Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shoemaker's Holiday

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

Shoemaker's Holiday

Final (4/9/2); Ended 01:31 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) - Shoemaker's Holiday is a highly contributive editor to the Gilbert and Sullivan articles. He has 2 Featured Articles, 2 Good articles, and several featured pictures. He has been a major contributor since 2008, gaining about 4500 edits since. He works hard and is willing to help where needed. I met him mainly on the NotTheWikipediaWeekly and at this point we end up doing things for each other from time to time. He is really good with peer reviews, images, and copyediting and is usually open to requests within reason.

I feel he is ready for administratorship and is a thoughtful candidate that no one has seem to brought up. He has made significant contributions to AN/I and ArbCom related topics and should be able to do better things in the future with administrator tools instead of being a normal user. This is mainly the reason I'd like to see him as an administartor and would be helpful where needed. So for a final sentence, Good luck Shoemaker.Mitch32^(UP) 23:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, I accept. I should note that I have a previous account, abandoned and renamed due to real name issues,User:Vanished user. - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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: While I'm willing to be active in a variety of things, and have regularly taken part in WP:ANI, I intend to mainly deal with vandalism, mediating disputes (where page protection and so on will assist), and other issues related to article space.

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

A: In collaboration primarily with User:Ssilvers, I have made two FAs since the start of this year: Trial by Jury and Creatures of Impulse. I have also successfully nominated several featured pictures, etc.

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, working in controversial areas can be stressful. I have somewhat backed away, editing articles I find more enjoyable to work on, such as Arthur Sullivan.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: If we presume that the example given shows the entire history of the vandalism, then it's not actually a huge amount as yet - two mainspace pages and a few user pages. While he's definitely going to need monitored, I'd be willing to give him another chance.

However, he would need watched: I would post a message on WP:ANI about him, and also monitor his contributions over the next couple weeks. I would also suggest to him that he get a mentor, and offer to help him find one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Iridescent: (as with every question I ask, this is truly optional and it won't be held against you if you delete it)

5. You say above that when you're in stressful situations you back away to other areas. How will you react when someone challenges a protect/delete/block you've made, and an irate good-faith-but-misguided new user is posting on your talkpage or ANI at extreme length about exactly how you're conspiring to cover up The Truth™? – iridescent 00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A: Some things have to get dealt with, and I would, probably by first seeking second opinions from other administrators (one doesn't want to be so adamant one is right that you press forward when you're wrong) In the second case, I would seek assistance from other admins if it got too stressful, or if the amount of attacks meant I could no longer be considered a neutral party. Anyway, the problems I find most difficult to deal with involve being "ground down" - one problem after another, with no respite, so it probably wouldn't be any one incident, anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:TaborL

6 I don't quite understand why you abandoned the old account after it was renamed. Why not just edit under the renamed account?

A. Basically, there were major real name issues connected to the account - I'll leave that to others to explain, if I do, it'll only sound whiny - so I renamed to Vanished user, per the example of User:Hiding. I was kind of disillusioned with Wikipedia over the real name issues, so I left for a couple months, but "Vanished user" was considered a bad username, so User:Newyorkbrad told me to create a new account if/when I came back. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Truly optional question from Gazimoff

7. Two of the areas that are looked for in a candidate are the ability to develop consensus and resolve disputes. In order to demonstrate this, instead of setting a hypothetical question can you demonstrate (using diffs where appropriate) a situation which required you to develop consensus with a number of other editors, being able to resolve disputes with others in an amicable fashion. With the situation you describe, how would you have done matters differently given the choice? Please note that this is not an attempt to fish, just an opportunity to understand how you have reacted in these situations. It is completely optional and I won't hold it against you if you choose not to answer per WP:AGF.

A: It's rather late here, so, if you don't mind, I'll give the obvious examples: WP:Featured article candidates/Creatures of Impulse and WP:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury - note the talk page on the latter, which includes a lengthy attempt to come to consensus about a self-published source that turned out so well it was featured in the Wikipedia Signpost as an example of how to do it.

If you would prefer a less civil, and more heated dispute, ask me and I'll dig one out tomorrow. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-fence-sitting question from Kmweber

8. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

A. While "cooling-down" is not sufficient reason in itself, there can be secondary purposes, such as to get an editor to stop edit warring, cut short a bout of severe incivility, and so on, that might make it valid. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

;Question from User:TaborL

9. You seem to have edited your answers here and here. Why not just strike out your old thoughts, and put in the new thoughts?

A. _{Please forget this question. My apologies}

Option question from User:Nard the Bard

10. Why didn't you wait the 6 months and reapply to arbcom before coming to the community?

General comments

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

• Links for Shoemaker's Holiday: Shoemaker's Holiday (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/Shoemaker's Holiday before commenting.

Discussion

Is this RFA valid?

The ArbCom's statement was "Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time, and the case provisionally closed. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months." It is kind of ambiguous, did the arb com prohibit him from RFA or just say that after six months he could get his tools back by decision of the committee? -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see this is already being discussed in the #Oppose section. Stricken. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a valid RFA; see my comments and links below. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares what the ArbCom says - can't we judge the candidate on his merits regardless? —Giggy 01:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it was fairly obvious to me that Shoemaker's Holiday was Vanished user, the contribution history of Trial by Jury was a bit of a giveaway. I choose to only judge them on this account's contributions. RMHED (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Shoemaker's Holiday has my full trust: a fine Wikipedian who has been through the ringer (mostly undeserved) and returned to continue being a prolific featured content contributor. Earns props for resilience. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   To answer the concerns expressed below, here's the background: Shoemaker's Holiday is Vanished User of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, which was a textbook example of how not to run an arbitration case. It was opened because of a non-urgent matter with no prior attempt at dispute resolution, because Vanished User had followed a bad policy correctly. Less than 12 hours after the case opened the arbitrators moved to voting; he had no chance to present a defense and the Committee ignored his request for time to study for final exams at his university. Then, after repeated appeals from observers who objected, the Committee suspended arbitration for 30 days to run a conduct RFC that ought to have preceded arbitration.[1] Even though that RFC was held under the most prejudicial terms possible, the community made it clear he had their solid support. Then the Committee ignored the community's feedback and desysopped him anyway. To his credit, he decided not to make a stink about it and instead restarted under a new username. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. Fully trust this editor. Pleasantly surprised and glad to see them back. Also, Durova says it better than I can above. R. Baley (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - I trust Shoemaker's Holiday with admin tools. Guettarda (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Shoemaker's Holiday has my 100% trust and faith. QuackGuru 01:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose less than 30% of your edits are to Mainspace and you don't seem to have made any contributions to AfD. All I could find was this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolfing, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the soundness of your judgement. RMHED (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm very sorry to do this, but I feel morally obliged to mention that you are in fact Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was desysopped by arbcom for a period of 6 months in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. I didn't agree with that decision at all - but you are still in that 6 month period given that the decision was made in February. This isn't the way to go about it - if you'd have waited one more month and applied to ArbCom for your tools back, it would have got due consideration, but asking the community to decide this, without all the available information isn't fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Arbcom ruling? Meh. Given their failure to account for their actions, I'd say their rulings are meaningless. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Right. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   If you agree, then why are you opposing? Guettarda (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Ryan, do you see above where Shoemaker disclosed that himself? Furthermore, the Committee never prevented him from seeking resysopping via normal means; read the decision. Durova^Charge! 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't actually, but the point still stands - he wasn't forth coming with what exactly happened and he's still in the 6 month period that ArbCom desysopped him for. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   May I point out that there is no way I could discuss the arbitration case without making myself look whiny? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Of course you can - send them an email and they'd probably gladly look at it and hopefully resysop you - this isn't the right way at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   He was forthcoming; he disclosed it in his acceptance. And the Committee never prevented him from going through RFA. In fact the Committee stepped outside their mandate by taking the case at all and should never have desysopped him, especially after the RFC ran solidly in his favor. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   They desysopped him for 6 months - he should have talked to them before coming here. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   They acted outside their mandate by taking the case at all, much less desysopping him. From start to finish this case was mishandled; it's the worst I've ever seen. If they had intended to prevent RFA they should have written it into the decision. Durova^Charge! 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Durova, you wikilawyering because you disagree with their decision won't help the issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   In that case, I mandate this to the community to do the right thing. A 6 month desysopping means you're desysopped for 6 months unless you appeal to ArbCom - not go on a different route via RfA. My opinion isn't going to change on this matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Rvlese, just because the Committee offers to resysop someone without RFA doesn't mean they've precluded RFA, and in light of over 80% support he received at RFC it was surprising they desysopped him at all. If working within the bounds of an arbitration decision and objecting to injustice constitutes wikilawyering, then you've just granted the term a newfound respectability. Durova^Charge! 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Durova, the intent of the ruling clearly was clearly that he go through arbcom. If you can't see that, oh well. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Per Ryan. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose per info display above. tabor-^{drop me a line} 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ryan. I don't know anything about the particular ArbCom case in question, but even assuming that their decision to desysop was completely wrong, significant information like that should have been disclosed by the candidate up-front, at the start of this RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I apologise, but I presumed people would know, at the same time as figuring that any statement about it from me would just make me look bad, and presuming others would explain. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Strong OpposeThis is not a valid RFA. He was desyssopped for six months by arbcom and can only get it back through them. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman#Vanished_user_provisionally_desysopped_for_six_months — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, do read that. And see my comment above. This RFA is perfectly valid. Durova^Charge! 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not entirely - since the 6 month suspension is not up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, that's only 6 months before I may apply to arbcom for reinstatement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think so. If they wanted to enable RFA in this case, they would have said so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Rlevse, it appears you are unfamiliar with the way ArbCom writes decisions. When they intend to prevent RFA, they add a sentence about denying resysopping via the normal means. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar for comparison (plus a couple of others). Durova^Charge! 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Durova, I deal with arb rulings all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Per 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) comment. —Giggy 01:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Ryan. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose User should not get tools back. Period. -Nard 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I actually think he should, after arbcom can look at everything again and make an informed decision on the past, present and likelihood of abuse in the future. The decision to desysop wasn't just based on editorial behaviour, there were other reasons that were expressed in private that would be best left to the committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Per the answer to question 1. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral because of answer to Q1. You don't need extra tools to combat vandalism or things of that nature. tabor-^{drop me a line} 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you plan to, you know, put an end to the vandalism with a block. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 00:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Icewedge is correct - However, just to be clear. Apart from the whole combating vandalism comment, I find the answer to the question to very uninspired and insipid, and I consider it the most important one. Further, from what the candidate says, I'm not getting a clear message that they understand what an administrator does. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was updated and I didn't notice. Will reexamine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't perhaps clear: My point was that I feel uncomfortable with going into the more controversial issues, so intend to use my admin tools highly conservatively. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Your answer is now clearer to me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral for the moment. (Changing to oppose) In view of Durova's comment in her support !vote, I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is something significant about the user's previous account that we are not being told. If we are to judge this user based solely on the history of the new account, then I think 5 months of active editing (since February 2008) is far too short a period to be considered for an adminship, even with an excellent contribution record. Otherwise, the prior history becomes relevant and if there is something significant to disclose here, it should be done up-front, at the start of the RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that his previous account was an administrator and was desysoped following an RFC. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral the candidate is a competent Wikipedian and the behavior that lead too his de-adminship was not extremely egregious but the fact that he failed too acknowledge this anywhere in his statement moves me to !vote neutral. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now; as a party to the ArbCom case, albeit in a peripheral capacity, I have some lingering concerns that might be better addressed by an application to ArbCom under a clarification brought under that WP:RfARB. Personally, I would not object to a resysopping on merit alone, as long as the issues of that ArbCom were addressed. However, those issues seem now to be long gone, and it may be time for a fresh start, with appropriate caveats. --Rodhullandemu 01:26, 13 July 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.