Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWAdair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] SWAdair

Vote here (41/4/2) ending 23:52 02 November 2004 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see this user hasn't already been promoted. Takes care of a lot of copyvios, certainly seems to know the ropes, and in every case I've noticed his presence on the wiki he acts very responsibly. Sarge Baldy 22:50, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I accept. I also promise to tread very lightly with admin abilities until I really know the ropes. SWAdair | Talk 03:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Sarge Baldy 22:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Um, I really thought this guy was an admin. Ambi 23:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Edit history looks solid to me. Shane King 00:05, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  4. In that case (see comments), I support. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. I, too, am surprised that he is not an admin already. Strong support for a dedicated and involved editor. Geogre 03:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Michael Snow 04:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely. I was planning to nominate him myself. —No-One Jones (m) 04:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. So was I. Strong support. Knows his way around here, active on RC patrol and VfD and copyvios, welcomes new users. His help would be an asset. Lupo 07:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Agree with Blankfaze. Certainly, then. Andre (talk) 11:00, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Weren't you already an admin? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 15:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  11. PedanticallySpeaking 15:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  12. What Geogre says below in comments. Shows a good understanding of the difference between speedy and VfD material. Cool Hand Luke 18:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Responsible contributions on VfD are a big plus. --Improv 18:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Fire Star 19:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. Mhmm. -- Grunt   ҈  22:35, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  16. Of course. --Lst27 22:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Wolfman 01:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 05:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. CryptoDerk 15:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Thoughtful VfD contributions are as important as content creation. -- WOT 19:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. I've seen him around, no problems that I know of. Time on VfD isn't a problem; someone needs to do it, and people who do that kind of community and maintainance work will make more use of the admin functions anyway. Maybe he'll help with the backlog. Isomorphic 20:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. Very much so. — Dan | Talk 21:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:20, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support. I have to echo many others when I say "He isn't already an admin?" He certainly has the qualities that a good admin needs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. Yes! In my experience SWAdair is thoughtful, pleasantly communicative, and certainly has shown interest in janitorial duties. As Isomorphic said of VfD, someone needs to do it; I think such good faith commitment to behind-the-scenes maintenance should be lauded rather than criticised. -- Hadal 10:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  27. Of course. I don't see why his activity on VFD is a problem when we have people complaining about those who don't edit anywhere but the main namespace when they are nominated. Johnleemk | Talk 11:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  28. Susvolans 14:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  29. Anyone with a name good enough to fool me to believe he/she is actually involved with Swiss International Airlines is good enough to be an administrator here. Besides, I have seen his contributions, and this contributor is "going high places" "Antonio God's co-pilot Martin"
  30. Great person to deal with. "User:Marine 69-71"
    Is there any chance we can get you to login and re-leave this vote? This was left from an IP. --Improv 12:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    There..:)
  31. Yep. :-) squash 08:26, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Indeed. Mike H 21:23, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  33. A. D. Hair 05:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Definitely. - Vague Rant 05:21, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  35. Support, very active on VFD. —Stormie 08:51, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  36. Thue | talk 17:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  37. Not an admin yet?? Hmmm. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  38. Strong support--assumed already was one. Hardly a deletionist, brought General Maritime Corporation to my attention as needing to be turned into a proper article, rather than taking it to VfD[1]. Shows an interest in keeping Wikipedia tidy, and good judgement of what is encyclopedic, two of the most important qualifications for an admin, IMHO. According to the comments of some of those opposed (and neutral, even), I should be de-admin-ed, as I almost never add content, but spend almost all my time on 'housekeeping', which I believe is sorely needed[2]. Wikipedia has plenty of "writers" contributing 6 word articles (and poorly translated articles that make little sense to a native English speaker), and direly needs more "janitors". Niteowlneils 18:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    PS I do wish people on VfD would avoid using perjoratives such as 'fancruft'. Niteowlneils 18:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Only two current VfD entries: one labeling an article with >2/3 delete votes as copyvio, and a VfD nomination that has unanimous delete votes. Niteowlneils 18:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  39. Support. - RedWordSmith 19:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  40. Support. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  41. Support. Looks good to me. I also appreciate anyone who takes the time to volunteer in the slums of VfD. Antandrus 22:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. VFD regular (well over 1/3 of his edits), and an extreme deletionist. I don't see any effort to contribute - just a desire to remove content. Anyone that has such a desire to regularly remove content (and uses the insulting label "fancruft") doesn't show enough respect for fellow contributors work and granting the ability to more easily remove content would be ill-placed here. "Janitors" are fine and all, but this site also needs writers. (more) -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
    • Looking at his edit history, saying "well over 1/3 of his edits" seems like an extreme exaggeration (it looks considerably less than 1 in 20 to me). How did you receive this figure? Sarge Baldy 01:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • What's a bit hard to spot are those VFD votes where the article was kept. In those cases, the VFD is moved to the article Talk: page, so the edit will show up there (accounting for about 150 of his edits). He has 500 edits right now that show up on VFD, a subpage, or the old "Template:VFD-" format. He also has nominated dozens of articles to VFD, which accounts for three total edits each time (place VFD tag in article, edit subpage, add listing to WP:VFD). All this accounts for at least 750 easily countable edits devoted to VFD alone. Most other edits of his are reversions, other forms of deletion (speedy, etc.), and minor changes. -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  2. I have found that 1/5 (407) of this user's total (2104) edits were with the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. As well a little under 1/2 (1003 out of 2104) of the edits were actually edits not on articles, meaning the other 1/2 were on articles. I will vote to oppose for the time being. See comments for my figures. --ShaunMacPherson 02:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I do believe someone with such a long record on VFD isn't the best possible admin material. Administrators contributions should clearly concentrate on writing new stuff, so they have not only the experience of writing new stuff but the idea of what it feels like for the person whose job is being wrecked when its deleted. This would make our administrators not only more professional, but better in human issues as well. --Tmh 11:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. The history indicates that the user is too deletionist and not bent enough towards fixing articles rather than doing VfD politics instead. Admittedly a political vote. No to deletionism. DG 15:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'm torn between my belief that adminship shouldn't be a political position and the reality that it is one. anthony 警告 02:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pedant Thought he was already an admin. Does do a lot of 'grunt' work and chores, which I think is an important qualification. I tend toward support, with the reservation that he often uses the term fancruft in a way that seems insulting. I'm sure he has seen this rant of mine in a discussion we had, but have not seen a response. I would like to see this user take more of a 'long view' on wikipedia (as seen from a perspective of someone 25 years in the future or more) as I feel certain wikipedia will be around a long time. If he showed a notch more tact, however, I would support his nomination. I'd like to see this editor spend more time writing new material and adding to articles and less time "stamping out fancruft" Definitely a familiar face in every area of wikipedia, knows his way around. SWAdair might make good sysop, with a little more effort toward contributing material and tactfulness.Pedant 19:01, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Comments

  • 2077 edits since 12 March 2004. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I really thought this user was already an admin. Surely if not then he's been nominated before? But I can't seen to find it. Neutral for the time being. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope, I've never been nominated before. Just quietly plugging along.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 03:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Frankly, we need more RC and NP patrol. If we manage to have admins who only act on speedies when they're within the letter of the law, then we need more, not fewer, admins who will follow VfD. Either way, activity on VfD and CU are important at this point, and admins who say they "never look there" are worrisome to me. I recognize that Netoholic and some others are against VfD, but that is a point of view and not, I think, a reason to vote against someone. To me, it's much worse to see a nomination from someone who has lots of "creations," but all in name space or templates and taxoboxes. Those seem like vanity. VfD is thankless. For your pains, you are guaranteed to be called names and vandalized. Geogre 03:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I do respect some users on VFD - the ones that thoughtfully evaluate items there. I don't like people voting for reasons like "fancruft", since I feel those reasons are at odds with basic principles of the deletion policy. We don't need more admins who simply go around deleting everything - what we need are people willing to make areas like Cleanup and Peer Review work better. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
I have done statistics on user SWAdair's history, and I am trying to upload the CVS file format so you may observe and confirm these statistics yourself. It is telling me .CVS is not a valid image file. I have put them here for now User:ShaunMacPherson/Stats/ in text CVS format.
What I have found is that SWAdair has a total of 2104 edits. Of the total 31.8% (671) have been Wikipedia: edits and as well of the total 19.3% (407) have been Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:
  • User / User talk 131
  • Talk 146
  • Template 38
  • Wikipedia Functions Total (including votes for deletion) 0.31891635 671
  • Wikipedia Talk 17
  • Total 2104
  • Wikipedia Votes for Deletion 0.193441065 407
  • Total 2104
Thus 1/5 (~20%) of user SWAdair's edits were with votes for deletion, confirming Netoholic's closer guess of of 1/3. It would be useful to see what % of these 407 votes were successful and which were incorrect. --ShaunMacPherson 02:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"incorrect"? Thue | talk 14:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I've always been a self-described "infomaniac" so when I found Wikipedia I was hooked instantly. I went to write articles on topics I just knew there wouldn't be anything on yet, only to find full articles written much better than I could have. Ever since, I've basically been doing housekeeping chores (absolutely addicted to New Pages and Recent Changes). The only difference I expect is that I can assist with the follow-up instead of just tagging things for admins to follow up on.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. LOL! The frequency with which I refresh New Pages, looking for test pages and copyvios.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. No edit conflicts. I deliberately don't edit topics where I might feel a need to "protect" an article. I just leave them alone and trust that enough eyes are watching so that I don't have to. VfD started to raise my wikistress so I've seriously curtailed my involvement there. I handle stress pretty well and actively try to avoid the unnecessary kind.