Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWD316 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Closed: See:SWD316's user page

[edit] SWD316

Final (11/8/2) ended 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

SWD316 (talk · contribs) – SWD316 is a user who I have come to respect through his kind and helpful behavior. He is an enthusiastic editor with thousands of edits. His previous RFA three months ago failed because of his failure to make use of the preview button and edit summaries. And, too little experience. Since then he has increased his edit summary usage drastically and previews far more often. Although I do not edit in the same areas as he does, every time SWD316 has come under my radar he has left me with a good impression. SWD316 has the enthusiam, the experience, and the good will that I believe would make him wield the administrator's mop well. - Banes 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept SWD316 20:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Extreme "Ha! I beat the nominator" support - always been impressed (though I can't think of anything in particular I've worked with him on). Plus, it's the nominator's birthday today! --Celestianpower hablamé 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong "Duh" support Curses, I forgot to vote. My reasons for supporting are at the top of this page. Banes 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, good user, active vandal-whacker. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support second time is charm for me.Gator (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support; unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. «LordViD» 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please provide a rationale for your vote. Mcfly85 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Haha...I see where this is going. Me supporting means that I have no problems with this editor, but Opposing means I do have a problem, and it would beneficial for both the opposer and the editor for me to say what exactly I am opposing for, so the editor can work on improving that aspect. «LordViD» 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong support edits look fine, and seen you around and you do good work.--MONGO 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support - He's gained a lot more experience with Wikipedia since his first RfA. Although his edits are concetrated in one area, his conduct and knowlege about the Wikipedia community makes up for it. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Very strong support - I'd have nominated him myself but someone beat me to it! -- Francs2000 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Strong support. Looking good.--Sean|Black 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. This'll do, this'll do just fine... --King of All the Franks 00:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - Doesn't have a single mainspace edit outside of professional wrestling articles. Once edited my user page without asking. Accused me of being a sockpuppet vandal (which is false). Even made remarks that I was a "poor editor", which I feel violates various Wikipedia conduct rules. He has an inflated edit count, as he has about 2,000 edits on his user page alone. Even has elements of his user page mispelled and sloppily done, despite the massive amount of edits on his userpage ("Vandalizing againts"?). He comes off as unprofessional and immature. I feel that he may abuse his proposed moderator powers and that he does not handle his stress well on the site. Maybe he has done some good, but look at the facts before you make your decision. Mcfly85 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Now, that vandal could well have been someone else, we dont know, I dont want to point fingers and go off topic. However, considering that it was the very first time someone vandalized his userpage, and considering the content, SWD316 had some reason to be suspicious. Also, please provide a diff showing where SWD316 called you a "poor editor", as I cant find it. Thanks Banes 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • [1] is the link. Mcfly85 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Mcfly85, did you provide that link logged out first? Banes 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I accidentally was logged out while I added the link. Mcfly85 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Oh, sorry, its just that I noticed that IP:68.180.1.141 had engaged in vandalism, but it seems it is shared by multiple editors, so no worries. Banes 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I stated you made bad edits and choices not that you were a bad user. SWD316 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I have not made a single bad edit, I don't know what you are talking about. Most of my edits are just slight typos, I've only written a handful of articles. At least I don't have like 2,000 edits on my user page and it still has typos on it. You're just not ready to be an admin here, you need to be more well-rounded, let things go, and stop accusing others and putting comments with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Anyone who has a valid opinion should be allowed to vote here. Sorry to rain on your parade, but you need to leave me alone. Mcfly85 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry to rain on your parade but please stop disrupting the process of a RFA, you can be blocked for it, just a fair warning. SWD316 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)\
          • I didn't start it. Mcfly85 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Just a warning, its happened to people. SWD316 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - He needs a bit more experience. Rock09 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    I would love to know how you arrived at this conclusion. SWD has ~8000 edits, while you, on the other hand, have less than 10. «LordViD» 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not trying to be an admin, ever! I've dealt with plenty of admins over the years here all over the network, and I just don't think he would work out. My opinion, and certainly valid to earn my vote. Rock09 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    You opposed, saying that he needs a bit more experience. He has more than 8000 edits! How much more experience do you need?! «LordViD» 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, a litle too controversial for this time, should spell check his user page, it left a poor impression on me. Sigma995 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) This account was created after initiation of this RfA and had 4 edits prior to making this vote
    Oppose per terming Mcfly85's concerns as "disrupting an RfA" and indirectly threatening a block. moved to Neutral — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose freestylefrappe 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please provide a rationale for your vote. «LordViD» 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    He does not have to provide rationale if people supporting does not provide rationale. Olorin28 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Usually someone types in at least a comment when opposing. That gives the user being opposed to work on. I would like to know why. In addition to that statement, most people supporting dont have to have a rationale because they have no problem with them. Almost all of the supporters on this RFA do have a comment too. But I would like to know why he disapproves. SWD316 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Inconsistent use of edit summaries (although this has improved lately). Very few edits in Wikipedia namespace outside of the Esperanza or wrestling WikiProject pages. I'm not convinced you have any working knowledge of policies. A quick glance through your contributions reveals a lack of any experience of reverting vandalism or reporting copyvios, and a continuing neglection of the preview button. I'd like to see edits among a wider variety of topics, or working with categories, or any of the administrator-type work you'll be asked to do (requested moves, CfD, TfD, etc.). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Vast majority of edits are talk pages or wrestling pages. His comments here aren't encouraging. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I agree with Howcheng. Hardly ever fights vandalism. The arguments and aggressive tone with mcfly isn't helping either. Olorin28 03:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose All he does is edit wrestling pages and his userpage has a few too many errors on it
    Anon users aren't suppose to vote. Olorin28 03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Inconsistent, no mainstream articles really outside wrestling. Remarks here seem to indicate inflamatory style, does not bode well for potential admin.TruthCrusader

Neutral

  1. Moved from Oppose. I'm still concerned at perception of SWD316's comments above; upon re-reading, they still appear inflammatory to me. That said, I'm willing to accept they were made in good faith. Please be careful with phrases such as "you can be blocked, fair warning"; the Internet makes it hard to determine intent. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I would normally oppose in this situation but some of the silly oppose votes remind me of my failed RFA a little too much. I agree with Howcheng however as I think he needs more experience in a number of areas including fighting vandalism and AFD's. If that's taken care of, I would gladly support in a few months. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments


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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I work with Account suspensions, Th deletion process with Wikipedia, I already roll back vandalism, and I try to spot copyright infringment where I can.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, there is one I consider good. the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster I created a while back has been one of the most frequently updated and prefered list on the internet, see www.mywrestlingspace.com and other lists all over the internet. Most other edits are clean-up, vandalism roll back and other stuff.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes many users have caused me stress over edits because of not adding correct information, no source, wrong sources and such. I usually asked for better sources of information from the user and if they continue to edit with faulty info, I usually contact and admin. Not many conflicts outside that over editing an article as much as a sockpuppet vandal conflict. Per above, Mcfly85. This user, I suspect, has created or used IP addresses or new names to vandalize my user page.


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.