Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester

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] Swatjester

Final (81/44/13) ended 06:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester (talk • contribs) – Swatjester has been a very active member not only in creating excellent articles such as Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN and RSTA, Swatjester has also reverted immense amounts of vandalism and to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of taking requests that Swatjester is obviously more than competent to do. -- Tawker 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Super Strong Support as nom -- Tawker 06:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - does good work.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Though he was already an admin support. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Moving vote to neutral due to many concerns brought up by oppose voters. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Support. Use of WP:AIV is always good to see. Feezo (Talk) 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support as per nominator. Conscious 08:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Good well-rounded user. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:25 UTC (2006-04-21)

5. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. David | Talk 08:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Will make a great admin. DarthVader 09:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - you were on my short list to nominate next, so I suppose I may as well. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 11:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support for me, neither length of service or edit count are as significant as the quality and intent of the contributions, and I like what I've seen of Swatjester's contributions. Colonel Tom 11:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 11:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Richardcavell 11:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I personally know this editor and know he can be trusted.--Adam ^(talk) 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support - Will make a good admin.--blue520 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Moving vote to neutral. --blue520 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

14. Support. Clear-headed, independent, and judicious. Also, he has a clear need for admin tools give his frequent work in anti-vandalism. Bucketsofg 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Mhking 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, does really good work Deizio 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, what, he isn't one yet? Cripes. JIP | Talk 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Will make a good admin. Mrt50 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I like what I see! ('cept that flag, but that point is already well made) The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, obviously. But get rid of the image anyways ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support what's wrong with image in signature? Many users, including some admins, have one...  Grue  16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    They go against WP:SIG, produce massive drain on the already stretched image server and make talk pages load much more slowly for people without fast connections. JoshuaZ 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

23. Edit conflict support. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Must be a bot Support ;-), Interiot's tool shows a basically flat line across a 24 hour period. NoSeptember ^talk 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    ReAffirm Support. I have watched this user go through a learning curve that has brought him from many misunderstandings to a full understanding of what being a good Wikipedian and a good admin would be, and he would now be a good admin, I am sure. Much opposition has focused on the missteps made during that learning curve, so we will make him wait. When this nomination comes up next time, those mistakes will be ancient history and deservedly so. I look forward to the next nomination and the time when Wikipedia gets another good admin. NoSeptember ^talk 06:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

25. STRONG Support - The image in his sig does not reflect how he will handle admin actions. It's frankly silly that people are opposing based on that fact. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Res Ipsa Loquitur - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Weak Support, There is no such contribution in uploading images. Signature is too long containing image. But a good contributor in article and project space. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - The sig thing is a minor issue compared to what this user has in response (not to say I like fancy sigs) - significant contributions to AFD, RFA, reverting vandalism and other administrative duties. Very active too. --Knucmo2 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support of course, though you should take the image out of your sig. --Rory096_(block) 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support, though I demand you replace the flag with that of Finland. Boo, Iceland! Ral315 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Vote changed to oppose. Ral315 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

30. Support. This guy has always come off to me as a good editor, with the added bonus of common sense. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support an excellent editor and vandal fighter. He should fix his sig, but its not enough for me to do anything but support. Gwernol 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support: I have run across Swatjester many many times. He is a level headed contributor, and keeps his cool well at AfD, a place where things often get blown out of proportion very quickly. --Hetar 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support With the sig issue gone, no reason to not support. Will be a good admin. JoshuaZ 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

33. Support. The signature image is only 18x13 pixels, 215 bytes, and is already in my cache. Furthermore, the responses in the RFAr demonstrate cool-headedness and knowledge of the system. --Elkman - ^(talk) 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support Changed sig --Doc ^ask? 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Some issues raised in opposition, no longer sure if he's quite ready. Don't care for the userpage either. --Doc ^ask? 12:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

34. Support - Not been here long, but seems alright. - Hahnchen 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

35. Support a new but good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Brilliant user. haz (user talk) 20:46, 21 April 2006
37. Support. Good man, trustworthy and exhibits sound judgment. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per Tawker. Also impressive contributions for just four months.—G.He 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Surprised he isn't one. Never seen him get into conflicts before. Johnleemk | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Bullet-proof double-wide shopping cart support. of course!pschemp | talk 00:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. All my experiences with this user have been great, I think he'll be a good admin. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Full Support Overall work has been fantastic! Make him one NOW! Kommondant 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    User's 9th edit. User has been on Wiki less than 2 hours. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:34 UTC (2006-04-22)

    Support per nom. DarthVader 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Voted twice. DarthVader 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

43. A super-rare, Moe-related, strong support I will not oppose on the silly reasons of his signature or how his it messes up the format of the RFA (which isn't even true). I fail to see how a users siganture will limit to any capacity his ability to use tools. Moe ε 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. (^'-')^ Covington 03:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support--Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. I've seen the user in both a light-hearted and a serious mode. The admin hat shouldn't doesn't have to be worn all the time lest the user wants it to. His responses to challenges are serious and level; I assume good faith that Swatjester would not swat newcomers. Teke 04:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Very good vandal fighter. _-M ^o P-_ 06:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Joe I 07:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support an editor who appears willing to stand up and be counted, and doesn't shy away from difficult positions. Lots of good work on AfD. Has a sense of humour. MLA 07:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Merecat 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per above. Have frequently crossed paths with this user and have found him responsible and capable. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 10:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per nom. --Andy123(talk) 11:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support per nom -- see reversal decision below. •Jim62sch• 11:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support absolutely; I've seen SwatJester make great contributions to Wikipedia joturner 16:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support this user has my full trust. Computerjoe's talk 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support have had numerous dealings with this editor. joshbuddy^talk 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. This RfAs been supported so heavily, there's an article size message at the top of it. Esteffect 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, the anti-anon issue doesn't matter much to me (I don't forsee the opinion leading to anything crazy like indefinite blocks for AOL IPs), and the atheist issue I think just isn't that important. And I'm an atheist. I don't see any other issues with the candidate. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Of course not, I'd never abuse my authority. And as I've mentioned I'd be even more careful as an admin than as a regular user. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

60. Support When a user acts like an admin, their obviously ready to be one (and all the data proves my point) Primate^#101 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support; we need more admins, and you'd be a good one. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support I don't entirely approve of his "hostility" toward anons nor many of his Wiki-politics, but I find it absurd to oppose him for those reasons. Bottom line: Swatjester is an excellent vandal fighter and could stand to benefit from a few more tools to help him out with that. AmiDaniel (Talk) 10:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support A great user.--StabiloBoss 21:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - per everyone else! —Khoikhoi 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, gladly. --Heah? 02:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Hard working & great editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Experienced user, lots of good contributions--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Support: great editor, and no longer using an image in his signature. Jonathunder 15:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Support now.--Jusjih 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support There are a few small concerns but on balance I think, yes, support. His forthcoming user and talk pages are most excellent by the way, and I took his advice and have just registered my username on the few English language sister projects that I hadn't aready done :) --kingboyk 03:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Support This user has been an asset to my becoming comfortable in the WP community. He's been active, attentive and very helpful (both on the project and in IRC!). ••\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 07:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Support I've seen this user around a lot, and have only had positive experiences. Should make a decent admin. ProhibitOnions 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Consistent contributor. Georgewilliamherbert 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Support good interaction with peers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
76. HUGE Support His level head and openness in disputes is much needed as an admin. He's been a great example to the community and a good solid editor. -Visorstuff 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Weak support Make sure you don't get too agressive, and make sure you're setting a good example for others. --Mets501^{talk • contribs} 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Support per nom, Prohibit, Matt Y., and Visor, inter al. Joe 03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Support good vandal fighter --rogerd 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Strong Support I must admit Sj and I had a somewhat rocky intro(unusually for both of us) regarding a Scientology related article's editors and what I saw as a possibly hostile reaction, however after requesting his position on his talk page ^[1], he was very polite and explained in full (my hostile impression was wrong) & I immediately gained respect for him. Ever since I happen upon his great deeds, well, everywhere! Great admin potential IMO. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 05:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Support Good vandal fighter & makes good use of AIV. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign & got edit conflicted!)

Oppose

1. Oppose til you get that image out of your signature. Proto||type 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Oppose vote remains, despite image being removed (thank you), due to posting IRC conversations (see Phroziac's objection below), which is a particularly amoral and ill-judged thing to do. Proto||type 12:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   He removed the image. --Rory096_(block) 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose until your signature has no more image per WP:SIG.--Jusjih 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   He removed the image. --Rory096_(block) 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I've seen this user around, and almost always embroiled in one conflict or another -- and often taking a very aggressive stance. I think Swatjester goes looking for problems. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
   • I have been asked by the nominator of this RfA to present some diffs demonstrating the sort of thing I have in mind; my response can be seen here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose. Per User:Bunchofgrapes. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, unhappily. He's a good editor, but his (abrasive) defense of Jason Gastrich is still too fresh in my mind, and it makes me question his temperament. I can't support at this point in time. Guettarda 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   To clarify: my defense was less of Gastrich, who is indisputably a vandal, and an impedement to the project. My defense was that some of the claims against him seemed to me to be nothing more than "atheism good, religion bad", a view which I oppose. I'm no fanatic, I barely manage to practice my own religion. But IMHO if one is going to make a claim against him, make it on the weight of (overwhelming) evidence that he's violated the rules, not slam him for being religious. Thank you, however, for both your support and criticism. ⇒ SWATJester^ReadyAim_Fire! 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Guettarda, I think you are being unfair. Swatjester was (IMO) defending WP:AGF and the herd mentality. I value his detachment, and I don't think you could accuse me of being a Gastrich fan. Honestly, I think this is a misplaced criticism. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   If I were opposing because s/he had defended JG it would be unfair. I am opposing because of how s/he did it. He chose to attack everyone else. I don't doubt that he has settled down, but given his rough start, I think it's too soon. A couple more months and I'd probably support. Right now, I can't be certain which is the real Swat. If s/he had recognised and acknowledged the conflict in Q3 I doubt I would have voted to oppose. I hope that my concerns are wrong and that Swat will be an excellent admin. Guettarda 21:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose, per Guettarda. I'm rather miffed with the concept that an opposition to posting a religious POV is automatically considered to be the result of having an atheist POV. As an agnostic, I can assure you there is a middle ground. I want to see articles that are as close to NPOV as we humans can get them, thus I would no more support an atheist POV than a religious POV. Sorry, but this is a sore point.•Jim62sch• 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Changing vote. Swatjester explained on my talk page, and since he took the time to do that, and since the positives far outweigh the negatives, I support. •Jim62sch• 11:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   I think I understand where Guettarda is coming from. However, Guettarda I don't want you to get the impression that I was trying to hide it in Q3-- for one thing, I forgot about it, and for another I don't think that even rose to the level of a conflict. When I think of "conflict" I think of editing disputes, arbitration, etc. I apologize if you took my comment as abrasive. Oh, and it's he ;) Er, I don't think that at all Jim62sch. Religious POV is just as bad as Atheist POV; neither is neutral. My point, however, was that atheist POV does not automatically = neutral POV. I don't want to be that guy who responds neurotically to every single comment here, and I of course thank you for your criticism (without criticism how can one improve?). If anyone would like me to answer any specific questions regarding Gastrich and my comments, I'm more than happy to do them here, or on my talk page, wherever you feel it is appropriate.⇒SWATJester^ReadyAim_Fire! 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   I would really like for somebody in this thread to post some diffs; if the people criticizing you don't do it, then perhaps you could help out, Swat. I'd appreciate it I don't know where I can read any of this stuff for myself. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC).

   Sorry Bish, was disconnected from the net all day. Which diffs did you want? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, to do with what Guettarda calls your defence of Gastrich (but that you say is more opposition to the idea of "atheism good, religion bad"). I'd appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

   Here you go: these are all of the diffs, in chronological order from oldest to newest: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], same as previous diff, just signing, [12], [13]. That appears to be all the relevant diffs. You'll notice in the very first diff, I give Gastrich moral support based not on his actions (as I plainly say I have no idea what's going on), but on the grounds of atheism attacking religion...-ism. Over the next couple diffs, you can see I gradually get an understanding of the extent of Gastrich's actions. By midway through, I'm agreeing that he has done wrong, but still holding that I believe religious viewpoints can be inherantly NPOV, and that atheist viewpoints aren't necessarily NPOV as well. By the end of it, (the discussion with Cyde on my user talk) I've moved onwards from Gastrich as he indisuptably had messed up, and instead argue the atheism NPOV vs. Religion NPOV point. If I've missed any diffs in there, I'm sorry, but I don't think I have. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose -- Silly sig leads me to question nominee's maturity. Sorry. It even screws up the numbering of an ordered list. John Reid 22:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   No, it has nothing to do with that. What screws up numbered lists is not starting every single line in them with a #. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   The signature is his prerogative, there is nothing that disallows our sigs from being colourful or unusual. However, Swat does need to remove the excess spaces from his sig as they do create formatting problems. •Jim62sch• 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   The silly sig is his prerogative. I'll go further: I encourage users who so desire to dress up their sigs as violently, colorfully, cutely, or excessively as they desire. It is the fastest, easiest way for me to separate the wheat from the chaff. John Reid 13:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   O RLY? BD2412 T 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I concur with the above comments by Bunchofgrapes and Guettarda. I also strongly disapprove of any admin candidate making comments such as "I'm an anti-anon user" at the head of his talk page. I believe that this may well discourage legitimate anonymous users from communicating with Swatjester for fear of being ignored (vandals, on the other hand, do not pay any attention to such comments). I may well support Swatjester in the future if he can eliminate the abrasiveness he has occasionally displayed towards other users. Rje 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Reluctant oppose, per new concerns raised above. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-22)

   In regards to anons- the comment you reference is actually qualified shortly after with "This means that if anonymous editors post on my talk page with something stupid, I may ignore or delete their comments" (emphasis added). My intent was actually not to discourage anons, but as a disclaimer: that if someone complained about why I'm moving or deleting stuff on my talk page, I could point to this. On the other hand, such a disclaimer is also not technically necessary. As the above two discussions by Rje and NSLE point out, it's possible that some anons may be scared off by this. This is certainly not my intention, nor is it a good thing. As of yet I've had no trouble with legitimate anon users communicating with me. However, I will remove that line of text from my talk page. As for Rje's concerns, I will certainly try to remove any traces of abrasiveness from my behavior whether or not I am promoted to admin: it is even more important for a sysop to be non-abrasive and keep a cool head than it is for a normal user. Therefore, whatever the outcome of this discussion, I will try my best to be a more non-abrasive editor.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   What about on User:Swatjester/Who_am_I where you say "I think anonymous users are nothing but trouble"? WP:AGF, WP:BITE. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   I 'm not sure that statement really violates WP:BITE because he's not really "biting" a newcomer, but expressing the way he feels about them. Maybe it is you Bunchesofgrapes, that needs to assume good faith? Moe ε 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   That seems fair enough. You could see that between that being the lead sentence, and the statement that used to lead off your talk page, one might come to the wrong impression. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   The real concern is not so much that your overall attitude is more pro-anon than just the initial section might lead one to think. The concern is that a quick skim or a glance at your talk page by an anon could easily give an anon a very negative imression of the attitude of Wikipedians to anons. If you remove (or lighten up) the comment at the top of your talk page, I would consider changing my vote back to support. JoshuaZ 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   Erm....it's already been removed, as mentioned in my response to Rje and NSLE⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose Editor's hostility toward anon. contributors does give me pause. I'd like to see the editor gain a little more experience, perhaps becoming slightly less agressive. Xoloz 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose by the text on SwatJester's own "Who am I" page, which tells more than I needed to know to oppose. SwatJester is an avowed deletionist, and the statement indicates that he (she?) will liberally interpret deletion votes, leading to likely improper closings on AfD. There are also serious problems with an automatic assumption of bad faith of new or anonymous editors that I think shows SwatJester as what we all hope new admins will not become: jaded, cynical and untrusting of others. Not at all what I want to see in an admin. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 22 April 2006 @ 03:11 UTC

   Uh, the "Who am I" also notes that the user is a male. •Jim62sch• 12:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   Heh. Sorry. I read the parts that I felt mattered to the nomination. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 22 April 2006 @ 21:39 UTC

10. Oppose. Recently, SWATJester was peripherally associated with a conflict I was involved in. Specifically he contributed to this mess, by which a contributor was greatly chastised for removing a "warning" about a dispute that had already ended. Honestly, I don't think SWATJester really knew what he stepped into and I believe that he meant well, but I consider his actions to have been unhelpful. Because of that mess, I decided to pay closer scrutiny to this candidate, and spent some time going over his contributions. In doing so, I largely have to agree with the above comments that SWATJester can, at times, be too abrupt and abrasive. Nor am I thrilled over how the Monicasdude thing was handled. I would also encourage SWATJester to be mindful of the fact that policy exists to help us create an encyclopedia, and that many situations require that policy be treated with a dose of flexibility in order to best achieve that goal. Lastly, I would encourage him to overhaul his user page which conveys a lack of maturity not desirable in an admin. Ultimately though, I do think that SWATJester's heart is basically in the right place, and that he is likely to be promoted at some point, but that he would probably benefit from a bit more experience first. Dragons flight 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Dragons flight and Bunchofgrapes. A good editor, but far too aggressive and confrontational for my comfort. ×Meegs 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Meegs. Seems like a good, enthusiastic editor but needs a bit more experience. Will probably support in the future. RicDod 09:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, pre RicD and Bunchofgrapes. Enthusiastic, but needs to smooth his rough edges a bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose per most of the reasons stated above, especially Cuiviénen's comment about deletion. "Ready aim fire" without knowing what's being shot down. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
15. While I like how flexible he's been on the many signature complaints, I'm afraid I have to oppose due to anon philosophy and diffs from Bunchofgrapes. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose reluctantly. Three months is too short, and the comments about anonymous editors and deletionism are a bit troubling. --Saforrest 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose, due to a confrontation I had with him a month ago at talk:SWAT, where he called a comment of mine "irrelevant and fallacious". Seemed a bit harsh at the time, and worries me about civility. --tomf688^{talk} 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose Three months is a short time (but that's not in itself reason to oppose), the concerns raised here are troubling, but not too serious (and not reason in themselves to oppose). But short time + concerns, makes me think that another few months of harmonious editing first would be better. I will probably support next time. --Doc ^ask? 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Sorry, but I share Bunchofgrapes' concerns, and am also worried about the attitude to anons; and, no, the arguing about the anon issue on this page isn't persuasive to me. Also I'm worried about the liberal-bashing and the remarks about atheists on User:Swatjester/Who am I, such as "I think there are too many people who hate those who believe in religion, because being an atheist is a "cool" thing to do, somehow it makes you more hip". Nobody needs to point out to me that each such remark is balanced by one that bashes the other side, too; I can see that it is. (For the atheist example, the balancing statement runs "I also dislike people who are blinded by religion, and cannot think for themselves"). But at least to this brainwashed hippy, the tone is noticeably aggressive, emotional, and contemptuous towards one set of opinions, but not towards the other. Not that bashing both sides would have been a lot better: I'm altogether not a big fan of bashing. Please note that it's not Swat's political opinions as such that I've a problem with, it's the way they're promulgated, and the combination of the opinions with general abrasiveness and being (at least, sounding) so sure of knowing what's right and where others are wrong. That's not ideal for an administrator IMO. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

    I hate to say it Bish, but this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Here you are condemning Swat Jester for his "noticeably aggressive" stance yet you still manage to make a personal attack on him, calling him a "brainwashed hippy". --Knucmo2 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Isn't he referring to himself as a brainwashed hippy??? RicDod 12:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    From the following quote, clearly not:

    "I nearly took my own life after being spit upon and called a baby-killer by some brainwashed hippy who, upon questioning from one of my friends, knew nothing about the military, did not know me, didn't know the basic concepts of civics and american government." (Emphasis mine) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC) My mistake, I misunderstood the wording of the comment. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    ..? Oh. "At least to this brainwashed hippy..." refers to myself — to how Swatjester's liberal-bashing sounds "to me". I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I thought both grammar (=to this brainwashed hippy) and politics (=criticizing Swatjester's liberal-bashing) made it so. But I guess I over-complicated the sentence in a (vain) attempt to keep it brief. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clear it up. (If I have.I hope I haven't just over-complicated it some more.) Bishonen | talk 12:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

    My apologies. --Knucmo2 13:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Didn't George Romney ruin his chances for the Presidency by calling himself "brainwashed"? NoSeptember ^talk 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    OK, so I've ruined mine. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

    Bish, in regards to religion vs. atheism, my issue is neither with religion, NOR atheism, but rather with fanaticism on either side. Religious fanatics of any religion, atheist fanatics, hell fanatics of anything: a subject, an actor etc...inherently bring POV to whatever they do that in most cases cannot be reasoned with....that's why they're fanatics. Please don't think that I think that religion is the right way, or that atheism is the wrong way, or that all liberals are bad, or that all conservatives are good. That would be a fanatical belief, and that's not the case. I think that both religious editors and atheist editors, liberal editors and conservative editors, and any other two opposites you can think of, have both their pros and cons. Fanatics tend to more sharply bring out the cons in those. But moderate editors of any political or religious slant, bring an inherently neutral point of view: they're moderates, so they're obviously open to reason. I'm not a liberal myself, though much of my family is. My political bent is pretty moderate: the only really pro-conservative slants to it are gun control and defense budget. Everything else is pretty middle of the road. Personally I think far right-wingers like Michael Savage are just as bad as far left-wingers like Michael Moore. However, and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from with this Bish, being in the military I tend to get more flak from liberals than I do conservatives. It's saddening when fanatics on one side can call me a "illegal fascist baby killer", while fanatics on the other side can call me a "Jesus-fearing christian soldier marching for freedom"....when neither one is even the slightest bit true....but fanatics invariably never ask me for my beliefs, or try to get to know me. Anyway that turned into a bit of a monologue, but I hope you can see now what I meant with that section Bish.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose -- Bunchofgrapes's evidence concerns me enough that I cannot say that I am 100% comfortable with this user being admin'ed. Jkelly 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Per the above, this user does not seem sufficiently mature or sufficiently level-headed. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose -- extreme hostility toward anons (I should know -- I, as an anon, was a recipient of this attitude). 129.59.135.52 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC) - This vote is invalid per being an IP (and per Linuxbeak on IRC) -- Tawker 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    As you probably already know, anons are not permitted to vote at RfA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    The "extreme hostility) consisted of this edit which was simply adding in a standard vandalism template. (waits for Linuxbeak to say this vote is invalid) -- Tawker 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Precisely. He accused me of vandalism when we had a good faith content dispute. 129.59.135.52 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm, looking at the anons contribs it does look like it was a content dispute. Could someone else look at the difs and tell me if they get that impression also? JoshuaZ 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    It looks to me like the blanking-vandalism template was a response to this talk-page edit of the Anons; seems appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Indeed it was Bunchofgrapes, that IP was disputing with another user (I think they were registered) on the talk page, over the notability of some "notable alumni". I found the page through RC patrol as a result the talk page having a large section blanked. I noted that the IP had blanked someone elses comments, felt that was inappropriate, and left the blanking template on his talk. The "content dispute", which the IP is referring to, was on the article itself, and was over the notability of certain names on the notable alumni section, and came seperately.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

22. The diffs Bunchofgrapes provided concern me. Rob Church (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Some other things that concern me include the user's comments about the IRC channel; while I am well-known, I think, for pointing out that #wikipedia is not an official channel, I do feel it is more than fair to draw some conclusions based on the user's comments about some of our users, which can be read on a page he maintains on this wiki. Also, some comments on that page, as well as a snippet from a diff Bunchofgrapes linked to lead me to believe this user feels he is owed adminship as a reward of some sort.

    Checking the user's talk page, I realise in more detail that I've had dealings with the user before. I left them a message once, asking them to change signature (it was confusing). As is conventional, I hit the new section button and left a note at the bottom of the page. When I returned to check up on it, I spotted that the message had been blanked; apparently, because I failed to conform to his fascisistic little organisational scheme (which I hadn't spotted), my comment was null and void. Rob Church (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    And it goes on. This edit is not appropriate, I feel. I'm starting to share the opinion that "this user relishes confrontation", which is not acceptable. Rob Church (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'd like to defend the edit that you post in that diff. When I said the comment was irrelevant and fallacious, I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to the comments content/context, not attacking a user. I stand by my belief that in the context of the discussion and debate over the picture, his example about the supreme court was both irrelevant to the situation at hand, and formed as a logical fallacy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose - I agree with Rob Church. Additionally, Swatjester has posted rants about the #wikipedia IRC channel on User:Swatjester/Irc, which includes a log of a private conversation I had with him, which I did not authorize to be published. Totally inappropriate behaviour for an admin. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose - very concerned about his judgement. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose for a number of reasons. Abuse of the signature feature, persistent abrasiveness, misuse of IRC logs, hostility to the non-logged-in editing feature. Not, at this stage in his editing history, what I consider to be a suitable candidate. As always this could change with time and effort. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose; very concerned about judgement, as with Mackensen, most obviously expressed in his reposting of private IRC conversations without permission. I have warned him that any further log posting without permission will lead to his permanent exclusion from the Wikimedia IRC channels. Either way, really rather unsuitable behaviour from a sysop. James F. (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Misuse of IRC logs against well-established principle that IRC logs should not be published leads me to question whether he can be trusted to use adminship privileges appropriately and responsibly. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose a relative newcomer (January) who's hit some bumps in his short road. Give it a couple months more experience. Derex 01:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose, reluctantly because Swatjester obviously cares about Wikipedia. I just question some of his choices. I was planning on sitting out this RFAr because I had some of the same concerns Dragonsflight voiced, but nothing concrete enough to make me vote no. But this business over the IRC logs has convinced me that Swatjester needs a little more seasoning before I'm okay with handing over the keys. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose due to concerns about judgement, maturity and civility. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per all of the above, most particularly his logging of the #wikipedia IRC channel. while per Robchurch, it's not an official channel, immaturity there often infers an immaturity in general, and posting the logs on Wikipedia against Wikipedia rules (which he knew about) is unforgivable. Ral315 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    For the record, saying "Which he knew about" is misleading. See [14] which states that "If it is related to a discussion elsewhere, you may quote small sections of the channel log. If you wish to do this, you should delete any lines which are not related to the topic in question". Was it an error in judgement? Yes. I've since apologized to Phroziac. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    You are quoting out of context -- the very next sentence of that page says "You should also seek permission from the participants in the discussion before publishing their words." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    Yes. It says "should", not "must". The only thing it said you MUST not do, is indiscriminately publish full length logs. I was angry, and followed the letter of the policy. It was a dick thing to do, no doubt about it. But even still, the letter of the policy was followed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    This doesn't explain publishing a significant portion of the log of a private conversation with another user, without seeking prior permission. Rob Church (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    Of course it doesn't. I said above that it was an error in judgement, and that it was a dick thing to do. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

32. Oppose - changing position due to concerns raised about judgement (per Bunchofgrapes, Ral315, Guettarda, and others), especially biting and the inadvisability of posting an IRC conv. in a sub-page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose; candidate looks sometimes too confrontational. - Liberatore(T) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose; candidate nominated the article Theater intime for deletion when it was one minute old, and took the resulting debate in AfD far too personally. He seems to think that the fact the he did not contact the author prior to nominating the article is proof that the nomination was not biting a newbie. [15] (nominating a one-minute old article by a new editor because it does not properly prove notability is fixing a mistake. Thatcher131 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose This editor needs to learn how to handle difficult situations better. I will support another nom if this editor does this over the next 2-3 months. FloNight ^talk 12:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose primarily due to civility and trust concerns. Needs more time and experience. Please note that this is the second time I've voted oppose, my original vote was accidentally removed by Tawker. [16] Silensor 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose - In addition to his confrontational style, I disagree with him about the implications of the WP:NPOV policy. -- Geo Swan 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, your argument there is more along the lines of original research than an NPOV violation, but I would remind you, no matter which of you is more correct, not to bring personal disagreements into adminship nominations. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:52 UTC

38. 'Oppose per Rob Church and others _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Oppose Was neutral but concerns raised by Jim and Guettarda as well as concerns about attitude towards anons and concerns about IRC logs pushes me over to oppose. JoshuaZ 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose Too confrontational, too immature. Henry^Flower 09:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Henry Flowers. See Talk:Merecat for Swatjester reaction to a personal attack. He took it upon himself to delete comments on a talk page that was being used by an editor being mentored. He doesn't understand the difference between policy enforcement, style guide and recommended practices. This only escalated the problem. I shiver to think what would happen if banning became part of his arsenal.--Tbeatty 06:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    While I respectfully accept your opposition, you do not appear to be aware of the extent of the issue on Merecat's page. For the record, User:Thewolfstar has repeatedly been violently personally attacking other editors, threatening them, etc. It's up on AN/I for your perusal. After being blocked, he requested Merecat, who he apparently knows somehow, to help him plead his case. Merecat accepted, and bargained for Wolfstar's unblocking, on condition that he be mentored by Merecat. Just tonight, Thewolfstar continued to violently personally attack editors again, calling them "nasty nazi fucks", refering to Bishonen as "Bitchownen", calling the majority of editors on wikipedia "assholes" etc. As per WP:RPA, WP:NPA, WP:REFACTOR, and plain common sense, I refactored the personal attacks on Merecat's page. Thewolfstar was then blocked again. Merecat and I disagreed about the methods, but we've seem to come to an agreement that the attacks remain refactored out. Accusing me of not understanding the difference between policy enforcement and recommended practices is rather untasteful, and I deeply resent the implication....especially when you, Tbeatty, were the one to tell me that I'm wrong for following a wikipedia guideline, that's referenced by hard policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't disagree that the comments should have been deleted. I question your judgement to a) take it upon yourself to delete them when Merecat could have done it to his own talk page b) injecting yourself as arbiter in a dispute to which you are a party and c) quoting WP:RPA and WP:REFACTOR as policy to justify your actions. There were about 10 other ways to handle this without going nuclear. Other admins were able to handle the banning (which was appropriate) without injecting themselves directly in the line of fire. I question your judgement and maturity. --Tbeatty 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    a)Everyone tells people to "sofixit", be bold...there's even a template for it. So I did it. I boldly removed the personal attacks. How am I to be blamed for following the rules? What would ever get done on wikipedia, if everyone waited for other people to make the changes? What if, someone wrote "fuck" all over your user page...should I wait until YOU remove it? No. That would be silly. B) Err...how was I a party before then? My only action with this guy was to revert his personal attacks. Where was I a party to this before I refactored his personal attacks? c) WP:NPA is policy, which references WP:RPA, which is a guideline. WP:REFACTOR is a help page. I quoted WP:NPA as the policy, which STRONGLY supports WP:RPA. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    I would venture to guess that the confrontational and aggressive attitude you are putting on right now is a perfect display of why you have so many oppose votes. Calm down, don't attack people, don't be aggressive, don't take things personally and don't look for arguments. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 15:48 UTC

43. Oppose because the candidate created a subpage which only had the purpose to ridicule a new user whom the candidate had harassed over politics. User:Swatjester/arbcomrapist VivianDarkbloom 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Strong oppose per VivianDarkbloom. Mocking other people's attempts to put you on RfAR smacks of incivility. Even if he insulted you beforehand, an person of admin calibre should not respond in kind. To paraphrase your last line in that page, "I'm sorry but this has me coming out of abstaining to vote oppose." Kimchi.sg | talk 07:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Until complies with WP:SIG. JoshuaZ 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutralper JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral, not swayed either way. Royboycrashfan 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Awaiting response to Q.4 --Doc ^ask? 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Excellent candidate, but I can't support a three-month-old account for Adminship. The user is enthusiastic (+ 4500 edits in that much time), but that notwithstanding, I really don't believe that it is possible to amass the experience necessary for Adminship in that short a period of time. This lack of experience is probably the reason why the user may be unaware of the SIG problem. That being said, I won't oppose given my perception that, with a little more experience, Swatjester would be a prime candidate for Adminship. Redux 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   I thank you for your comments. For the record however, it's not that I was unaware of the WP:SIG guideline, it's that I was unaware that many people had a problem with it. The sig is fixed now.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   OK, how many of you see a red arrow and how many see a red square in his sig? NoSeptember ^talk 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'm seeing the arrow. You're seeing a square? Redux 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   I see an arrow which I think is just an ascii character. Why? JoshuaZ 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   For some reason I'm case sensitive, → shows an arrow, but ⇒ (which Swat uses) shows a square. NoSeptember ^talk 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning to oppose Yet again, over concerns raised by Jim and Guettarda as well as concerns about attitude towards anons (its much more ok to say those sorts of things in policy discussions than have them on the top of one's user page). JoshuaZ 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral not sure yet Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Swatjester is an excellent Wikipedian, but he/she just hasn't been here long enough. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I'm just not sure I'm seeing an administraitor out of this person at this point. --Pilot|guy 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral, though closer to oppose. I believe that SWATJester's work is generally good, but the concerns raised by Bunchofgrapes are legitimate. — TKD::Talk 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I share some of the concerns raised by the oppose voters, but not all of them, and not as strongly. Also, I'd hate to deny admin tools to someone who could make good use of them. Hence neutral. Petros471 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral I don't see enough evidence to either support or oppose, but I find the argument over the sig to be redicullous, there is no reason that anyone should use that as a reason to oppose (or support) --T-rex 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I agree, the sig argument is absurd, but the IRC repost seriously concerns me - not enough to oppose, but unfortunately enough that I can't support. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I can see SWATJester making a good admin in the future but I find the (now deleted) IRC repost page a concern. --blue520 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral - leaning towards support - excellent contributor, but I am inclined to think that a few months of meditation and introspection following this process will redound to SJ's benefit. BD2412 T 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral - not enough mainspace edits abakharev 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral - leaning towards oppose - looks not serious enough. Ukrained 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Swatjester's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• I believe this user subpage contains relevant information for this RfA. Redux 19:35, 21 April 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:

Note: Swatjester notified me that food arrived just after the nomination, please hold out a little bit for the blanks to be filled -- 06:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was delicious too!

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: Lets see. I plan on first getting involved in Admin training with a mentor, which may give me new ideas where to help out. I want to spread across multiple areas: AfD closings, WP:AIV monitoring (it can be crazy when that gets backlogged), Candidates for Speedy Deletion deletion/removal. As Tawker mentions in the nomination, vandal fighting, though as those who know me can attest, I like to get a second opinion before I take any major/bold action. That would hold double true with admin responsibilities. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be slightly off topic, but I recently had a conversation about policy with an admin, in which he remarked that a possible reason for our differing views on a topic was that he was viewing from the role of a sysop, and I was viewing from the role of a user relying on sysops. It struck me as very...correct. I think there IS a subtle difference in viewpoints, and while this isn't an actual admin "chore" I'd be interested in helping try to show users the other side of the coin. Like I said, slightly off topic, but something I would like to help out with.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: As noted above, I'm very pleased with RSTA. I'm especially pleased that Avriette and I, who have had a brief misunderstanding in the past, were able to come together and discuss ideas to better further the article. I'm also pleased with Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN. This one came to me as a CSD, and was completely copyvio and at first glance was unintelligible gibberish. At extensive length, I rewrote it in my own words, dug out some other sources, and sorted and swapped around the appropriate vessels, fleets, and time periods. The article was saved from deletion, and 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.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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. I'm currently involved in an arbitration counter-claim. I will say that interacting with the other parties in the case has given me a greater respect for all the editors (and I do mean ALL: every single one) involved in the case. In any case that I feel is stressful, or a conflict of any sort, my actions are to 1: review Wikipedia policy. Have I done anything wrong? If so, apologize, and learn not to do it again. 2: Have I done anything that's not wrong per se but has bothered another editor? If so, how can I fix it for the good of the project? 3: How do other editors that I hold a great deal of respect think about this, and how would they act in a similar case? 4: Make a decision. I feel that this plan has served me quite well in the past: It allows me to make bold edits, without making a huge fool out of myself (only a relatively minor fool, and he who can apologize for his mistakes and learn from them is no fool). Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that RC patrol occasionally brings users to my talk page saying "What'd you do!" or "I'm not a vandal!" or "I didn't mean to do that!". In such cases, I make every effort to work with the user in question to help them fix what they did wrong, or in some cases, fix what I did wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Are you willing conform your sig to the guidelines and remove the image?

A:Indeed. Image removed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

5. As an administrator, you will be expected to provide assistance to any user needing your help; however, many concerns have been raised about your hostility toward anonymous editors. Do you indeed have a tendency to ignore or inadequately respond to complaints and questions posted on your talk page by anons? Furthermore, would you be willing to move your anti-anon userbox from your talk page to your userpage?

A:I do not feel that I do. As I note on my Who am I page, I do think that anonymous editors make some great contributions to the encyclopedia, especially on some articles that I work on. I realized that the original message that I had up on my talk page, after the complaints and opposition above, was redundant, and possibly having a chilling effect on anons. As an administrator, it would be my responsibility to answer every question posed by an anon on my talk page, especially if it was in regards to one of my actions. As for the userbox: I already have the same userbox on my user page, so I'd just end up deleting it, if asked.

Let me add that I notice many of the editors above in the Oppose section, and a few in the Neutral section, are wary about possible hostility towards anons: I'd like to assure you that I have none. An anon is an anon. How can I be hostile about an anonymous address, without knowing who's behind it? I strongly believe that anons should take the time to register an account. I understand why some of them don't, though I disagree with the reasoning. I would like anyone who is "on the fence" so to speak, about my attitude towards anons, to consider this: Do you necessarily hold the same views about things and individuals now that you did 3 months ago? I know I certainly do not. If you will check the edit history of my "who am i" user subpage, where the majority of the anon-criticism I believe stems from, you will see that I have held greatly different thoughts about anons, editing, and policy when I first started on this project than I do now. I will freely admit: Some of the thoughts on the "who am I" page, or my userboxen, I no longer believe, or believe something different and should add new stuff in there. That's a dig against me, but it's one that I can easily correct. I just hope that any users who have questions about my beliefs and thoughts towards anons, editing philosophy, or anything else please ask me for clarification if they are "on the fence", so to speak. To any anonymous editors reading this, as well, if you've ever felt like you've been treated with hostility by me, I sincerely apologize. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.