Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWAdair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mirv (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 27 October 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SWAdair

Vote here (7/1/1) 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)

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)

Neutral

  1. Agree with Blankfaze. Andre (talk) 01:13, Oct 27, 2004 (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)


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SWAdair&oldid=6891783"