Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWD316 4

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.

[edit] SWD316

(16/9/4) ended 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SWD316 (talk · contribs) – SWD316 is one of the nicest Wikipedians I know. He has been here since last June and has amassed over 11,000 edits. I think it's about time he was given the mop! Latinus 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept. SWD316 talk to me 22:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Latinus 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support jnothman talk 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, seen him around, always good edits. Extremely friendly, nice and patient. Will make an awesome admin. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    *blush and giggle* Thanks. SWD316 talk to me 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per the old cliche. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support--Good contributor, can be trusted with extra tools.--Dakota ~ ε 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - Gladly. Hope your real-life situation gets resolved soon! Sango123 (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Sango. I'm sure it will...eventually. SWD316 talk to me 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. How is this user not already an admin? Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support absolutely. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Ugur Basak 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Great guy, SWD316. Banez 12:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 13:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - I trust him. He's been through hell on Wikipedia and has still stuck around. That takes dedication and guts. --Celestianpower háblame 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry. Too soon after last nomination (just over 1 month) and a little oddity in my recollection that I won't bring up here. I like the guy, I just cannot support him at this time. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's alright, I understand. SWD316 talk to me 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, Agreed that it is way too soon from last nomination, and Freestylefrappe's evidence at [1] is fairly strong, and his behavior during the 3rd RFA was quite out of line, basically begging users to switch their votes. He does seem to be more varied in his edits as of late, but just not admin material at this time. Fthepostingquota 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm sure he's a nice guy, but 1) the diff provided by Freestylefrappe, 2) the editor's allusion to mental health issues as explanations for his behaviour 3) the really childish fake "you have new messages" on his talk page [2] 4) his apparent *need* to have adminship, these all suggest he needs to chill out, get in touch with his inner bong, etc. While not casting any aspersions on his contributions as editor, and with best wishes to him personally, I vote against for adminship Pete.Hurd 05:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I am in essential agreement with points 1 & 4 raised by Peter above, although bong may not be the mot juste. Eusebeus 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Pete make a persuasive case. This user seems to be in too much of a rush to become an admin. While this user has many edits, the volume of activity with vandalism, welcoming and other areas such as AFD is noticable. There is a distinct lack of edits ~250 on the article talk pages which suggest that hard core interactions with other users trying to build consensus in articles is not actually occurring. Given an admins job is often one of mediator i wonder if this user is ready? David D. (Talk) 10:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, too soon after previous nomination, insufficient evidence of having improved on the issues displayed therein. Radiant_>|< 11:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, Pete Hurd is persuasive above. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Freestylefrappe's evidence is from a long time ago. SWD316 has repeatedly demonstrated competence and civility... though it seems odd he was blocked after his post... KI 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    "long" = 90days.Pete.Hurd 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    "long" = 45 days. Pete.Hurd 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose I didn't realize that diff was from so recently. Sorry, cant support. KI 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm also unsure of this user's competence now that I go through his contributions more thoroughly. It took him 3 tries to leave a comment on Pete Hurd's talkpage. 1, 2, and 3. He reverts good edits referring to them as vandalism 1, but catches his mistake 2. Edits a bot page 1 but reverts himself 2. Another three tries to leave a message on Phaedrial's page: 1, 2, 3. Responds to an oppose vote on this RFA with "Is there no Justice on Wiki?" [3]. KI 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose From looking at the previous votes he seems quick to anger and acts juvenile --Amazon10x 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

#I'd really like to vote based on nothing more than how likely he is to abuse the power to delete and block, but I can't get past his pejorative allusion to the sexual orientation of his detractors in the diff provided by Freestylefrappe. I'm not voting oppose, I'm sure he's almost always a really nice trustable guy, but I cannot endorse his judgement. Pete.Hurd 04:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose above Pete.Hurd 05:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. I was going to vote support, and was genuinely surprised that he wasn't an admin yet. I guess I know why now. 90 days isn't long enough for me, so neutral. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 05:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral...I know that SWD3164 was upset during his last Rfa due to the sockpuppet isse and for good reason, and his coments on his userpage were simply a poor choice of words due to that frustration. My main reason for voting neutral is due to my belief that patience is a virtue and that you should wait longer before trying for admin than you have. However, I think if this should succeed, you will make a fine admin anyway.--MONGO 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I was going to support, but freestylefrappe's link really got me all shook up. I used to think SWD316 was better than that. But then I thought anybody would be unhappy if socks were being used to influence other users as well as to failing his RfA. He has always shown great sincerity to the project, even though he may act immature. For example after I went past his score on WP:HOLICTEST, he posted this message on my talk page and then immediately proceeeded to retake he test, something he had neglected to do for months. This led me to believe that his position meant a lot to him. He was also very active in condemning User:Qwertysoup when he also surpassed SWD316 on the same test (see relevant discussion).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. SWD316, you're a good guy, very nice, but I really think you should wait for a while (maybe several months) before accepting a nomination, even from someone els. That way, you won't get anymore of those oppose votes based on the fact that your latest nomination is too soon after the last one. If this nom were to fail and someone else comes along to nominate you for an RfA, it's okay to say "No thanks, not until the smoke from my last RfA dissipates!" However, I think since this already comes a few RfAs after, I think Freestylefrappe's diff should no longer be a factor in deciding his RFA: with some exceptions, we should really be looking at the behaviour, and perhaps the length of time, from the last RFA. --Deathphoenix 14:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Striking out. FSF's diff comes from just over a month ago, so it might be valid. --Deathphoenix 14:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 64 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See SWD316's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • My previous nominations: (Nomination 1, Nomination 2, Nomination 3).
  • I'm about to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but before I am, I'd like to point this out. This was vital to the failure of his last RFA. Whether or not it is still relevant is for you to decide, but it should be mentioned. I hope other users, this is not aimed at SWD316, would have the courtesy not to:
  • a. Remove this comment
  • b. Totally overreact to me posting this diff
  • c. Block me for mentioning this

But all three are quite probable. freestylefrappe 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. Bieng more active around vandal fighting, it would greatly help having the real roll-back button. The ability to protect commonly vandalized/POV pushed articles would help too. Deletion tools will help too. If it's worth mentioning, I'm already an admin on another WikiCity too, so I already know what the tools are and how they are used
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I created Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster is one article I'm greatly proud of. It is one of the most frequently edited/frequently vandalized pages on Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that other websites use the article as a source, which I'm greatful for.
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. Ahh, many a conflict. Mostly proving users like Mcfly85, a common sockpuppeteer that he is wrong. Other than that nothing out of the ordinary that other users don't go through, dealing with IP addresses, new users and such.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Well, I'll just answer for each template rather than just the third and fourth one. {{test1}} should be used for the first edit, newcomer that is testing. {{test2}} should be used when the IP seems to make 3-4 edits to the same article in bad faith. {{test3}} should warn the user that he/she could be blocked. {{test4}} should tell them that they will be blocked the next time they vandalize and {{bv}} should be used on vandalizing IP addresses/User accounts that have returned from a recent block.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. Try and correctly Identify if the user was editing in good or bad faith first. A short block, less than 24 hours, if bad faith. But if the editor was reverting in good faith, a warning about the 3RR policy on Wikipedia. In such a situation, if they reverted again after the warning, it would be against 3RR policy and should be blocked for 24 hours.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. CSD should be used when it is a non-sense article/entry about a non-notable person or event that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. AFD should be used when the article is about a non-notable person or event that can't be expanded on. AFD also applies when an article is so little/unsignifigant that it doesn't require it's own article.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. Not very experienced in this area yet but I can tell you what I would do. Because this is an encyclopedia, it should remain as Neutral as possible. So I would research the said article or topic and ask the users involved in the controversy thier POV. Then, based on facts put together from the opposing users and actual facts make a justified entry.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. Not many concerns in area of Wikipedia as a whole. The biggest problem is vandalism accounts. There are so many of them. :-) IP Addresses have become, in particular, a problem. I hate the fact the IP addresses that make, racial remarks/threats/among the many things they do, only get block for 24 hours to 72 hours. I think blocks on IP addresses should be more firm.
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.