Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Swatjester

Final (97/1/0); Ended 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester (talk · contribs) - Swatjester previously ran back in April and that nomination ended in no consensus. During that run, my own opinion changed a few times. However, at this point I believe that Swatjester's work over the last few months shows that any such concerns are no longer operative. The user has been very productive and helpful in a variety of topics and has contributions to many areas of wikispace. Swatjester has over 8000 edits and over 2000 in mainspace alone. The editor has been particularly active on military articles such Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN. Swat is a dependable user who will make good use of the tools. JoshuaZ 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly accept.
Let me state at the moment, I normally edit in Safari, and I'm doing this in Firefox OS X. I hope this doesn't malform.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, before it gets brought up in the discussion, there was a period over the summer of 2006 where I did not edit for a couple months. This was because I accepted a job that required me to leave on a few days notice, and live on a mountaintop for the entire summer, with no power, phone service, internet, and barely any running water. (I was teaching a survival and riflery course). When I returned, I resumed editing. Any other outages, such as those in January, were also work related, and temporary. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:41, 9 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First off, I plan on helping clear the backlogs that pop up at Candidates for Speedy Deletion and WP:AIV. I also would like to begin closing AfDs. I would continue vandal fighting. Vandal fighting was a big thing for me leading up to, and after my first admin run. At this point in time, I feel the pendulum has swung a bit back towards article improvement, but vandalism is still a problem, and as an admin I will be better equipped to deal with it. Though the following is not an administrator task, I like working at WP:3O, which people don't often seem to know about. Oh, I'd also help out with requests for page protection. I probably don't need to mention this, but I'd of course seek second opinion before taking any bold action regarding sysop powers. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As mentioned above, I'm particularly pleased with Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN, which was an unintelligible mess that I salvaged and rewrote. I'm also proud of the series of articles involving what was originally RSTA and now is RSTA (U.S. Army), C4ISTAR, and several other related articles. That was a particularly difficult merge, (because it referred to both a doctrine, a type of military unit, and a disambiguation acronym as well, and all of those meant different things in different militaries) and somehow we were able to successfully get it done to everyone's satisfaction. As I mentioned in my first RfA, "I gained respect for the editors who make that difficult borderline "keep and rewrite" vote at the AFD discussion, and then actually DO rewrite it". Finally, I'm proud of the collaboration work we did on Yvon Chouinard for the Climbing Wikiproject. Even though it was just two editors working on it, and we came at it from different viewpoints, we ended up doing a great rewrite of it. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh I have a second contribution I'd like to add here. Kat Walsh referred a reporter from the FSView/Florida Flambeau newspaper to me for a press interview regarding Wikipedia. The week before, I did one for the Palm Beach Post newspaper. I'm proud of both articles and the work that does to enhance the project from outside of it. The Post article IS online somewhere. The author's name was Fred Marion, and it was in the Accent section, if a google search will help at Palm Beach Post's website ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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. I've been involved in the Derek Smart arbitration, actually I brought about the original request. However, I brought the case based as a failed mediator, rather than an involved editing party. The edit war going on there was absolutely ridiculous, which was why I didn't edit the article substantively for either side. When I saw there was no other way, I filed for RfAr, which is currently in motion to close. The discussion on Workshop grew extremely heated. I will admit, I became less than civil once in that, and became extremely stressed. I thought long and hard about leaving wikipedia. After a lot of thinking, I realized that this was no different than any other dispute, just more intense, and that the best thing for me to do was to just take a break and cool off, so I stopped. It taught me that even after being here for a year, there is still much that anyone can learn about civility and being cool.
I'm a senior at Florida State University, starting law school next year at American University. One of my courses right now is called "International Human Rights". In that course syllabus, there was an interesting comment about civility that's greatly affected me in the month I've been enrolled in the class. I'd like to include a couple excerpts.

We have all experienced biting sarcasm, personal attacks, insulting asides to neighbors, etc. And we all know how it makes us feel to be the object of such comments. I close by offering one more reason why civility matters. A 2005 study reports that it affects the level of trust in a political community (Mutz & Reeves, “The New Videomalaise,” American Political Science Review, Feb 2005, 99(1):1-15): Does incivility in political discourse have adverse effects on public regard for politics? If so, why? In this study we present a theory suggesting that when viewers are exposed to televised political disagreement, it often violates well-established face-to-face social norms for the polite expression of opposing views. As a result, incivility in public discourse adversely affects trust in government. Drawing on three laboratory experiments, we find that televised presentations of political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians. However, political trust is adversely affected by levels of incivility in these exchanges.

I for one, do not like to receive biting sarcasm, personal attacks, and the like. Furthermore, were I to be a sysop, I'd take extra care to ensure that my behavior is extra-civil, so as not to create a distrust of the community, which is the true government of wikipedia.
Anyway, I thought that was worth sharing as a motivation for civility. I thought so at least. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

4. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Sure but consider this, if you were to take a day off to go through a bunch of articles and improve content, what is the chance that you'd find something that required administrator attention? I couldn't put an arbitrary number to it, but I think the odds are very good that given an extended amount of article improvement over a bunch of different articles, you'd come across something requiring admin attention. Of course, that theory goes out the window if I were to be writing a single article, or extended editing a certain article. But being admin doesn't preclude you from article improvement. I mean, why would it? What about the mop do you need to write an article? So sure, I can easily see a day where I say "You know what, today I'm just going to write this one article" and check no other pages (ok, I lie, I'll probably check AIV or something, but you know what I mean). But if the underlying question is do I view administratorship as something that will take away from my ability to work on articles, then the answer is entirely no. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I trust this user, and we need more admins. Ben Aveling 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Lots of edits, great experience, and a cautious and humble attitude. Need I say more? ~~ P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support need more admins, I've worked with him too, he's a good guy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support lead him down Sysop Drive and check him into Rm#1,000-something at the ANI Hotel. Rama's arrow 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. YechielMan 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support Excellent editor; definitely worthy of the tools. --Captain Wikify Argh! 03:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Nothing wrong with you, man. You're just the kind of guy Wikipedia needs. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support As nominator. JoshuaZ 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per all above even though FSU seems to beat us every time we play --BigDT 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support yup.--Jersey Devil 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom and answers. VegaDark 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support of course.--Húsönd 05:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, as I did last year. Khoikhoi 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support as nine-plus months ago. Joe 05:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Seems like an excellent candidate. Pigmantalk 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - per the double wide shopping cart. pschemp | talk 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support absolutely. Excellent editor with an outstanding track record. Few are more deserving.--Looper5920 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Looks like the problems identified in the last RfA have been resolved now. (aeropagitica) 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, of course. It's ridiculous he didn't get it the first time. --Delirium 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support without hestitation again. Trust the user has retained their excellent sense of humour. MLA 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - I opposed last time due to inexperience and some civility issues - but several more months of good editing without trouble works for me.--Docg 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support absolutely. Great answers. Trustworthy user with good activity. - Anas Talk? 09:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Terence Ong 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support, easy call. An asset tot he project. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support again. Conscious 10:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support- lots of good RfA candidates at the moment. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)10:58, Friday, 9 February '07
  31. Support as a strong contributor with good answers. The Rambling Man 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support, sensible and responsible editor. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support need more admins, and the candidate seems fine. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Responsible user. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Steel 13:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Swat, you were supposed to tell me when you ran again. This lack of campaigning is admirable, but I could have missed this! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support without a doubt. NoSeptember 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. A good candidate, indeed. Nishkid64 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Long history of involvement with this user, probably longer than anyone else in this RFA. --Cyde Weys 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support -he certainly appears knowledgeable and appears to have made improvements since last RfA. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, big time. Kafziel Talk 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support per above. --Fang Aili talk 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support i think he'd be great from the nom and the history. JoeSmack Talk 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Good experiences, good record. Sandstein 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support This is a good user and we need more admins so speedy deletion candidates are deleted or kept faster.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Cbrown1023 talk 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support •Jim62sch• 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per strong contributions, good overall record, and pretty much everything above. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. --Yamla 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, obviously. Bucketsofg 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - good answers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  59. Horrendously cliched pile-on support, looks good. --Coredesat 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  60. That's hottest support. Haven't seen a more qualified user in recent memory. I have no qualms whatsoever with allowing him the admin tools. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  61. Strong support Seen him around, often find myself nodding appreciatively at his comments. He'll make a good one :) riana_dzasta 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support looks good to me. James086Talk 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  64. Rettetast
  65. Support Won't abuse tools. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support per above. Why am I supporting everyone on RfA today? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support - have seen this user around a bunch of times and no complaints. BJTalk 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support: lots of good editors on RfA right now. =3 Heimstern Läufer 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support -everything looks good.--Dakota 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Seen him around a lot. Good wrok. --Tbeatty 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  71. Jaranda wat's sup 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. Wait, you're not one? Grandmasterka 01:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support And why shouldn't I go along with peer pressure? Pigmantalk 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    You appear already to have !voted, viz., at #18. :) Joe 04:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support I don't like your sig, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this RfA. alphachimp 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  74. dvdrw 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  75. Suppport. You're not one already? Obviously qualified, and unlikely to abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 06:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  76. Strong Support. Great attitude ever since she arrived, and communicates very clearly. A pleasure to support. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support. I opposed last time due to his posting of IRC chat logs, but that was 10 months ago, and there's been no problems since. Proto::► 11:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support Known "personally" to be of good character and judgement, and has put in much effort in keeping various pages credible. -- Thatguy96 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support looking through the contribution history, this user seems to have grown since his last RfA and I believe he would not abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support. WjBscribe 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support I think this editor would make a good admin. -Will Beback · † · 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support. No problems here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  84. Absolutely. Deiz talk 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  85. Weak Support - lack of recent activity, but everything else looks alright. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  86. Strong Support I've known Swatjester since my early days of Wikipedia, and have faith in the buttons. As for the user's activity levels, he is engaged in off-line obligations a good proportion of time. This does not mean that the bit would not aid in contributing to the encyclopedia. Teke (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support, no question he will make a good admin.--Isotope23 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support as I did last time, oh so long ago. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support I think I would have supported before. --Blue Tie 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support No reason to oppose. Dionyseus 07:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  93. I'm disappointed. Looks like he's gonna fall just short of WP:100, oh well. support--Wizardman 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support. I'm happy with what I've seen so far. ElinorD 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support Hope he gets to WP:100. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support - solid, experienced editor who can be trusted with admin tools. Metamagician3000 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  97. Support. Thoughtful contributions to AfD, overall good editor. IronGargoyle 01:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

  1. Oppose. The candidate's been so inactive in the last few months Arfan (Talk) 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.