn't give me a courtesy "heads-up" when you nominated a category I started for renaming. It seemed to me, from your contribution history, that don't EVER follow the advice in the policies, and give courtesy "heads-ups" to the creators of articles, categories and templates, when you nominate them for something. I was then, and I remain, deeply concerned that you are seriously eroding the collegial community and consensus decision making we are all supposed to aim for. Are you asking us to trust that you will be abandoning this very bad habit if we entrust you with administrator authority? Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes; this is something I can definitely work on. (Speak of the devil, though — about an hour before your question was posted, I did remember to notify a category creator at User talk:Argyleist.) —Snocrates 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
11. When I partcipate in an RFA I always ask candidates if they think it is as important for administrators to comply with the wikipedia's policies and conventions on civility as it is for ordinary wikipedians. Personally, I think it is even more important for administrators to be courteous, as they should be setting an example. Unfortunately, in my experience, some administrators seem to think they are no longer obliged to be civil. IMO it is absolutely essential for that those who enforce policy fully and completely comply with policy themselves. I always ask candidates to commit themselves to do their best to be civil at all times. If we entrust you with administrator authority can we count on you doing your best to be civil to your correspondents? Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can commit to that. As I mentioned in my answer to #7 above, I think WP:BEHAVE is crucial for administrators, and I'm willing to take full responsibility for my past violations of these principles as well as taking responsibility for my future behavior in advance. —Snocrates 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
12. When I participate in an RFA I always ask candidates if they think they realize they are human, and will make mistakes. Unfortunately, in my experience, some of our existing administrators seem to regard any questions about their judgment as a personal attack, no matter how tactfully those questions are phrased. IMO it is absolutely essential that all administrators remember they are human, and that they approach every question about their judgment calls with an open mind as to whether this might be one of the instances when they may have made a mistake. Everyone makes a mistake, occasionally. I admire people who can openly acknowledge when they recognize they made a mistake. If you are made an administrator will you commit yourself to doing your best to remember you are fallible, and those who have questions about your decisions may have valid points? Can we count on you openly acknowledging when you made a mistake? Geo Swan (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have no problem admitting that I have made a lot of mistakes in and outside of WP. Within WP, I have made mistakes I can easily identify both with how I've treated others and some mistakes regarding article content. —Snocrates 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • I hate anonymous accusations. I don't have time for bleeding games-playing. My advice to the accuser below is to please put up or shut up. Please have the honesty and decency to pull off the mask, and if you edit under another account name, address the issues you've raised using that ID. Ironic that you accuse the nominee of sock puppetry from behind a veil.
A brief word of friendly advice for the nominee. If you do edit using another ID, if you lie about it here, and it comes out during this RfA, your goose may be well and truly cooked. Historically, such behavior has resulted not only in a failed RfA, but also ARBCOM proceedings and a general uproar in the community. I'm favorably impressed with the answers to the questions. And I'm accepting your responses in good faith, as I have only the word of an anonymous accuser to say you've done anything wrong. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    All seems fine here. Acalamari 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support struck due to concerns in the opposition. Acalamari 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support should do fine, just watch the 3RR... ~ Dreamy § 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support User:Snocrates does an excellent job editing. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. SUPPORT! - one of the biggest contributors (in quality & quantity) to CFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - would be glad to have Snocrates on board, who would be even more of an asset with some extra buttons. BencherliteTalk 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. SUPPORT It'll be good to have another admin who's seen both sides of blocking. THE KC (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
  8. Support. A great contributor who will make great use of the tools - and will really know XfD to help clear its backlogs. It's great to see your name here. (And I'm glad to see that your latest edit summary bar is completely green.) Doczilla (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Changed to Support You look like you'll do well, just remember to always use an edit summary. Cheers! ChetblongT C 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support - As another Latter Day Saint movement wikiproject member, I have seen Snocrates contribute positively to many articles. In particular, I thought that his behavior during a recent content dispute at Temple Lot was level-headed and he showed good understanding of WP policies. Even though he was 100% justified in all his edits, he was willing to compromise. I would also like to comment on his answer to Q2 above: he does contribute in an important way as a non-Mormon member of the LDS project. Mormon-related articles seem to be primarily edited by church members (such as myself) who have to be careful to keep personal opinions out of the articles and "anti-Mormon" editors who frequently aren't so careful. Snocrates adds legitimacy to the project, removing unencyclopedic content from both extremes. – jaksmata 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Many years ago, I showed up at work one day and discovered that a coworker of mine was in jail for assaulting someone. After finding out about confirmed abusive sockpuppetry and failure to follow civility guidelines, I feel the same sense of bewilderment and surprise towards someone I thought I knew. Snocrates, I hope you’ll understand why I’m obligated to withdraw my support, and I hope you’ll get past this and continue to contribute positively. We can still use you in the LDS project. – jaksmata 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    SUPPORT, I have looked over his history and appreciate his challenged past. I am inclined to believe that he would be more able to sympathize with (and guide) new, naïve, "wet-behind-the-ears" editors than an admin who has been a poster-child his/her whole wiki-career. A lot of varied edits, too. Good luck.An unfortunate turn of events. Due to recent evidence, must now oppose--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - I'm going to be terse here. Support. That's right. Support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Wow. Switch to oppose per Ryan. Especially the Barnstar sarcasm Support I'm impressed with the answers to the questions. Otherwise, meets my admittedly "no big deal" standards. I have to say that the snarkiness from two weeks ago with the blocks not so long ago had me poised for an oppose. However, I've seen worse in regards to the recent one-- the nominee should please watch that. The urge to snap at people does not decrease when you have the buttons. The AN report about reversion out of hand was before the block, which the nominee identifies as a sort of epiphany in his relationship to the rest of the community. In reviewing the talk pages, I see plenty of helpful responses and at least one where a razzlefratzes or two might have been called for. I see people seeking the nominee's advice. Someone unapproachable would not have so much of that. I ask that the nominee please bear in mind that admin decisions will bring him into conflict with those angry, frustrated and/or hurt by those actions. They may need courtesy, understanding and even mollification. The response of two weeks ago could have been better. As could the one Ryan is talking about. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Nice answers to questions, great user, and entertaining comments in the oppose section ;) SpencerT♦C 11:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support Looks fine. Avruch T 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Oops. Avruch T 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support As per Acalamari and everything is fine as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. 20th Support per above; good user, and hopefully I don't run into an edit conflict. NHRHS2010 02:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support a great contributor at CfD. I trust this editor. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - I trust Grutness' judgement. The Transhumanist 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support based on content work that I've observed. - BanyanTree 13:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Struck per User talk:Djsasso#Steve Smiths. Admins are not angels and lose their temper occasionally, but the follow-up dig was entirely gratuitous and personally directed. - BanyanTree 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Per Dlohcierekim. The user needs to ensure he is civil to others. Otherwise, nothing wrong. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support always good at Cfd, where we need more admins Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
The following user has been indef blocked, and the vote has been indented accordingly. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE. All of you, please do some more research. Please ask Snocrates if he has posted under a sockpuppet name in the recent past, and if so, why he did so. Also, please see the complaint about Snocrates posted last October[1] and compare it with one posted less than two weeks ago.[2] (If the guy has become more considerate of fellow editors in the past three months, his treatment of GeoSwan doesn't show it). Also, doesn't it raise your eyebrow that Snocrates claimed to have been going somewhere there was no internet access (and where might that be?)....but then soon "returns," clamoring to become an administrator because Grutness said that would be a possibility? CheckIntentPlease (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
User is blocked. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a SPA. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What's an SPA? CheckIntentPlease (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
SPA means "Single Purpose Account." Righto. CheckIntentPlease (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SPA--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little dumbstruck, to say the least, and am surprised that if this person is serious, they don't have the gumption to use their real username. (1) I have never used a sock-puppet; I did edit as an anon for some time before I registered, but since that time I have always edited under this username and none other. I have made edits from my work before, which is a shared IP address, but I've always been under this name. (2) I've already stated that I regret not being courteous in the past. What more can I say to change the past? Nothing, really. I'm not aware of any complaints being posted about me since my temporary block ended. (3) Your eyebrows might be raised at my recent departure/return, but it is true that I have recently settled on Pitt Island, which is part of the Chatham Islands (due east of New Zealand). It was my understanding that I would have no internet connection and that it would not be possible to have one on this remote island, since my employer, a NZ university, had told me I would not have internet on the computer they were providing me. When I arrived here though, I found out I could get internet in my home, and it has taken just over a week for me to get the equipment from Auckland and set it up. You don't have to believe any of this, but it is true. (4) I'm not "clamoring" to become an admin. It was not my idea to apply, and If I'm turned down, that will actually be fine with me and I will continue on as I have in the past. My application is based on the idea that I could assist in areas that could use assistance in, not on any weird desire to gain power or acceptance from WP editors, none of whom I know any better than a username and a userpage. :) Snocrates 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT, keep focused on the issue at hand here, folks. Do not start theorizing why Snocrates was or was not able to go online. What he was or was not doing in real-life is irrelevant. Here are some legitimate questions: Is he familiar with WP protocol? Is he able to write HTML? He has had a challenging past, is he able to converse in the community under the guidelines of WP:CIVIL?--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This might be a case of mistaken identity, but if not, it is very much the issue at hand, here. I could provide the username I suspected as being a sockpuppet for Snocrates, but first I should follow my own advice and do some more research, it occurs to me it might be someone else whom I mistook as Snocrates. Whoever it was, ceased editing Wikipedia exactly when he did....and was editing a subject of demonstrable interest to Snocrates. His explanation involving Pitt Island, etc. seems credible and verifiable enough. For now, then, my oppose is qualified. I may conceivably change to support if my concerns continue to be addressed and/or disproved. As for theorizing, the examples I provide of Snocrates insulting fellow editors were not offered in a theoretical sense, nor should any apologies. CheckIntentPlease (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Because of the sensitivity of the matter which may be involved in my objection here, it is more appropriate that I be contacted privately via my Talk Page (email user) to explain which username I suspect as being a sockpuppet for Snocrates, and if so, why I believe the sockpuppet was employed (& it wasn't for harmless reasons). If I'm found to be wrong, I will admit it and apologize, and change my opppose to support. CheckIntentPlease (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, if you believe in what you are saying, then don't let anyone bully you from your opinion. However, just FYI, one of the traits of a Sockpuppet is as follows: "...Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary." One could say that your account demonstrates such traits. That is why we all should assume good faith. Continue your search, however, because you are adding an invaluable service of keeping us on our toes.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
--good points, all. I'm not wanting to be Administrator, though, I'm only raising concerns about someone else's nomination. Speaking of how Sockpuppets "usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers," another reason I suspected that other username of being a sockpuppet for Snocrates is (1.) The suspected sockpuppet claimed to be a newcomer, but (2.) immediately demonstrated editing expertise identical to that of Snocrates. Again, because of the 'sensitivity of this matter' I need to be guarded in my language. I should avoid statements I can't completely and effectively retract if and when I learn I'm mistaken.CheckIntentPlease (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A wise course of action. :)--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Oppose The only times I have encountered this admin he was extremely rude and uncivil and the most recent time I have seen it was a month ago. An admin needs to be able to be civil as they will be frustrated at times. -Djsasso (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Do you have any diffs for this claim that we may view? I haven't lent support or oppose yet, I'd be interested in what you claim here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    My talk page still has a rather rediculous discussion on his part after a simple mistake that was fixed fairly fast. I will have to search for the rest but he went around trashing me on other peoples talk pages at the same time for the same reason. When a simple, could you fix this please would have surficed. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    My archiving bot got the conversation so it can now be found here. -Djsasso (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, but your conduct here is disgraceful. "And then, to f-up the talk pages in the process — well, that just demonstrates what we're dealing with, I guess." is far from the conduct I would expect from an aspiring admin. Admins should remain civil, not belittle people who they are in dispute with using vulgar language. I really hope you consider your conduct when speaking to other users in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Switch to oppose per Ryan and Djasso. Wow. See bold on my former support. Dlohcierekim Deleted?
    Link to Barnstar sarcasm. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well o well Make that strong oppose per not heeding My friendly advice here. The time to come clean was right after I posted this. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Due to the diff provided above. No way. That's totally unbecoming of any Wikipedian, let alone one about to run for RfA. Suggest plenty of water under the bridge before running again. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, switching from neutral. Sorry, just not ready yet. I will support in three months with evidence of improvements in talkpage dialogue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose based on what I consider very clear-cut evidence of the abusive use of sockpuppetry, originally uncovered by another user, who I am quite certain is not CheckIntentPlease. The abuse is documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates. It has been confirmed by a Checkuser. This is not an innocent alternate account or an aborted name change; both accounts have participated in the same CfD's, supporting each other's positions. The two accounts tag-team edit warred on Dieter F. Uchtdorf]], leading to the blocking of HLT (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) for 7 days on 11 Feb 08.

    A final note that Snocrates has been a highly prolific user, and appears to have done quite a bit of useful work. Except to gain an advantage in a meaningless edit war, I am completely at a loss as to why the sockpuppet was created. It would be a shame to lose Snocrates' impressive categories work, but this is clearly unacceptable, especially in an admin candidate. --barneca (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely not. east.718 at 15:50, February 14, 2008
  8. Oppose per my standards, comments above. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely not Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates. Administrators are trusted members of the community, sock puppeteers not. Snowolf How can I help? 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Switched to OPPOSE. A disgraceful turn of events. However, like other fallen admins, always has the potential to make ammends with time.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strongest Possible Oppose per the disgraceful behaviour mentioned above, the sockpuppetry and general deception present. The very fact that you accepted this RfA whilst knowingly using multiple accounts in violation of policy is distressing. Nick (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong oppose - zero tolerance to abusive sockpuppetry. It will take a while before you will have gained enough trust to run again. EJF (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. No. We do not allow proven sockpuppeteers to become administrators. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Not likely per sock confirmation. Avruch T 17:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Lack of civility would be reason enough to oppose, but abuse of sockpuppets is the proverbial icing on the cake. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Sock confirmation. Rudget. 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose based on sockpuppet confirmation. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral per lack of edit summary usage. --ChetblongT C 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What? He's got 100% on both.   jj137 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at this. --ChetblongT C 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but notice that as of this month, the edit summary bar is completely green. While it would have been nice to have seen 100% earlier, the current fully green bar shows that Snocrates is willing to make a complete commitment to providing responses and now does so consistently. Also, if you'll look back through his past edit history, you'll see how heavily involved he's been in things like CfD, where edit summaries are less meaningful than with mainspace edits. "He's only been providing them for this month" is a very different animal from "At least the guy hasn't vandalized this month." Doczilla (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral is crossed out, but still registers as a number counted. Is that intended? Kingturtle (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:#Neutral. (swtiching to Oppose. Sorry) I'm not convinced of the civility issue here. Being an admin requires a greater level of civility than being an editor, for the simple fact that your actions of deleting, blocking, and protecting will most certainly be contested by whomever you delete, block or protect. Recent diffs on your talkpage (and others), as recent as Jan 31, along with your initial exopedian stance and template, do not mesh well with what is traditionally expected from an admin. Admins need to be open to communication, open to criticism, and need to do so in a civil manner. I don't doubt that you will do this, Snocrates, I'm just not convinced by my research that you've done this in the past at all times. I won't oppose for just that though. You've made many very good contributions to this wacki-pedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:27, 12 February 2008 (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.