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

Final (talk page) (0/8/2); Ended 11:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC) per WP:SNOW. Ds.mt 10:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss (talk · contribs) - I have been involved with Wikipedia for a while and I am now looking to carry more responsibility or I believe as the saying goes; “...pick-up that mop and bucket.” Regarding me personally, a quick look at my user page Shoessss |  Chat  will give you some background information. The answers to the three questions below should give you additional insight to my personality and agenda. Either way the outcome goes, I’ll still be on vandal patrol tomorrow Shoessss |  Chat  03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily with vandal control and speedy deletions. Two areas that I believe we can never have enough administrators involved. The additional tools that come with the privileges of an administrator, I believe will help both Wikipedia and myself in becoming more efficient and effective in maintaining the integrity of the site. In addition, I also like to become more involved in mediation.

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

A: I have started several articles or significantly improved others concerning Philadelphia neighborhoods and the surround area. However, I would once again, point to vandal patrol. The primary aspect that drew me to Wikipedia was the free dissemination of information with out regards to agendas or point of views. Just the facts and only the facts. Sorry to say, when vandalism, or extreme Points of View are introduced into an articles this distracts from the purpose of Wikipedia and severs no purpose other than the self-satisfaction of a few individuals.

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:Sorry to say yes! I was heavily involved with an article that had extreme “Points of Views” on both sides of the fence. This article was the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Regarding how I handled the situation, either good or bad, I will leave that opinion up to the individuals who will comment on my request for administrative privileges, and I am sure they will review both the discussion page and other users talk page who were involved with this piece and advise me on what additional changes or actions that either should have been taken or not..

Optional Questions by DarkFalls

4. What is your opinion on WP:IAR, and when will you invoke it?

A: A great example of the WP:IAR is the 3RR policy. Let us say we have a neophyte editor contributing a new piece to Wikipedia. Rather than editing the article off-line, they are making numerous changes and saving the piece after each individual change. In my opinion, the WP:IAR policy is invoked rather than the 3RR.Shoessss |  Chat  05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Take a look at this version of an article. Do you see anything wrong with the article? WP:BLP? WP:NPOV?

A:In, my opinion, (I just love that remark) to address the WP:NPOV issue first, the article is pretty well written in a Non Point of View standpoint at this date in time. What went on before hand, would require me to look at history. However, I would than be commenting on issues that have already been resolved. Regarding the WP:BLP issue. I do have some concerns not so much with the articles subject but with concern to his wife and children. I noticed several statements that should been cited before inclusion into the piece. Moreover, yes I will go back and discuss it with the other editors. Hope this answers your questions.Shoessss |  Chat  05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for Shoessss: Shoessss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Support

+ I'm in favor. I like the AIV reports, they were appropriate. The use of VP has been correctly applied. Good stuff at AfD in opining. So I trust you to use the three buttons. I'd like more talk page interaction, but that's hypocrital of me. Keegan^talk 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my initial support and will think about this. Those answers to Dark Falls are incorrect. 3RR does not apply to rapid edits to an article, it's revert warring. BLP for the BTK killer issues are that controversial statements are not sourced, and there is other condemning speculation that is not NPOV. All such edits should be removed on sight by administrators, then take it to the talk page. If that means blanking most of the article, that's what it takes. Keegan^talk 06:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keegan^talk for your initial support and let me explain a little further on your concerns. Regarding my use of the 3RR policy as an example of the WP:IAR. An issue can also be used in the case of repeated vandalism to an article. I have seen this policy threaten 3RR where a well intention editor reverting vandalism has been warned based on 3RR. This I think is a mistake! The WP:IAR should have been invoked. Now to the BKT situation, remember I am not an administrator, at least not at this point. And to be honest with you, I usually do not agree with blanking or removing context from an article unless it is blatant; language – racism – POV – attack or other inflammatory information, without coming to a consensus with the editors who are heavily involved with the article on a day to day bases. Either way you vote appreciate any and all input. Have a great day`. Shoessss |  Chat  06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself." are deemed as an exception of the 3RR rule, on the policy page. Therefore, IAR wouldn't apply to the removal and reversion of vandalism. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose based on the answers to my question. The sole reason for asking the Rader question is to show your understanding of the BLP policy. As to the IAR question, it is used to show your understanding in regards to when to ignore a rule. Although I admire your anti-vandalism work, I feel you need to understand more on policy. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey DarkFalls ^talk I agree and disagree with you on this point. I have always believed that policies are “Guideline”. Not written in stone….Nor black or white. However, are just as they state “Policies”. Each instance where a policy is invoked should be viewed on individual cases to make sure this “Policy” or “Guideline” is not only justified but is the correct one for that particular case. In addition, like all thinks in life I have found, what today we call policy, tomorrow we call error. Have a great day and appreciate your input.Shoessss |  Chat  07:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Policy, guideline... They might be different but an admin still needs to familiarize him/herself with it. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I hate to do this, but I must strongly oppose per q4. 3RR has absolutely no relation with making multiple constructive edits. It's about stopping edit wars; if no-body is reverting multiple edits, there is no war, so there is no 3RR to break, and no rule to ignore. Please, PLEASE read WP:3RR closely before running again. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 06:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per answer to Q4, user just doesn't understand key policies that all admins should know. T Rex | talk 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose As with the people before me, I don't believe you understand 3RR. You don't need to ignore anything when someone is reverting obvious vandalism, it is explicitly stated on the policy page that vandalism removals are exempt. Also, they have to be reverts not edits in general. As a side suggestion, I would change your signature, it's very close (if not exact same) to another user's. i ^said 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   LOL as a side comment to all, I have made a copy of the WP:3RR policy and am now taking it to bed and have tucked it under my pillow to sleep on. Have a great day all.Shoessss |  Chat  07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per misguided and deluded answer to question 4. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Q4. Doesn't seem to be acquainted with policy.--Chaser - T 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per all the reasons above. Seems a decent enough fellow but has a somewhat weak knowledge of policy. Keep working and try again in a couple months. focus as much as you can on helping with administrative tasks. Trusilver 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Clear case of inexperience. Daniel→♦ 09:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Editor is a good vandal-fighter and seems to be trustworthy but the answer to question 4 is troubling. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral to avoid a pile-on but the answer to question 4 requires no admin intervention at all and certainly no interpretation of policies and guidelines. A new editor doing this would not be in the wrong. (aeropagitica) 09:54, 5 August 2007 (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.