User:Swatjester/Who am I
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Why I want to be an admin
"Taken from [1]"
- Swatjester (talk • contribs) This would be my second nomination. My previous one failed to achieve consensus (Final (81/44/13) ended 06:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)). I'm primarily requesting administration powers for housekeeping purposes: monitoring WP:AIV would be a major one, clearing CSD, and other deletion backlogs as well as AfD closing. I do RC and NP patrol. Every few days I head over to AfD and offer my opinions there. Every few days I check RFA and offer my opinions there if a new case pops up, though I'll admit I forget to do this as often as I should. I use Godmodelite (outdated on my system I think) and popups, and a custom monobook heavily borrowed from both User:Lightdarkness and User:Bookofjude to aid in vandal fighting. On the contribution side, my expertise lies in military articles, particularly those relating to: U.S. Army, reconnaissance, infantry weapons and tactics, modern battles (Desert Storm-present). I've also discovered (from watching User:Looper5920 edit hundreds of different USMC air wing unit articles) that I like to edit minor U.S. Navy squadrons. My work so far on that has been a complete rewrite (saved from copyvio) of Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN. This is probably the article I'm most proud of editing, along with 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment which I brought from a stub to "b" class on the MilHist wikiproject scale. A couple big issues in my last RFA that I believe are sorted out: First, my first RFA was done at 3 months. This one is done at 8 and a half months. Yes, 3 of those I wasn't editing, but I was on an extended work-break for the summer, which I left a message on my user/talk pages to inform people. I had no internet access those entire months (or phone, or tv, or even power...) Another was my apparent hostility towards Anon IPs. I've tried to be more likely to give anons the benefit of the doubt, and adopt a less confrontational tone. Since my RFA, I don't think I've had any major confrontations. I've had a couple disputes over content, but due to my newly adopted "How can we work this out?" tone, I've had success with those. In careful inventory of my prior editing, I noticed that I wasn't assuming good faith as much as I should. I won't blame myself for that: People are always blind to their own faults. But now I've identified it and I can work to fix it, which I believe I have done. My last RFA was very helpful with improving my editing and my community interaction, and it was very close to being successful. I believe a second attempt will show the community that I'm ready and prepared. Oh, two things I neglected to mention: I will seek admin coaching immediately if I am promoted, and will seek advice from fellow administrators as well, and I wanted to mention above that I have zero block history. I have been involved in I believe one fully accepted arbitration case, in which I was found at no fault, and have not edited under other names (though I maintain the name SWATJester as a redirect to this one, as that's the way I properly write my internet handle.) Hmm, other things: I'm a CVU member. I'm member of the Military History, Terrorism, and Florida Wikiprojects. I have VandalProof, VandalSniper, AWB and one other (I think its called CWVF?) installed on my computer, though I do not use any of them regularly. I think I'll leave it at that for now. I'd like to thank anyone who actually read through that whole thing for their support and time. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More about me
[edit] Anons
Many anonymous users submit useful typo corrections: I believe those users would gladly register and post if they really wanted to help out, thus weeding out the people who think "Oh, it's cool to vandalise!". I have been pondering a system where blatant vandalism should warrant a block on the first warning. (This means after being warned once, for blatant vandalism, the user should be blocked. This would only take case in clear and undisputed evidence of blatant vandalism. In fact, it could be like prod: if anybody disputes it it could be removed? I don't know, I haven't thought out the mechanics of it completely, but it bears following up I think.)
Some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons. For instance, The Order of the Stick, a page I've contributed to and watch over time, rarely gets vandalized, even though a majority of its edits are from anons. This may have something to do with the fact that they have a large and mature (personality wise) forums/fanbase, that tends to be a bit older in age (20 and 30 somethings: i.e. those who remember pen and paper RPGs), that are aware of the article. Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope. Hmm, I know for a fact I've seen other articles in which anons significantly wrote it or corrected a lot of information, all beneficially. Anons do much good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back. But...the school IP vandals, the "OMG HI SHELLY!!!" and "XXXX IS GAY!" vandals, or the ones that spam hundreds or thousands of lines of gibberish: I have no sympathy for them.
[edit] 3rr
I think the 3RR should REALLY be a 3RR, and the ban should come on the 3rd revert.
Users who've watched this page before may have noted that I removed the more defiant section regarding edit wars. This is because after seeing the aftermath of some of those, I no longer believe that. I now believe that there is no excuse to violate the 3RR rule (excluding vandalism which isn't a violation anyway), and I still believe the 3RR rule should actually be on the 3rd revert. I also believe, after viewing the catastrophe that is the Dianetics article that edit wars are entirely detrimental, no matter WHAT they're about.
[edit] linkspam
I believe less is more when it comes to external links: significant links are probably already cited as a reference in the article. Anything additional should be neutral, non-commercial, and significant to bear adding, because Wikipedia is not a link repository.
[edit] atheism vs. religion
I think there are too many fundamentalists on Wikipedia. I think there are too many people who hate those who believe in religion, because being an atheist is a "cool" thing to do, somehow it makes you more hip, and progressive.
I also dislike people who are blinded by religion, and cannot think for themselves.
What I hate most is when either side uses their bias to edit other's entries in Wikipedia, especially when reverting them and saying "That's POV!" Maybe it is to YOU.
[edit] hawks vs. doves
I no longer argue with anti-war types. It stirs me up too much. See below.
Taken from a post I've made:
"So many people here like nothing better than to bash our government, bash our military, but yet make no effort whatsoever to understand it, to gain knowledge of it, or even to join it and effect change from the inside. It sickens me. When I was fresh back in the states from my deployment, and coming to terms with my PTSD, I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government. Unfortuantely that's the view that I get from many people who claim to be "liberals" or "anti-war" on wikipedia, indeed on the internet as a whole.
I find that the only way to win, is to not play the game at all."
[edit] NPOV
I think the whole concept of POV is approached wrong. Rhetorically, why is POV so important? If WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE were adequately followed, there would be very few NPOV disputes, without the harassment of edit-wars over NPOV. NPOV is important to maintain an encyclopedic tone, yes? If WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE are followed, then 90% of the battle is done, and the last 10% of POV disputes can be dealt with on their own.
