Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shoessss 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 16 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Shoessss

Final (11/32/10), Withdrawn by candidate: [1] 22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Shoessss (talk · contribs) – Yes, once again asking for the additional buttons, (and I am hoping the third time is the charm). The last time was just over 15 months ago. In that time I have basically participated in the same areas as before, AFD – copyright violation and content building, primarily based on and from articles I participated in at AFD. In the last year I came across more than one incident where I could use the additional tools that administrators carry for such things as reviewung deleted articles – working in CSD with regards to blatant copyright violations and notability issues. Likewise, I am looking to help out in the everyday tasks that the average administrator experiences on Wikipedia in areas such as AIV – WP:RAA – Deletion review - Requests for undeletion and Requests for page protection which goes hand and hand with Edit Warring.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes

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: As I mentioned above, I have spend a majority of my time at AFD and have noticed that the process can always use a hand in closing the discussions. What goes along 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.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, 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 request, the primary aspect that drew me to Wikipedia was the free dissemination of information without regards to agendas or point of views. Just the facts and only the facts and I believe I foster that ideal with my opinions at AFD.
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: Conflicts no, “passionate disagreements” yes. I believe if you look through my talk page and the talk pages of the other users I interacted with, you will see all ending amiability, at least on my part, and as far as I know, with the all concerned individuals. Regarding stress, I hold the following philosophies; 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 Wikipedia
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. If you came across an AFD to close, where the consensus was delete, would you be tempted to close it as keep?
A: No - Consensus rules. If the consensus is to delete, than the piece is deleted. If an editor approaches me later to have the piece placed on their subpage to work on to address the concerns of the AFD, and there was no blatant copyright issue or BLP problem, I would be more than happy to place it on their page. However, the article would not be placed back on the main page until those issues brought up at AFD were addressed or a decision by deletion review stated otherwise.
Question from FASTILY
5. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
A:Yes - If a report comes in that an account has been hijacked, which has actually happen just recently, a block to that particular account, until the situation is resolved, is warranted. Does that constitute without warning or notice? Probably depends if you are the reporter or reportee.
Question from Short Brigade Harvester Boris
6. What are your views on impartiality? Specifically, would you willingly deceive the larger Wikipedia community with regard to violation of a major sanction or standard of conduct, whether by omission or commission, in order to protect a friend?
A: To the specific question; “…deceive the larger Wikipedia community with regard to violation of a major sanction or standard of conduct…to protect a friend” No! For the most part, Wikipedia is made up of volunteers who’s only concern is to put together an accurate encyclopedia of knowledge that can be shared by the world. To knowingly deceive the community is to deceive the endeavor. It serves no purpose either individually or the community at large.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
7. Can you pick 4 unclosed but overdue entries from Wikipedia:Files for deletion and explain how you would close them?
A: Hope you don't mind, but I took the first three listed and the last one is the oldest on the page:
  1. [File:Village.jpg] - UE
  2. [File:EBMA PICTURE 2008 .gif] - OR - coming up on two years without tying into any article. If an article is eventualy written about the company, the logo maybe used, only after the CV concern are addressed.
  3. [File:Telugu people.jpg] CV - There are major concerns here about copyrights. Scanning in a collogue of photos, that some are copyrighted, then claiming the collogue as original work is not a get around of the rules. In addition, there are free-use photos out there that would serve the same purpose in this articles case.
  4. [File:Youtube Image.jpeg] OR and UE. I agree with the nominating editor
7a. I was actually asking how you would close the discussion rather than an !vote. That is why I asked about the overdue ones where the debate should be complete. Normally close results would be delete or keep. Do you wish to change your answer? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)>[reply]
Sorry about that, all would be delete at this point putting emphases on 1 - 3 & 4. Two (2) could make a case for Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. However, in that there is no article tied to it, at this time, I would recommend delete for this one also
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
8. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A: In private, No! I would inform the community as a whole of any and all alternate accounts, through my User(s) page. Are there cases where a User would like to remain anonymous, and have that particular account either wiped clean or deactivated for privacy issues without it being known to all member of the community, Yes. However, I am not one of those users. Though after this RFA I may switch my mind. :-)
Question from Leaky Caldron
9. Are there any circumstances (aside from personal reasons, health etc.) in which you would offer your resignation as an administrator?
A: Yes - If a suspicion is voiced that I am using the tools inappropriately too further a personal agenda. I would voluntarily give up the controls at the beginning of the inquiry until the investigation is complete.
Additional optional questions from Triplestop
10. Why did you first start editing Wikipedia?
A: Sorry for the delay, out celebrating a very joyous personal event. To answer your question, I read an interview concerning Jimmy Wales and his concept about a endeavor that would gather all the worlds knowledge in a location that was free and accessible for all. Who couldn’t resist investigating that further. I started poking around on the site and found that most of the information was usable but riddled with either unintentional misconceptions POV or blatant vandalism. I got hooked fixing both. Starting out, like most new editors do, I concentrated on vandalism, fixing/reverting the intentional blatant acts such as page blanking - profanity and attack postings. While doing this, I happen to come across a situation where a group of editors were involved with pushing a subtle, but not that subtle that a reader could not pick-up on, view of racism. That just seemed wrong. I have always believe you present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, without spin or twist of words, just the facts and let the individual decide for themselves, from the facts, what is right. From that point on, I looked to better the encyclopedia in both ensuring knowledge was available, hence my AFD work, and trying to make sure the reader got the most accurate knowledge when coming to Wikipedia. Sorry for the long answer to a short question. ShoesssS Talk 02:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. I looked at a bunch of edits by this user, and they seem to be admin material to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Having reviewed this editor's contributions and previous AfDs, I can see no reason why he shouldn't be trusted with the ability to block me. Crafty (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Shifting to neutral. Crafty (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support - This clearly isn't going to pass, but I feel that the opposition is a bit overstated, and encourage you to keep working at it. Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. One (small) mistake should not torpedo the whole nomination. Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support User has demonstrated abilities on talk page and I do believe that his mistakes were really just slight mishaps that unfortunately happened within the recent edits realm. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I want to say that I've seen you around, admire your work on AFD, and if you get a bit emotional at times, I think your heart is clearly in the right place and your reasoning is usually fairly sound (except, of course, when you disagree with me!). At the time I'm writing this, it doesn't look like this is going to pass, and I think that's something of a shame. RayTalk 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support Seems fine. Adamantly discussing an article up for deletion doesn't seem especially problematic to me. Seems to be a collegial and collaborative contributor who is mostly human. Julian Colton's exacting standards should be disregarded as only he and I are are perfect. Also, that type of exlusionary approach to RfA discourages anyone who contributes in the trenches discussing controversial subjects and dealing with disputes. We don't need automotons. I have confidence that Shoesss will be a good admin and will know when restraint is called for. Many of our admins would do well with a reminder to demonstrate civility and to lead by example, but they should still be allowed to have opinions and be wrong (for example when disagreeing with me) on occasion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support per Child of Midnight, per quality contributions and per good explanation re Julian's diffs. Still dont think vandal was the ideal word, even though it was used in a qualified comparison and not to label anyone, but dont exspect even an admin to be word perfect all the time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You know what, I will support here. I am agreeing with CoM here. Ok, JC's links are concerning and IMO a bit over the top, but apart from this, I cant see any major issues. I also like the communication skills and explanation of the issues. Also Shoesss is a good contributor, and I think will use the tools wisely, and make the right choices. Net positive here I think. AtheWeatherman 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support I quite like Shoessss, and while I am dismayed at some of the diffs provided below, I will note that I have seen this user handle extremely troubling articles without reacting adversely. AniMatedraw 05:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I really do not think the linked problems below are that serious. The tone is a little aggressive, but not really out of line considering the usual around here, including many successful admin candidates. I agree with those who think that admin courtesy standards need to go up a good deal, but it seems a little hard to express this so harshly to the detriment of the first candidate who comes along. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Unfortunately, I feel I must oppose at the moment. While you're clearly an experienced editor and your work is appreciated, I don't currently believe you have the judgment and calm demeanor required in administrators. My diff below is indeed of major concern, but I see several other issues as well. Specifically: here you reverted an established editor with an edit summary suggesting that his edit was vandalism. An admin needs to be able to tell the difference between good-faith changes and unproductive vandalism at all times in my opinion. Here, while not a big deal, your edit summary was unnecessarily intimidating. Similarly, at this deletion discussion, you come across as rather aggressive in that you often SHOUT in bold and allcaps. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it is time to respond. If you do not mind, why don’t I take your examples one at a time.
    1. your first example is where an editor removed a reference from a third party - creditable - verifiable source and than tagged the article as unreferenced. In that the individual is an established user makes no difference. Many would considered that vandalism. Did I holler or shout or even place a warning at the editor's talk page for all to see, No. I rather explained myself in an edit summary at let it go at that as a possable mistake.
    2. Your second example is where an editor Blanked a page without discussion. All I was saying, that is not the proper procedure. Did I throw a warning on their talk page or run around waving my hands stamping my feet No, I let my edit summary speak for itself.
    3. The last example concerns an on going discussion at AFD where the editor kept claiming a statement as false. I kept directing them to the link where it was. After the third time I simply asked “…didn’t read the link yet”. Regarding the claim often SHOUTING…if you review my edit contributions, this was the only example I could find checking back 500 edits just proceeding that discussion. With regards to that particular discussion you will notice that I finally backed out and just started to work on the article, even before this RFA, itself by placing references and inline cites. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian, can you identify any other recent AfDs where there has been similar? I wonder if we're being over- concerned with it because it is still open. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I used that particular AfD as an overall example of the pattern I'm seeing, but I'll be happy to provide more examples if requested. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm sorry but at the moment, no. You come off too aggressive and rude sometimes, and I just wouldn't want an admin who is rude and who doesn't properly explain the methods and procedures to other Wikipedians. warrior4321 03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I've got to agree with the comments of those before me. Juliancolton's phrase "calm demeanor" sums it up nicely, especially with the provided examples. Moreover, this seems to tread that "aggressive and rude" line too closely - just because you wink doesn't mean it's nice. Things like this summary are uncalled for, as there is definitely no need to blame someone in an edit summary, especially given your own high rate of typos. And I am concerned by your understanding of WP:N as expressed in the Bio-Zoids AfD. On a personal level, I'd say a good 90% of your edit summaries are just copy-pastes of your edits, which is less-than-helpful, and comes off as lazy. And you should use the preview button to check for spelling errors. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up your point, Amory: it's a little hypocritical of Shoesss to be making "your fault!" edit summaries about people who mess up RfA threading, when Shoesss does it himself (just 2 hours ago). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suprised to see that it was a complaint against me in that edit summary. If my signature causes problems in formatting anywhere (and it's possible it might, I changed it recently) I'd like to know. Shoessss never gave me the courtesy of a note on my talk page or anywhere else. In fact, if I hadn't seen this RfA and clicked that link I'd never have had any idea. (And I still don't know what the problem is, if someone knows please let me know!) -- Atama頭 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn’t a warning or complaint, in fact it was no big deal - it was meant as a information….My original signature did the same thing.ShoesssS Talk 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but true or not it can come across as rude, which makes this less of a pleasant editing environment for others. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose again. Sorry, but rudeness is not a quality an admin should have. And in my opinion ALL CAPS should not be used at all, as it comes across as aggressive and condescending. Your work is definitely appreciated, but if you want to become an admin you've got to be a lot calmer. LittleMountain5 04:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per JC. Tact is necessary in an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, concerns about temperament. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Juliancolton.  Sandstein  07:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Reluctant and weak oppose. You've been here a long time, and have a clean block record (the 2007 incident was an admin mistake that was reverted in minutes). I liked this (admins only I'm afraid) where you made some improvements to an article even after it had been nominated for deletion. But the examples above do concern me, especially those related to communication style. ϢereSpielChequers 07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Julian. I didn't really get past the diff he posted as after I read through that entire deletion discussion I feel that you do not possess the correct mental aptitude for the mop at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per JC et al. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per JC. Admins need to be calm, and have good judgement, both of which are qualities I'm afraid you are lacking in at this time.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I don't have links, but all of your inputs to AfDs that I have read have been passionate, overly sensational and occasionally irrational debate. Even as I look through your last fifty contributions, I see an example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Julian's links, primarily your conduct at places like this AfD, show behavior that is not becoming of an admin. It's very important for an admin to have a relatively good, calm demeanor; getting upset in discussion/debate with others and using hints of sarcasm does not do well to keep a situation constructive and cool-headed, and I'm seeing evidence of that with your contributions. Sorry. JamieS93 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Lacks ConstEdits. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused by that as well. When I asked him to elaborate on his talk page, he pulled out a section of some page here. He hasn't fully explained this to my satisfaction yet. On my RFA, he said it had more to do with HIM that me. Go figure. ArcAngel (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one that reads the use of 'ConstEdits' as an attempt to make an opinion look like a technical measurement? — neuro 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL - I think what he is saying is that he has a listing of personal criteria, which is actually listed on his User page, that a candidate must meet before he will support. In my case it was self-nomination. In ArcAngel case, I have no idea. ShoesssS Talk 13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From his user page: "Articles or edits that are badly written, or have some flaw should be improved upon. A Constructive Edit is the opposite of deletion or reversion." I believe this user opposes on that criterion.--otherlleft 01:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Otherlleft, you said it well. By constructive edits I mean not deleting but trying to improve all articles or edits. It also means trying to promote goodwill, believing that one can disagree without being disagreeable. Shoessss your edits often come across as aggressive and/or rude, and I've noticed that these emotions can cloud an editor's judgment. For example this statement - - "LOL - I think what he is saying is that he has a listing . . . " - - does not help an RFA (the LOL made me feel you guys were mocking me). You need to work on not letting your emotions interfere with your judgment and editing. With more constructive edits (you too ArcAngel) I have no doubt your next RFA will pass. You are a great editor with a superior intellect. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per the above statements. I know that you are truly in the right place, but you still show signs of immaturity. When this is all over, I would seriously consider coaching. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to support after user has given me confidence in abilities.[reply]
    Coaching or a personality transplant?? :-). ShoesssS Talk 14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See user's talk page for more information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Originally I was learning toward support because I've seen you in AfDs and CSD and you do an excellent job there but I read your old RfAs and question #3 was answered completly differently in your first RfA compared to this one. In your first, you admit to conflict in this article. The fact that it happened so long ago wouldn't have bothered me but it seemed you weren't upfront with it. Also, JC brings up some excellent points about pointless editing. Your answers were great, but it doesn't seem you always stick to them. I think if you apply WP:DGAF to your editting, your next RfA might pass.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose - Very unhappy with the diffs listed in Julian's oppose. Not just the diffs, but the way you acted in the larger scenarios surrounding them concerns me greatly too. I expect admins to stay calm and to have good communication skills, both are questionable per Julian's diffs. — neuro 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal interaction furthers my belief in the latter. — neuro 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This demonstrates that the candidate does not know what 'assume good faith' means. — neuro 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - concerned with civility and shouting on-wiki. Good edits however and keep it up! :D -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Julian, et al. Although your edits are good, it seems to me that you often come across as agressive and/or rude, and I've noticed that these emotions have clouded your judgment on numerous occasions. If you work on not letting your emotions interfere with your judgment and editing, your next RFA might pass. Laurinavicius (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose with Moral Support I have a great deal of respect of Julian, and I feel he summed up my position in a fairly decent way. I am sorry to oppose, and would like to tell Shoessss to keep up the good work, and possibly one day he may recieve the mop. America69 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As much I dislike doing it, I must strike the "Moral Support". I have always had a thing with RFA's in which there is zero chance of it passing. Honestly, it should just be withdrawn, but that is not up to me. I would like to have Shoessss to read WP:SNOW. I am sorry to strike, and to say this, but.... America69 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Plenty of problems, but the answer to Q5 is particularly perplexing. —Emufarmers(T/C) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I was thinking that was one of the better answers. What am I missing? Were you just referring to the awkward "reporter or reportee" comment, or are you saying that this is not a time for a no warning block?--SPhilbrickT 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that some may not like the candidate not mentioning blatant vandalism accounts (many registered accounts are solely used from vandalism). Doesn't bother me, but I can see why some may be bothered by it. And yes, the "reporter or reportee" comment is very awkward and confusing. — neuro 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the main problem for me is the notion that a report of compromise is sufficient reason to block an account. In the absence of CheckUser data—and if such data were present I would expect a CU to make the block—or behavioral evidence, a block would be premature. Given the fallout that typically accompanies blocks of established users, and given the reversability of the actions a compromised account could perform in the short term, the case against such an account ought to be well-established before an administrator takes action. —Emufarmers(T/C) 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed that was what he meant by 'report'. — neuro 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still confused, but I've elaborated on the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I need an admin I can faithfully look up to. I have the same problem too, but an admin needs to remain calm and professional at all times. tommy talk 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved comments to the discussion page here [2], as they detracted from the actual oppose or support opinions. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick. This is not how an admin should go about a situation like this. Tavix |  Talk  00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Not because of competence, but demeanor. While I don't doubt that Shoessss possesses the knowledge necessary to help ease the load at AfD and CSD, I can imagine him blowing up or at least deeply offending someone who disagrees with the way he closes deletions. If he wants to work at AIV, sometimes confused new editors get reported there and I don't see any evidence that he would be willing to treat them with the care needed. -- Atama頭 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose You may know your stuff but unfortunately, as I see it, your temperment cancels it out. To be an admin you need to act professional and I cannot see that from you at this time. Valley2city‽ 04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Temperament issues. —Dark 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Tavix. Wow. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Tavix and the extreme badgering that is evident in that AFD. Present information supporting your argument, answer any questions politely and let the discussion run its course. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose – Alan16 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per Tavix. Just weird. SluggoOne (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose – I'm troubled by the Juliancolton examples. Everyone makes mistakes and has a bad day but the candidate's response is defensive instead of apologetic. I easily found more conflict as well. Multiple comments in this AfD with shouting and put-downs of two different established editors. Then there's this confusing tale. I don't know the final outcome as the article doesn't currently exist, but the response to mistakes by two editors seems rather poor to me, especially the "AGGGGGGGGGGGGG". UncleDouggie (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose – I was going to remain neutral on this, but after reading the evidence that UncleDouggie provided above, I'm now being draw to oppose, and almost a strong oppose at that. I feel that everyone now is under the same agreement that this users aggression is the main issue here. Perhaps withdrawing the RfA and offer the user some coaching techniques on how to avoid such aggressive behaviour would be feasible. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Purely on account of a general temperament that comes across in more than a few recent examples. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
This comment is concerning. While not especially uncivil, rude sarcasm is almost always unproductive. Will revisit later on, but not opposing so as to avoid ruining your chances early on. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the oppose section unfortunately. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm going with Julian here. I'll revisit later when more things happen. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to oppose.
Neutral - too early to tell for sure, but, that comment was very rude.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Opposing--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Per Julian, I'll try and revisit before the RfA ends.--Giants27(c|s) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be fair to post the whole discussion as I have done here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick to put those comments in perspective. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the nature of your comment though. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Staying neutral since I see no need to pile on.--Giants27(c|s) 12:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unsure after reading what you wrote in Julian's link. iMatthew talk at 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support Hmm, good and relaible edits but JC links and diifs make me unsure. I may revisit though. AtheWeatherman 12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral FOR NOW: Edits are good, AfD work is often challenging which is both a + and a -. What I am trying to determine right now is pattern. What I mean is that I generally have no issues with occasional "incidents" - we all get pushed to limits sometimes, and as such those occasional situations disturb me less than if I see a longer-term pattern. It takes some digging. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Concerned with JC's oppose. Will revisit later. — neuro 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. — neuro 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral You're a decent contributor, but you need to be more calm. Not going to pile on the oppose. I would suggest withdrawing early.--LAAFansign review 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral From the contributions I looked at your editing is very good, but your tone in communicating is too aggressive for an admin. It just takes stepping back and rereading before posting. I understand the last part of your answer to Q8, but I think it would be stick with this account and continue to edit and work on those thing that have been identified. Then after editing for a while, have an editor review. You can also try admin coaching or look into the new vetting area. I hope you decide to stick around on your current account and work through the items identified. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The back part of #8 was to lighten the mood, I had hoped. I never believed in switching User names unless a real concern to personal information was involved. The one thing all editors should remember, if you post it be prepared to live with it -The Good - The Bad - or the Ugly. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Ehh...there's good things are there's bad things. I'm just in the middle.Abce2|This isnot a test 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I haven't really read anything else here...but in your answer to Q7, why did you feel it necessary to link editor? Do the people at RfA not know what editors are? One link is a nitpicky thing to oppose over, but seriously... why? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, that would be pretty nitpicky :-). Regarding why I did it, habit. I have been Wikified to Blue LINK.ShoesssS Talk 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no offense, but it's a bit annoying. In your nomination statement and first 4 questions, you link AFD 9 times (sometimes twice within the same sentence), Wikipedia 3 times, administrator 3 times, and WP:copyright 3 times—do you think we're idiots and need constant reminders of what basic words mean? In this AfD that someone linked, you link "Mr. Bardwick" every time you mention him—do you think the people at the AfD don't know what article they're talking about?
    And as for your response of "I have been Wikified to Blue LINK", I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. One of your userboxes says you're a native speaker of English, but I'm having a hard time believing that: many of your messages are rather garbled, and there are some funny turns of phrase like "switch my mind" (instead of "change my mind"). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Good contributor, but a little hasty sometimes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Intelligent editor, but might not make a good administrator due to issues raised--especially with demeanor. Malinaccier (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I don't wish to pile onto the oppose just yet. Although this user shows some good attributes, I think the temperament could become a downfall in the long-run. I've learnt this myself from when I put my first RfA in a few weeks ago. Everyone noted how polite I am, and I even made them aware that I suffer from Bipolar Disorder. Their main concerns was my lack of edits. At one stage one person posted a comment to which I found disturbing, and then boom, my bipolar kicked in, and I flew off the handle. I would suggest finding ways to calm down in situations first. Once you've managed that, then reconsider applying for RfA again. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC) - Moving to 'oppose' after reading the evidence that UncleDouggie supplied. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Moving from support following the diff(s) offered by UncleDouggie. In a closer run race, I'd move to oppose but I think that's unnecessary given the inevitable outcome of this RfA. Crafty (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shoessss_3&oldid=1072185391"