Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asenine (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 1 July 2008 (→Oppose: strong oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shoessss

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/19/6); Scheduled to end 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoessss (talk · contribs) - Well, in that I have been involved with Misplaced Pages for just under 2 years, and it is coming up on a year since my initial Rfa closed as a snowball, and rightfully so. I am once again looking to carry more responsibility or I believe as the saying goes; “...pick-up that mop and bucket.” In that years time, I have drifted away from vandal patrol and concentrated more on Afd participation – copyright violation and content building, primarily based on and from articles I participated in at Afd. In addition, I do have an administrative coach who has given me his blessing and has offered to nominate me for this new position. However, I self-nominated because I feel this allows' the candidate to be judged on their qualifications rather than the nominators. Similarly, I believe I have established a mentoring relationship and peer review with quite a few established and respected editors and other administrators here at Misplaced Pages that have looked to me for opinions and more importantly I depend on them for their insights to situations.

The answers to the three questions below should give you insight into my personality - agenda and what areas I plan to participate in as an administrator. Regarding me personally, a quick look at my user page and discussion page will give you some additional background information. ShoesssS 15:59, 30 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: As I mentioned above, I have been spending a majority of my time at Afd and have noticed that the process can always use a hand in closing the discussions. What goes hand – and – hand with Afd is of course CSD. I believe my time spent in Afd has allowed me the experience to understand and apply the process involved with regards to proper handling of the CSD procedures and requirements. Finally, as we all know, depending on the phase of the moon – the time of day – period of the year, there is always a shortage of administrators at AIV/AVI.

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

A:Hopefully, I have not accomplished my best contributions yet and they are still to come! With regards to what I take my most pride in, up till now, would be salvaging articles from Afd. As I stated in my previous Rfa, the primary aspect that drew me to Misplaced Pages was the free dissemination of information with out regards to agendas or point of views. Just the facts and only the facts and I believe I foster that ideal every time I express my opinion at Afd and I am able to bring an article, destined for the discard heap, to a piece worthy to be here on Misplaced Pages.

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: At this point in time, I would not classify any of my past discussions as conflicts but more as “passionate disagreements”! I believe if you look through my talk page and the talk pages of the other users I interacted with, you will see that a majority, if not all, ending amiability with all parties. The one thing I remind myself, if I do get a little uptight about a situation is: One “…that I am not getting paid for this” – Two “…I am just a volunteer” and finally “…If I stop editing tomorrow – I can be easily replaced here at Misplaced Pages.”

Optional question from Keepscases

4. What steps do you / will you take to ensure that no one else ever has access to your Misplaced Pages account?

A – Well, I do have my system setup so that it requires me to enter my password every time I sign on and does not automatically sign me on. In addition, my password does contain numbers – letters (including caps) – and at least one special character. From my experience, that is pretty much anyone can do other than going with a https/ site.

No need to mention the above. Also, I presume you do use the https: site? (See "Consider logging in on the secure server" on the login page.) Finally I presume you run antivirus scanning software on your computer regularly, and keep it updated. Bwrs (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL- The one thing I can guarantee is that a majority of my editing is done on a network system that is about as secure as you can get here stateside. ShoesssS 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rudget

Q. When you say " However, I self-nominated because I feel this allows' the candidate to be judged on their qualifications rather than the nominators.", on which experience or observation would you base that theory on? Rudget (logs) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A - I will not point to this or that case, but address the issue as I see it personally. To put it simply, I did not want to jeopardize a nominator’s respect in the community, depending how this Rfa goes, and wanted to gather consensus on Shoessss’s rather than the feelings of the community with regards to my nominator/nominators. I know personally when I recognize the nominator of an individual, depending on the nominator, I will investigate the candidate either more thoroughly or less, depending on the nominator. For me, I wanted no influence other than my name involved. I know, long convoluted answer to an easy question. ShoesssS 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to describe it as 'convoluted'. Don't be so modest. Rudget (logs) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Avruch

6.: Can you be more specific about the contributions you are proud of? I won't ask for specific diffs, but perhaps some examples of article and Misplaced Pages talk discussion, an article you've improved significantly, that sort of thing? A number of the comments at the moment are focused on your RfA participation. What else should we be looking at to present a contrast? Avruch 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A – An example of the type of work I am most proud of is Nutritional gatekeeper. Here was an article in Afd headed for the trash heap. With a little help and rewriting, I, with the advice of others, was not only able to save it, but actually able to get a DYK out of it just last week. ShoesssS 18:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Filll

7. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. – I believe that a majority of the time Rfa process is fair and just. To revert back to a time old adage, “It may be unfair at times, but show me a better system.” The procedure is based on a consensus of the community, expressing their opinions with out fear or prejudice against their opinion. Right or wrong, those opinions are the bases and foundation of Misplaced Pages. It is up to the individual candidate and or editor to either accept the consensus or move on. As I stated, some where in this Rfa, “… I am not paid for what I do here”, and if I do not agree with the basic principles of what Misplaced Pages stands for, I can always move on. Sorry to say, to some, at this point I do not plan on moving at this time :-). ShoesssS 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A. - LOL – Happy, (or sorry, depending on your point of view), I have had the opportunity to participate in similar discussions at Afd and/or ANI. I would rather that editors express their opinions based on my contributions to those actual discussions, which can be easily found just looking at my contribution history, rather than hypothetical situations. ShoesssS 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

9 Pertaining to Q from Rudget (and subsequent A):

Controversy currently surrounds RFA and one source of dissatisfaction is a belief that admin-coaching has become in some instances an "admin-mill". How would you think this might reflect upon your decision to not only self-nominate but to not make the identity of your Admin Coach (and consequently their support or otherwise) directly (ie conveniently) available - eg. from this application or from your User Page? Furthermore, how would you address the suggestion that side-stepping this issue (queries and concerns over which have been used both exclusively and inter alia to !vote oppose certain recent candidates) may have a quantity of bearing upon this self-nom decision and stated rationale? Plutonium27 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A - Well, personally I like administrative coaching. I believe it allows' the individual to discuss situations and circumstances with a more experienced Wikipedian's. It also allows the editor to see the situation from a different perspective. I know personally, there have been times when I have been to close – involved or the subject matter has been over my head to comment on either intelligently or confidently. I have gone back to my coach or mentor and have requested their advice on the situation. Without the program in place, I would have not had that individual to lean on. Concerning not naming my coach, all one really has to do is go through my contribution – edit history, they will stick out :-). You may not have noticed, but I delete nothing, every thing is in my history. I always believed, if you are willing to put it in writing, you had better be able to live with it, forever :-). ShoesssS 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Shoessss, I hope you don't think I thought you deleted anything. I just wondered why such a relationship was not made so obvious. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Requests for adminship/Shoessss
• Requests for adminship/Shoessss 2
• Requests for adminship/Shoessss 3

• Links for Shoessss: Shoessss (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/Shoessss before commenting.

Discussion

• I probably shouldn't vote (since you were the first to oppose my most recent RFA) but I don't believe that your oppose in that RFA was appropriate. With regards to my lack of experience, there's no real problem with what you said. The problem was that you accused the nominator of "playing with people's emotions". I'm wondering how quick as an administrator you would be to make that sort of comment. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  Hey "scetoaux (T|C), first, always feel free to express your opinion. As you can see, by both sides of the discussion here, I do. And honestly, that is the only way you get to know the person and to form an opinion of that individual. Second, with regards to my soapbox comments, I still agree with them, but will not address it here, as I knew what I was getting involved with. Take care. ShoesssS 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  Also, this is a minor point, but I feel that some of your formatting is a bit less proper. The indentation above was a little excessive, and your edit summary was almost indecipherable. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Moved personal discussion to here. ShoesssS 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Constructive criticism: Don't wikilink random three letter acronyms as much. Rfa, Afd, CSD etc., especially when they aren't linked to the correct Misplaced Pages page (as you have done about a dozen times or so in your nomination and answers). Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - A great user who has shown excellent experience in deletion debates, always doing thorough research and often fixing aricles that are going to get deleted. He's also done some great work fixing copyvio's and he'd use the delete button well in cases where they can't be easily fixed. A warning to editors always follows vandalisn reversion and I believe he'd use the block button correctly. Certainly qualified and will a great addition to the administrative team. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Tons of experience, knows what he's doing at AFD and AIV. Plenty of mainspace work. Meets my admin criteria by a mile. He'll make a fine administrator. Useight (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Naerii 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Per Al tally. This isn't RfB. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I thought you two were going to be leaving each other alone? Naerii 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not taking a dig at him. I'm actually supporting based on the reason. "Frequent opposes" plus the experience that this user has shows that they meet their own criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Alright. Interesting thought, becoming an admin because you meet your own criteria. Hey, my personal criteria is having a username that begins with "N" and ends in "aerii".. Naerii 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Sigh, you know that's not what I meant. Shoessss has the necessary experience and meets their own criteria high standards held for other candidates. Although, I might support someone if they had your username. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ryan below makes an interesting point. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't know; I wonder about the trustworthiness of User:NI'mWillyonWheelsaerii. Joe 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Also, Wisdom: this is slightly contradictory... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I recall that, and had it mind while I was making my support. However, there is a fundamental difference that wasn't revealed until after I cast it. Al-tally and others make such votes to spite the opposition because they are fed up/frustrated. I was actually using the reasons in the oppose to explain my rationale. See the comments above and . Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support per Ryan and Xenocidic and Useight. I believe the candidate can use the tools to the benefit of the project. Has the requisite experience and policy knowledge. I would like to suggest notifying article creators of speedy deletions, if you are not doing so already. You might also what to address how you come across to other users based on feedback from the first few opposes. While it's good to have high standards, it's detrimental to appear harsh or bitey. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Further comment I don't see candidate's comments on other RFA's as being grounds for oppose here. I do not interpret them in the same light as the opposers. Every neutral or oppose need not be done to enlighten the candidate, and pile on's sometimes occur before someone snow closes. RFA is not editor review, and the primary purpose is to establish consensus. Dlohcierekim 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Support, per my comments on his talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Trust editor, I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of bravery and admirable self confidence. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I see a fine editor, who I'd trust with the tools (my primary criterion), and I don't think someone's standards at RfA should be held against them in their own RfA. I'm probably way-over-lenient with my supports, but I don't have a problem with someone who opposes more often than others would prefer. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Weak support The opposers make some good points, but not quite enough to sway me. Keepscases (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support I see self-noms as Louis Prima evidence of free-spirited behaviour (case in point: ). Seriously, my encounters with this candidate have been pleasant and I would welcome having him as an admin. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, sure. No reason not to. Plus: a self nom. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support the RFA comments are irritating but this is not RFB and he seems to be a good contributor in other areas. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - per my criteria. Also I don't see how this users RFA participation should be a reason to oppose their own RFA, if they participate in a pile-on whilst opposing then so be it, but that isn't a good enough reason to prevent them from having the tools for adminship. If he became an administrator, how would his opposes be any worse or better than they are now? An argument like this belongs at RFB not RFA. --Chetblong (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support AniMate 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Support I recall running into this user and wondering why he wasn't an admin already. Displays competence and knowledge of policy key to filling the role of admin, and has clear experience in relevant areas. Comments in the oppose section, especially about accidental reverts of WikiBreaks and "probably lack of content contributions", aren't convincing. GlassCobra 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

    Those reverts weren't accidental. I clarified my oppose. Thank you! miranda 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

18. Support Why isn't he already an admin? Leonard 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. The contributions wowed me. Rational comments at AfDs and especially careful work at SCV. The delete button can be a handy little tool when it comes to correcting copyright violations, so the self-nom I think is due to real need for the tools. Looking at the account's first edits, I believe user cares a lot about article writing, so he seems to be here for the right reason, not power or that stuff. Trusted editor, and I don't see how his high standard at RfAs has any bearing on his use of the admin tools. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. Devoted user, knows policies and is willing to help even when the things get more complicated. In brief. Cheers. --Tone 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. I've long seen Shoessss around at AfD, and very often his comments are intelligent, clueful, and helpful. He fully understands the policy in the area he plans to work in. The issues raised in the oppose section don't bother me much. First off, if one looks back to around mid-May, Shoessss's RFA contributions are much more mixed between support and oppose, and all are thoughtful. The only issue I can find to take with this candidate is occasional bad grammar and spelling, and new versions of Firefox have a spelll chekker built in so it's no biggie. Overall, he'll make a great admin. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - seems like a good candidate, and no pressing reason not to presents itself. Some of the RfA comments are perhaps a little open to being taken badly, but nothing like bad enough to make me worry that this user would abuse the tools. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Based on demonstrated technical capability. That said, I share many of the sentiments expressed by those who oppose, in particular Acalamari. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)