Final 68/35/11. Closed as unsuccessful with no prevailing consensus to promote due to e.g. concerns over content experience and answers to questions. WilliamH (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister (talk·contribs) – It is my great pleasure to make my first RfA nomination, and I hope the community will see the same excellent qualities in this candidate as I do.
SwisterTwister is someone who I frequently run into on Wikipedia in admin-related areas. When I first started doing New Page Patrol, I immediately noticed SwisterTwister’s skill for it, and he was one of my earliest influences. Now as an administrator, when I check CAT:CSD I frequently see articles he’s tagged, and I can’t remember having to decline one yet. Given this, as well as the general tone of all our past interactions, I have nothing but high praise for his editing. His block log is completely clean as well. I’ve been looking forward to nominating him for a couple weeks now, and he seems to be completely ready for adminship. I believe other editors here will feel the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. SwisterTwistertalk 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I hope to work at CSD, AIV, RFPP, UAA, expired prods and possibly RFU.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my vandalism removal (as well as advertising) and new pages patrolling are my best contributions. I believe I have contributed significantly with these two areas.
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: Fortunately, I haven't had any serious conflicts and hopefully never will. I will generally let go of the stress especially if it is caused by vandals. I believe this would be useful with blocking vandals as an administrator.
ÞŘʸŪ̫̆̆əþʲʰēřɣēkʲþ (talk ·contribs) (user admits this is a made-up name that has no meaning but insists on keeping it, with all the hard to type letters)
A: Tokyo Sexwhale isn't a blatant violation but it's encouraged that the user choose a different username. If Sunna Bot is not an authorised bot, the username must be changed. Additionally, it is unlikely that "bot" would be a complete surname (perhaps Botsworth, Botsmanki, etc.). ManitoWebDesign would not be an appropriate username as it may be representing a company. ÞŘʸŪ̫̆̆əþʲʰēřɣēkʲþ would also be an inappropriate name as it would be perplexing to comprehend.
5. When is it acceptable for an article to be indefinitely semi-protected?
A: Articles will be indef protected if there is absolute certainty that there will always be vandalism (examples:Justin Bieber and Barack Obama). However, it is encouraged that articles are protected lower than indefinite (week, month, year, etc.).
I moved Zuhair mehdi to your userpage because it contains insignificant content for a Wikipedia article. If you are notable, your article will be started by third-party users soon. You should not restore the content at Zuhair mehdi, rather consider adding the info to the appropriate place: your user page.
However, instead of moving the page, you instead redirected it to his already-existing user page. Shortly afterwards it was tagged by a bot and a few hours later it was deleted by an admin—wiping out the content he'd created. And unsurprisingly, he hasn't been back since.
My questions:
Do you think that this was an appropriate action towards a newbie?
Do you think that this was an appropriate action in general?
In what ways do you believe that this message is superior to the standard template?
How does this differ from non-admins being able to delete articles at whim?
A: I would've have moved the content to his user page, but I thought he may've wanted to add the content himself if he wanted to change it. When I saw your message later that afternoon, I noticed the user had moved the content to his user space. As for the "appropriate action in general", I suppose I could've acted differently but I assumed that was the best action at the time. I find giving users a personal message is better as opposed to templates.
Just a note for those who don't have access to deleted revisions; the mainspace creation had nothing the user's own userpage didn't already have, and the userpage is currently blank because the user decided to blank it himself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this doesn't make sense, or at least not to me. Blade, I know the time was close; can you see when Swister redirected the mainspace page versus when the userspace page was added to (as Swister wrote above) and then blanked? The fact that the content was the same doesn't matter so much in the long run (although my recollection was that they differed), it's about whether Swister thinks non-admins using policy loopholes to delete files is okay. Swister, how did you think a brand-new user would get the content off a redirected page—sure, it's no issue for you and I, but a newbie? And I have to say, you may think that that welcome is "better," but it sounds flat-out rude to me. It's "go away," not "here's what you can do differently in the future." Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of clarity, I'm only trying to make sure everyone here is working off the same information, nothing more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. A newish user, welcomed in the conventional way and editing on a single topic of reality TV, has an article feature placed prominently on his User Page. It could look like this, [1] but may have fictitious rather than real details within it. What, if any, user page guidelines have been breached? What action would you take (a) if you came across it yourself, (b) it was drawn to your attention as an Admin., (c) if the editor had previously rejected advice that user page guidelines might have been broken.
A.Users would be encouraged to either remove or move the content if it causes the page to become excessively large. Additionally, it's common for users to start a separate page for content (example:User:New User/Big Brother 12 (UK). Additionally, it is also common for users to construct articles at their user pages which they plan to move to article space. However, it is encouraged that users move the content to a subpage to avoid confusion (articles featured through user pages).
You have done a lot of encouraging there but have failed to answer the question clearly. Would you review my question and consider whether more specific answers are possible. Remember you are acting as an Admin., and effective communication is essential. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Historically , a de-facto requirement for passing AfDs was substantial content work. The rationale generally was that an administrator should be familiar with content work as well as administrative tasks. You appear to have started five stub articles, and to have little work in article improvement. (a) Why is this? (b) Why should someone with limited content work be an administrator?
A:I have goals to start additional articles for the future, but I have occupied myself with other areas for now. (b) As mentioned below (oppose #3), I admit I'm not a large content builder compared to other users, but I believe I can contribute to areas that are equally important. An example is blocking persistent vandals.
9. Last month, you gave a relatively new user advice on how to move a page. The user then got into a move war that led to this 3RR report. In retrospect, was the advice you gave to the user the right advice? If not, what should you have suggested to the user?
A:'With other questions, I'll offer to move the page for them to avoid troubles (such as moving to incorrect page) but I believed the user could be constructive at the time. User talk:Lissbo is an example where I have offered to make the contribution for them. As for the last sentence, I believe it was the correct advice. However, I wish that I could've added "use the move option with care" if I had known an edit war was going to occur.
10. How and why is it important that the answers Administrators or experienced editors give to new editors is accurate and complete? As an administrator, is your role considered a position of trust and how can it harm the encyclopedia when your answers are not complete and taken out of context?
A:It is essential that users especially administrators give appropriate advice to ensure the user has zero or minimal troubles. An example is offering advice how not to get blocked or involved with edit wars.
11. Can you please expand on your answer to question 2? You say that some of your best contributions are at new page patrol, so could you identify some new articles that you have found there and improved, for example by adding content or references, or fixing grammar or formatting?
A:A recent one that comes to mind is ARU TV, I wikified the article with an infobox and removing unnecessary content. A large portion of my recent activity (NPP and non-NPP) is wikifying new Indian geography articles (infobox, proper sections, etc), an example of this is Kodanad.
12. This is complementary to Q4. Уладзіслаў Чаховіч is reported at WP:UAA. Please set out the policy behind your decision to accept or reject. Leaky Caldron 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: UAA is for blatant violations so I would reject. Additionally, I would reject if the user hadn't edited yet. Although the username would be challenging to type, it is not a blatant violation and could be the user's name.
Thanks. You have set out the decisions you would take. I actually asked you to present the policy underpinning your decision. As with the incomplete answer to Q7, you have not explained the policy. As an Admin. you will be asked to provide policy based justification for your decisions if they are contested. Simply presenting the correct technical answer is not what you have been asked here. I made it as simple as possible - "please set out the policy behind your decision....." Leaky Caldron 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Have you ever been involved with any talk page discussions about content disputes? If so, can you please provide examples? If not, why not?
A: Nothing serious aside from a dispute I was involved with 2 years ago (Talk:Tesco) about the amount of images featured at articles. I had good intentions at the time and I learned and understood how to contribute better. I believe my vandalism removal is one of those examples.
14. Do you agree with or disagree with the statement: "SwisterTwister has virtually no experience with article content disputes"? Why or why not?
A: I agree. The two disputes I've been asked to participate, I had no experience with the subjects.
What I am asking here is whether or not you think you have experience with article content disputes in general, not whether you had experience with the subject of the two dispute discussions in which you have participated, though perhaps inadvertently, I think you have in fact answered that question, correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc(talk) 02:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know why this RfA is not appearing on User:TParis/RfX Report? I just assumed the bot was down, but it did pick up a newer RfA while still not seeing this one. I might be able to figure it out in a minute though. ☮Soap☮ 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried sticking a ---- between the two current RfAs, which didn't seem to have any effect. Don't know what's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be because the RfA was transcluded with {{WP instead of {{Wikipedia. Maybe the bot only looks for the string {{Wikipedia. I guess we'll know in a minute since it seems to update every half hour. (It appears just fine on Amalthea's RfX bot, though, which means they must be coded differently). ☮Soap☮ 03:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one seeing 2 different questions number 9? Given that there are some opposes based upon the answer to Q9, I hope that some clarification comes before this ends. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it too, but I'm not goin to try fixing it from my iPhone. Hopefully someone can figure that out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently my bad.--v/r - TP 13:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, grand editor. ⇒TAP 22:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support SwisterTwister is an excellent editor, friendly, always willing to help, and never loses his cool. These are traits required in an administrator. →Bmusician 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me.Éricomsg 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Bmusician. Dusty777 02:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been working with Swister in CSD and recent change patrolling, I see nothing but an excellent editor --Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need friendly, judicious administrators working the CSD backlogs. I have no doubt that SwisterTwister is capable and will do well. Also, although I'm not acquainted with The Blade of Northern Lights, I've seen him around and have grown to highly trust his judgment. I doubt he'd nominate someone who wasn't ready for the toolset. Good luck! Master&Expert (Talk) 03:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very active new page patroller. Your administrator interests work perfectly with your experience. RyanVeseyReview me! 03:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to all the other outstanding work, I think it's a nice side note to point out that SwisterTwister is the number one user of WikiLove. :) Steven Walling • talk 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hush up, are you trying to kill this nomination or something!?! Carrite (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bmusician. Michael (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems knowledgeable and level headed. LK (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bmusician and Ryan Vesey. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SwisterTwister has a clean, civil and good record and I can blindly trust that he will not abuse the tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail
Support What, SwisterTwister isn't an admin? I'd always assumed otherwise; his excellent conduct and contributions led me to assume he'd been handed the mop years ago. This oversight should definitely be rectified. Yunshui雲水 07:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frickin' A'. If Blade hadn't nominated him I would've. Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking okay to me. Deb (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. The answers to the questions could stand to be a little longer, per Secret's comment below, but they don't cause me to doubt the candidate's qualifications and RfA is not a writing contest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not? A civil and helpful editor who has good understanding of policies. Looks pretty good to me. →TSUtp* 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - First time voting on RfA. Saw who was on the list and had to voice my support. Very familiar with his work, especially his welcoming of newer users and recognizing the contributions of others. Fully supportive of this nomination as he will be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia as an administrator.--Morning277 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've seen ST's CSD nominations many times while working on the CSD queue, and don't recall ever having seen a bad one. I also, while disagreeing occasionally, agree with the comment above that I'd generally trust the judgment of the other Blade around here. A spot check of ST's contributions doesn't reveal anything of concern. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good user, civil. Although more non-ad closures at WP:AFD would be better, I am happy to give my support. Good luck!--Chip123456 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified candidate. The matter discussed in DoriSmith's question concerns me, but seems to be an isolated incident—and one through which I hope the candidate will learn that retaining new content writers is unspeakably important. AGK[•] 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood user, appears overall to have a good edit record, and a good knowledge of the inner workings of WP. Seems to be a level headed individual with the proper amount of common sense.--JetijonezFire! 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good track.Feel the project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen SwisterTwister around on Wikipedia many times before. I have on occasion made faulty nominations for CSD. SwisterTwister deleted the nom and then explained why the choice was bad. I believe this communication will only continue in Admin. Good luck!Keystoneridin (speak) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've worked with SwisterTwister quite a bit. I have absolutely no negative thing to say. I have had nothing but positive experiences. Does have lack of conflict resolution, but uses common sense. Bgwhite (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great anti-vandal editor, and is a fellow instructor at the CVUA. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per excellent anti-vandalism work and significant efforts towards welcoming and resolving issues with newcomers. No concerns. --IShadowed 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support There were plenty of times where I'd be going through articles on new page patrol, only to find Swister beat me to it. Great anti-vandalism work. Ishdarian 03:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SwisterTwister appears well qualified to use the admin tools sensibly. More experience in creating content would be good, but there's nothing here which is raising red flags for me. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support there has been no major evidence presented that would indicate this candidate will abuse the tools or position.MONGO 13:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a qualified candidate with plenty of experience in admin-related areas. Answers to questions are a bit short, but that would be a poor reason to oppose. The candidate is regularly asked questions by new or inexperienced editors about issues arising from their new page patrol work, and these seem to be dealt with competently. (The statement below that "You will come to conflict with the article creators who is unclear why their article was deleted" ignores the fact that non-admin NP patrollers are asked these sort of questions all the time.) Certainly I don't see how requiring more content creation would make much difference. Hut 8.5 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A brilliant editor. Gavbadger (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support One of the nicest editors out there. I was surprised to find out ST was not an admin already. Bring it on. We need more like this one. Regards, --Manway 18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is nice to give a reason, unlike in the oppose section it is not strictly necessary.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't strictly necessary in either section, but recommended in both. Thanks, Dank. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the dramahz; after all, the point of voting is to get noticed. Per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good communication skills, plenty of evidence of helpful janitorial behaviour and no evidence of incivility, impulsivity or any other disqualifying -ivity. I don't regard the relative lack of content creation as critical; the WP community is a diverse one and different people occupy different parts of the eco-system. Content creators are the mighty mammals of the savannah, we admins are just the dung beetles who tidy up after them. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 17:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This editor appears to have a good understanding of admin-related activity. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Great Editor! Ian159 22:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, come on, nobody is born as adminsitrator, there are people out there who are not perfect, similar to our admins pre 2009 - I mean, the community is crying that we are getting bigger backlogs and less active adminstrators, but the community is also unwilling to promote new ones. We are all humans and having 'special' (in sense that everybody has her/his own interest) interests and do of course making errors. I saw that often that somebody is moving a page incorrectly or giving wrong advices, but hey, it's a wiki and the crowd is doing the right at the end. Nobody is perfect and at the end at a RfA it's counting if we troust in a user and I do in ST! mabdul 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't buy the idea that having more admins is the only solution to backlogs. Things have certainly changed at en:wp over the past three years: edits per month are 16% down, active wikipedians 17% down, but there are 43% more articles to watch and improve. There's less opportunity to create notable new articles and far more focus on improving existing content—which demands contributors who are comfortable finding and citing reliable sources. Those are very significant changes, but the way we work has remained largely unchanged and we still seem to be assuming an unlimited supply of article watchers and admins. Instead of lowering the standards for adminship, why not accept that as en:wp matures the requirement for admin effort should fall, and update our policies/processes to ensure that it actually does? - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we in general have enough admins to do the work for the key areas. But we must always keep recruiting more, because for most of us, the level of admin activity drops after a while, often as we do become interested in other parts of the project. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Helpful editor. SpencerT♦C 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very active on new pages project. This activity leads naturally to some interaction with unsatisfied contributors. If dramah was there to be found, it would have already been mentioned. While not everything the candidate has ever posted to a new user has been what I would have said, I can assume that differences were,at least, honest differences in opinion - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Over 17,700 edits to mainspace, clean block log, no evidence of assholery, seems to have use for the expanded toolbox. Pretty much an open-and-shut case, from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per Bmusician ,Theopolisme & LK. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would prefer that admins write more articles to understand the complexities that go into the building of the encyclopedia. But the admin shortage needs to be addressed and I think ST would do a good job helping those who want to write have more vandal-free/stress-free experiences. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 15:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – dedicated to doing the things that are needed to keep content growing in mass and quality. Davidiad (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Can be trusted with the tools and there is no real reason not to give them to him. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Cheers, Riley HuntleytalkNo talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I've been seeing SwisterTwister everywhere lately; it seems like it's impossible to go a day without seeing that name come up, and it's always in a positive light. While they may not have a lot of new articles under their belt, they have certainly made a great contribution though gnome-ish activities and have proven themself to be a great asset to the encyclopedia. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support To be honest, I agonized about whether to add support, to oppose or to be neutral about this RfA. So, lets get on with it. SwTw is accomplished New page patroller, so support. SwTw has a good number of edits. So, support. Bad answers to questions 7, 8, 10 and 11 indicate lack of technical knowledge, so oppose. SwTw claims to have had very little conflicts: see especially SwTw's answer to questions 13 and 14, so I am neutral. As for the matter of content-building, here's my opinion. OK, so SwTw isn't so great at writing RfA question responses? Facta non verba. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the balance, I believe the candidate needs to strengthen several areas of competency, though I am also of the opinion that one not need to be accomplished in every area of the project in order to become an Admin. The project needs admins if for no other reason than it dilutes the workload and unless there's a overwhelmingly compelling reason to deny an editor the Admin toolkit, they should be approved. As feedback to the candidate, I'd like to see more robust answers to a editor query or advice on taking corrective action than simply the quoting of a WP guideline or help page. Good faith editors respond better to an admin who gives counsel rather than simply scolds or simply point to a help page. Will that take admins more time, yes... but that's the better way to run the Wiki. Vertium (talk to me) 18:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Friendly supportive editor. And we could use more admins BO | Talk 03:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've come across this editor's work quite a bit, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being the first Oppose, but I'm sadly unimpressed with the answers given to questions 2 and 3. I feel that someone having some knowledge in article work is a must for every RFA candidate with a few exceptions, which I don't see one here. Article work (along with some AFD knowledge helps your skills with the proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be aware of how Wikipedia works as a whole. It can help show the difference between a sneaky vandal edit and a non vandalism newbie edit, or if the subject of a csd A7 (notability) tag technically meets the criteria to speedy delete or not. Question 3 shows your dispute resolution skills and the answer "I haven't had conflicts and hopefully never will" won't work as an administrator. Conflict is much of a given as a administrator of Wikipedia even if you only focus on CSDs, and vandal work. You will come to conflict with the article creators who is unclear why their article was deleted and be very persistent to find out, You will have administrators questioning some of your speedy deletions or borderline blocks, and so forth. You do some amazing work in CSD but I can't support based on those answers. Sorry :( Secretaccount 05:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was answering #3, I was referring to extremely serious cases of conflict such as edit warring. There are always going to be cases of users asking why their article was deleted. I actually get them as a non-admin for tagging the article. As your AfD comment, I have also had a successful history with AfD as shown here. Thanks for your comment though, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 08:01, 26 June 2012
Nearly all those AFDs which I clicked on were clear cut notability delete cases that the same no google/yahoo hits rationale seemed like it copy and pasted. I rather see more thought put in them. I supported vandal fighters before (most were pre-2007 though, but I supported a few since), but standards has changed since then. The community, myself included wants to see a vandal fighter that can set themselves apart from the rest of them. There's probably hundreds of them that focuses on vandal fighting that is active right now, but they are almost all identical in their edit patterns, and it's hard for the community to evaluate them. I'm not saying you are among them, as you have more experience and more unlikely to drive away new editors, but usually that isn't enough. It doesn't have to be only article writing, as many of us wouldn't support candidates that has some article writing, but it's stubs or updating their high schools pages, or writing messy pages on pop songs and an inexperienced editor reviews it for GA and passes it despite having massive flaws. It's simple stuff like participation of tracking banned users, positive talk page/noticeboard interaction that isn't just warnings or barnstars, decent AFD participation that shows some policy knowledge, updating articles, and hell even reverting non-vandalism changes and mentioning the policy/guideline that the edit violated like reliable sources. All these things might sound extremely minor, but it shows more about your knowledge of the project. A couple of the oppose comments below is absurd, but most of them is right on. Knowing from experience the community is willing to support editors who are primarily vandal fighters because we all know that as long as Wikipedia has an everyone can edit policy there will always be vandalism and garbage to clean up, and these type of editors are almost always the ones who leave the project the quickest as they lose interest in it. But there would always be new vandal fighters who will take their place, and as policies as semi-protection and BLPs gotten more advanced, there is a decreased need as well, unlike back in 2005/2006 when BLP was a mess and the only protection was full protection. My oppose vote was partly a wait and see, and it was mainly with how you answered the questions, and a quick glance of your edits, and I felt that a you needed a bit more experience with fully comprehending all the major policies. Vandal fighters are usually the most responsible to driving away new contributors, and a better knowledge of polices can help in cases like AIV and CSD on which is clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, or those testing the waters of this project and more guidance is helpful for what they did wrong (not just a welcome neither as they tend to get lost in the terminology.I hope this helps, (and I should write an essay on this for all vandal fighters as well) and good luck in the future. Secretaccount 02:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much focus on the candidate's own user and user-talk pages, and too few contributions to articles or discussions on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 21:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw just over 50% to articles, that seems enough. Although I concur to the Wikipedia Talk article talk etc.--Chip123456 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50% would be enough if they were substantive edits. The candidate doesn't seem to have any experience with developing articles. Instead the candidate has spent far more time writing a welcome to his user page and chatting on talk page than on developing articles or discussing topics relevant to improving the encyclopedia. Please review the top edited articles, which seem to have at most a handful of edits, which are listed on the talk page of this page.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No significant content-building experience, no evidence of having dealt with conflict resolution, therefore no way of knowing what kind of administrator this candidate would make. MalleusFatuorum 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm not a large content builder compared to other users, but I feel I could contribute to other areas that are equally as important. SwisterTwistertalk 18:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Equally important"? Perhaps not unimportant given the unwillingness to do anything sensible about vandalism here, but equally important? My view of those who've never been involved in any conflict is that they're never tried to do anything significant here, just sitting on what they hope is a fast track to adminship by not upsetting anyone. MalleusFatuorum 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, have to agree with MF and Secret here. Anyone who has experience writing articles has been in conflicts and anyone who wants to be an admin, and be able to close discussions, delete pages etc, should have this experience. - filelakeshoe 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Just curious: there are not heavily watched pages out there like small bands, geographical unimportant companies (for most), not popular (but notable or old) software or neologism, (etc.) nobody is watching them and if you get them to GA/DYK this is getting likely unnoticed from the cabale/folks who are working there... Just for the case ST is working in such an area: Xe hasn't to get in any conflicts, moreover every person is defining 'conflicts' a bit different: some are cool headed and drop the stick or on the correct side of arguments and know how to get some "powerful" person behind them. Just to be clear: you can expand/create pages for ages without getting any notice. mabdul 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. People who recognize my username usually think of me as either an NPPer, an admin, or the guy at the head of ACTRIAL, not the guy who singlehandedly expanded Zoya Phan, created Inau and Noh Poe, and uploaded a bunch of images of Imekanu and Yukie Chiri. That's the nature of working in little-watched and/or arcane areas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q9. The candidate doesn't get why they err'd. In the future, I would expect that when approaching an article the candidate has no prior experience with, that they will follow and advise others to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Page_move#Before_moving_a_page. The candidate obviously had no background knowledge of the subject of the article and shouldn't have moved the page on the whim of a new editor. A discussion should've taken place.--v/r - TP 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. Indeed, as Malleus says, little content work (suggesting that nominee may not be able to judge what goes into content creation and how important it is) or conflict resolution (which is a large part of adminship). I am not so much bothered by Q6, though mistakes were clearly made there--but the half-correct answer at Q7 (they still have time to correct themselves) and the half-assed answer (sorry) at Q9, which sounds a lot like "content isn't that important) are quite damning. I don't think we need more people with fingers on buttons: we need more seasoned, experienced people with fingers on buttons. BTW, I think I've had some interactions with this editor and I think they were all good: I have no complaint about them as an editor. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor, vague answer to question 6. Also lacking content contribution. Axl¤[Talk] 21:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lack of content work, lack of talk page discussion/content disputes, too few edits to their top pages, averaging less than 2 edits per page means user has likely never stuck around a page long enough to make any significant lasting impact, i.e. candidate lacks experience developing articles, a sticking point for this particular nom. Also poor answers to questions 2,3, 6, 7 and 9. ~ GabeMc(talk) 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are too few edits to my top pages because I now use "show preview" instead of repeatedly clicking "save page". SwisterTwistertalk 21:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Badgering of opposes will not improve this RfA's chance for success. ~ GabeMc(talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying an issue an opposer raises doesn't seem like badgering to me; if he did nothing, someone would accuse him of being unresponsive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Blade says. SwisterTwister's clarification is perfectly legitimate. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the candidate's almost non-existent article talk page edit history of 258 total edits, just 0.76% of their total, tells me that they have not engaged in substantive article talk page discussions, and therefore lack the knowledge needed to deal with the types of content dispute issues copyeditors deal with daily. ~ GabeMc(talk) 08:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Candidate has failed to fully answer Q7 despite ample opportunity to do so, having edited this page a number of times since the clarification was requested. Lack of attention. Answers to some other questions are too high level and then there are the major concerns about their experience in content development. On the face of it, based on the editor's contribution distribution data, this was a premature nomination. Leaky Caldron 09:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Concerned with issues raised by Drmies. Also, unsatisfactory response to Q6. -Cntras (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Insufficient involvement in content development. Answers above don't communicate sufficient understanding of policy. - Pointillist (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily because of poor quality work in the area considered the major strength: NPP. Examples, all of them from today, June 27:
First, some which i consider failures to recognize major problems, not just errors in judgment (1) MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon. Effort spent in wikifying, and tagged for needing third party sources, but not recognized as a copyvio of the subjects web page, Contributed by User:BurbankTVm which is context violates username policy. This was a recreation after it had been properly deleted as copyvio a week earlier. (2) Master of Advanced Studies in Interaction Design (MAIND), SUPSI marked for wikifying. Mostly a copyvio of their web page [2];the rest looks like copyvio also. And almost certainly non-notable. (3)Tales from the Pandoran Age tagged as unsourced, but a quick check would have found it not even in worldcat--& the Amazon p shows it's self published. Needs prodding as there's no speedy for books.
Second, some of what to me seem clear errors of judgment: (1) Masahiro Kimura, tagged for additional sources and wikifying. I would have prodded or at least tagged as inadequate notability. (2) Aquinas Old Collegians Football Club tagged simultaneously for unreferenced and for relying on non-independent sources. To me, it's a clear A7. (3) Motech Records, added a category, but didn't tag for notability, or for having no third party sources. I could find many more such, but I've limited myself to the most recent 24 hours--a time when the candidate must know they are under close observation.
I have additional concerns also: it is impossible to relate adequate to people coming here to write without some writing experience of one's own; it is impossible to judge articles either, and I think the above examples show it. I do not generally oppose candidate with minimal writing experience when they propose doing technical admin work, but this candidate proposes activities involving interaction. The difficulty in communication are also indicated to me by the minimal answers. One shows one knows policy by being able to explain it, and being able to apply it, and I see neither. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I always respected your views, DGG. Perhaps I've been nervous with my RfA nomination lately. I'll set aside new pages patrolling for now, I suppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
Just quickly on (2), no way should Aquinas Old Collegians Football Club have been A7'd. Playing in a notable sports league, in this case the VAFA, is an obvious claim of importance, especially considering that several other clubs in that league have articles. Good call by the candidate. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you may be right. This is why speedy deletion normally takes two people (an admin can do it by themselves, but few of us do as a matter of routine, only when its blindingly obvious) DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very brief and somewhat vague answers to questions, which is concerning for someone applying to a position where communication is meant to be key. That in combination with the lack of solid content contributions or evidence of strong dispute-resolution skills leads me to oppose. Adminship is more than button-mashing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first ever RFA !vote, so I feel bad that I will oppose. I have seen his contributions to WP:TFA/R and I believe that all or almost all have been: "Support - Interesting and sourced." Although this often is the case for the article and it is typical to be concise at TFA/R, his lack of explanations or clarity are also reflected in his answers to the above questions, particularly 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 14. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How am I being vague with questions #4 and #12? SwisterTwistertalk 02:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many of the candidate's answers above are superficial, and some suggest a disquietingly cursory level of attention toward the issues involved. To pick an example that I don't think anyone else has commented on yet, in their response to Q4, they dismiss the possibility that "Bot" could be a legitimate surname, even though the relevant DAB page shows that it is one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The answers to the questions posed above show only a sketchy knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures. You haven't demonstrated the depth of knowledge required to make accurate decisions on deletions or detection of copyright violations. There's tons of user page edits, but almost all of them are templates, so there's no way to assess how you would communicate with problematic users. Contributions show no substantial in-depth edits to articles. Article talk page edits are again virtually all templates, so there's no evidence of you cooperating with others in article development, so it's impossible to assess your communication skills at this time. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This candidate has clearly made a positive impact on a number of respected users and Admins. If that had not been the case this RFA would have been closed or withdrawn by now. They have specialised in narrow, but nonetheless important areas, that may benefit from further Admin support and which the candidate would undoubtedly be able to provide at a reasonable level with further experience. However, Admin. responsibilities encompass the entire range of accountabilities and selected candidates must, in my opinion, demonstrate their competence across as wide a range as possible. That must, by the very nature of an encyclopaedia, include content work to a sufficient level to appreciate the issues arising in that field. That necessarily includes handling disputes where they have demonstrated thorough knowledge of WP:5P. This candidate shows almost no experience and no evidence of a willingness to participate in such work. Their parsimonious responses to legitimate questions here is especially troublesome. The candidate has still failed to fully answer Q7 despite ample opportunity to do so. As identified by many others, answers to some other questions are too high level. On the face of it, based on the editor's contribution distribution data, this was a premature nomination. This is reinforced by their performance in the RFA to date. It is surprising that this candidate is still within the discretion range and if successful will establish a new benchmark in mediocrity for our important functionary role. While this reduction in standards may satisfy those who insist that RFA is broken and that more Admins must be enlisted Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012, it is impossible for me to support this RFA without significant improvements in those areas currently lacking. Leaky Caldron 10:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should have included that, while a minor change to Q3, this [3] is still covered by WP:REDACT. It does change the answer and it is simple to use appropriate mark up to highlight changes. A small point, but one I would expect an Admin in waiting to be aware of. Leaky Caldron 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too inexperienced. For example, I go looking for something that isn't purely reactive. There doesn't seem to be much so this small edit catches my eye. This was constructive but what he doesn't do here is link to the relevant article, Porky Chedwick. That's quite basic content editing and so it seems the candidate has much to learn. Warden (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, largely due to 1) lack of significant content development, and 2) DGG's in-depth analysis of the recent weaknesses shown at NPP, which the candidate identified as an area of 'best contributions,' and 3) answers to questions 4, 7 and 12 which should have focused on policy but didn't. Admins need to have support of content development as their overriding goal, and so need to understand the challenges editors have in working with others and working within Wikipedia policy. Admins need to know policy very well, and to be excellent, pro-active and even-handed communicators. I think Swister is a good guy and a net benefit to the project but at this time his edit history hasn't shown what I'm looking for in an Admin. Zad68 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I see a lot of positive contributions, but I think another six months getting broader experience, particularly on the content side, would be advisable. The answers to the questions could have been better, so perhaps some more experience in the areas where admin tools are likely to be used to become more familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines would also be good. --Michig (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now due to DGG's analysis, with not in depth enough answers to questions to overcome said concern. Don't get dishearten if this RFA is not successful and keep up the good work. I hope you will take on board concerns raised whether you are sucessful or not. KTC (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, I must oppose because of a dearth of experience in content development and interaction with other contributors. SwisterTwister's contributions are valuable, but tagging pages, cleaning them up, and providing canned user-space comments alone are not going to give the experience necessary for adminship. This is borne out in his/her answers to the questions above that don't demonstrate a depth of understanding or appreciation of policy that are necessary IMO. Answers to the questions of DoriSmith and Salvio giuliano in particular trouble me. Like others have said, however, don't lose heart! If you really want it, I think you have the bones of a good admin in you. You just need more content development experience (and experience of user interaction will come with that, I can tell you!). If you really want to become and admin, turn you attention to that and come back in 12 months. You'll be a different person :-) --RA (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I'm prepared to support in the future, but not now. I've expressed a lot of my concerns in my earlier neutral comment and the epic discussion that followed it. I also think that the answer to question 8 is pure platitude. I've looked at several of the candidate's recent edits, and I see nothing really bad, but a lot of sort of easy superficial edits, consistent with what a lot of other editors have pointed out during this RfA. In the past, I've seen users rise to positions of trust on the basis of a lot of friendly messages, only to end up betraying that trust. On the other hand, I'm satisfied that the candidate is a kind person who cares about the project. I sincerely hope that you do not get discouraged by this process, because you have a lot of good to offer. I don't think you need to do a major article creation or expansion, or an FA/GA. Just take a few months and show that you can take part in discussions with other editors about a content disagreement, and show that you have clue about it, and that will be good enough for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per weak answers to Q1-3 and per DGG. Would reassess if the answers were revised. --John (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't expect admin candidates to have extensive experience with content creation — mainly, because it would be hypocritical of me to do so —, however I expect they have first-hand experience of what it means to deal with content disputes and with persistent or disruptive editors, because, even if you do not expect to get involved in dispute resolution, trust me, controversies will find you: people will come to your talk page asking for your help. You have never been involved in any dispute and that is problematic. On top of that, your answers to the various questions are really suboptimal. In short, I do think you may make a good admin, but that you're not ready yet. Take your time, get involved with content creation, try to be help at one of the various noticeboards (RSN, NPOVN etc., not AN or ANI) and do come back in a year. SalvioLet's talk about it! 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Firstly, I want to say I've seen SwisterTwister doing a lot of good stuff around here. I see a lot of welcoming people and giving them nice messages, which is all good, but what I'm not seeing is much in the way of the two things that I think are important - content work and dispute interaction. SwisterTwister has been doing some good gnomework on NPP, but, though I'm not looking for GAs or anything, I'd really like to see more content work. Considering dispute/interaction, reading over the answers to the questions, I get the feel they're from reading and knowing the policies, not from experience of being involved in those policies, and I really can't tell how SwisterTwister would actually handle difficult interactions, stress, etc. There isn't the depth of understanding that comes from experience, and I think experience is the only way to grok how people feel about their content, understand why disputes can get heated, and learn how to deal with them. With greater experience in these two areas, I can easily see myself supporting a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – User has created only eight articles, all are stubs with only one is above 100 words. Not even a single fully sourced article. I don't expect FA, but an admin must have appreciable content-building experience — this is an encyclopaedia after all. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – inadequate content work. I look for a potential admin to have created at least one, substantial, fully sourced article. The stubs the candidate has created are virtually unsourced and so show no evidence of understanding how an article should be sourced. Admins get involved in disputes affecting content editors so need to have sufficient background in this area to demonstrate that they understand the issues and the nature of the work. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I gave SwisterTwister a second chance to identify some of his best work above, since the answer to question 2 was clearly much too general to be of any use in judging his credentials, but one of the two articles identified as examples remains completely unreferenced, despite many reliable sources being readily available from standard searches. This gives the impression of an editor who is more interested in telling others what they are doing wrong than actually fixing what is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not yet. I've seen SwisterTwister's welcome templates all over the place and I am glad to see that he's so involved with welcoming newcomers. But I'm steadfast in believing that substantial content work should be a prerequisite to adminship. While I don't fear that this nominee would abuse the tools, I'm unclear if SwisterTwister has a full understanding of the when and how to use them judiciously as he hasn't added enough content. Like Crisco mentioned, I'd consider reversing myself if there were some dyk contributions. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a lot of really dirty work as an admin, and my experience creating content hasn't helped me a bit; the process of writing this didn't give me any pointers for how to handle AE, nor did creating this help me learn how to handle AN3 reports. I'm not all that much for content, but I think I turned out pretty well, why wouldn't he? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors should not be adding unsourced content to articles never mind creating entirely unsourced stubs. The limited content work (and at the end of the day content is what we are about) indicates a lack of understanding of this. Further, the candidate could be closing AfD where the sourcing is at issue and lacks the experience to make the necessary judgement. TerriersFan (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The candidate is enthusiastic, friendly, and I have enjoyed the best level of interaction with him, even though I have had to pull him up several times on his NPP work. And there's the rub - NPP and deletions are the area where I work most and where I patrol the patrollers. With the greatest respect for the nominator who shares my concerns for the state of NPP as a process, I find DGG and Boing sum it up well - I have the same concerns and there's no need for me to repeat the same diffs. His answers to the questions seem to have too little depth and reflection and where disputes would be concerned - because all admins get involved in disputes as part of the job - this gives me pause. More content work, less superficial talk page interaction (one can go OTT on barnstars, welcomes, and WikiLove) and a longer period of solid, unproblematic NPP, CSD, and AfD, and more demonstration of knowledge of policy, and I'd really be happy to support a re-run in about 6 months. In the meantime, if he needs help on anything, he knows he can always call on me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great contributor to Wikipedia but concerns over answer to question 2 and raised by other editors are enough to hold on adminship. --MOLEY (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm not insisting that admins have FAs or GAs - that would be hypocritical of me. But I do think that admins need to have demonstrated that they know how to add material referenced to a reliable source. Especially if they are tagging articles as unsourced or even prodding them for deletion as unsourced. Otherwise we could wind up with an admin who'd delete unsourced articles on notable topics without even a cursory attempt to source them - we allow this on BLPs but BLPprod is an exception. I'm not seeing any use of reliable sources in the nomination statement or questions, and whilst I haven't checked all of the candidate's contributions, I have looked at the articles they've listed at User:SwisterTwister#Content_I've_added. All but one of the articles there are either unsourced or only have a primary source. What sort of example does that send to people whose articles you tag as unsourced? I'd be very happy to reconsider if you furnish examples that I didn't spot, or if you come back later this year. Weak because we need admins and you are frustratingly close to being suitable and ready. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Communication skills need developing, per weak answers to some questions (answer 8 is a mere tautology, which tells us nothing), and some more experience with content creation would be good. But the real deal-breaker is lack of experience with conflicts. SwisterTwister is obviously a fine user in several ways, but answers 3 and 13 both suggest that s/he's quite pleased to have virtually no experience of conflict, and plans to try to keep it that way as an admin. Admins have to be prepared to get their hands dirty. I'm especially concerned about answer 13. IMO admins need some practice with, if not actual substantial content creation, then certainly talkpage discussions about content disputes, before they're ready to wield the mop, and before we can judge how well they'd function in an admin capacity. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I've had mixed feelings about this one since it started, because I believe that we're desperately low on admins. However, I have to come in against promoting SwisterTwister because, imo, he just doesn't appear to be particularly interested in adminship. I base this on his few to no edits at UAA, AN, ANI, and AIV (two of which he listed as places where he'd like work). Additionally, while he has a ton of edits in UT space, there's only a handful he's edited more than twice. The avoidance of conflict, as previously noted, makes it impossible to know what he would be like as an admin. He says he wants to work at CSD, but as he doesn't keep a CSD Log, there's no way of knowing what we could expect from him there. His answers to the questions are truly sad; he never fully answered my question (#6), and the answer to #8 is just plain worthless. When asked at #14 about his lack of experience with content disputes, his answer showed he doesn't even know what content disputes are. (I guess with all these negatives, it's really telling that I'm still torn—that's how badly I think we need admins). SwisterTwister, I know plenty of people have said to come back in 6-12 months; imo, you should consider re-running when 3-5% or so of your edits are to article talk space. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral for now, but prepared to change. It just happened the other day that I ran across a new account, here, that had made two edits that were unambiguously vandalism. I found that the candidate had put one of those cheery welcome to Wikipedia templates on that user page, obviously without having taken a critical look at those two edits. That kind of inattention seems consistent with the concerns I'm seeing in the oppose section. On the other hand, I don't want to play gotcha if this was just a one-off, so I'm placing this here, and waiting to see what develops. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second vandalism is irrelevant as it occurred after Swister added the Welcome, so he couldn't have known about it. The first vandalism occurred one minute before the Welcome. Seems kind of weak, even for a neutral, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not opposing over it. You seem to be making the case that giving a welcome within one minute of a blatant vandalism, as opposed to the rather mild v-1 user warning, is perfectly reasonable. If it were something that just happened once, I'd be inclined to agree, as the kind of mistake anyone can make. I expect administrators to be careful, not to template first and ask questions later, even if it's a friendly template, because next time, it might be a block. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not opposing, but you're basing your neutral on it. So, let's get even more nit-picky. I changed my Preferences to get more precise numbers. Swister's Welcome occurred 25 seconds after the vandalism. With that short space of time, it probably amounts to not much more than an edit conflict. For all you know, Swister looked at the contribution history before welcoming, saw none, and then set up the welcome. Doesn't look to me like it was done with an automated tool like Twinkle, which means it takes a bit longer to do. And you said that if it happened only once, it would be okay - how do you know it happened more than once? In any event, I don't know about you, but I often make mistakes more than once. Finally, the block analogy is unfair. Any admin is going to pay far more attention before blocking than before welcoming. I'm done now.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Any admin is going to pay far more attention before blocking than before welcoming." Really? That doesn't entirely chime with my own experience. MalleusFatuorum 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, of course not. But I agree with Bbb, though perhaps he should have said "any admin I know" or "any admin who is superbly handsome and speaks Dutch fluently". Drmies (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I began by saying that I'm prepared to change to either support or oppose, depending on what follows, but what has followed isn't helping me very much, except that my gut is telling me to agree with Malleus (which, in turn, may well upset Malleus' gut...). I'd much rather see evidence that, most of the time, the candidate is more careful about not making mistakes, instead of Bbb23 seeming to play word games with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're both on the same team, no need to bicker--Bbb, consider not repeating the word "weak". These templated warnings and welcomes, well, they're templates. The level-1 is weak, the welcome mat is generic but could be seen as an invitation to read up on guidelines and avoid vandalism, though somewhat weakly of course. But Tryptofish, I don't think admins should be required to come up with personalized thingies for everything. After all, not only do admins have to meet certain quota (at least ten blocks per day), but a lot of vandalism is simply stupid shit that will not be prevented by nice, personalized messages. Now, let's get back to the nominee, shall we?--on with the show. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. You may need to look at the talk page edit history, because all one sees there now is the v-1 that I put there after reverting the welcome. I'm not asking for personalized thingies. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bbb23's point was that there is no way the candidate saw the first vandalism because it only occurred 25 seconds before their welcome. If the candidate did review their contributions, the time it takes to click back to their talk page and submit the template would exceed 25 seconds. So Bbb23 is saying you are basing your rationale on conditions outside the control of the candidate.--v/r - TP 20:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that shooting out welcome templates in a matter of seconds is less helpful for being a good admin than is taking a look at what the edits are, and reverting them when necessary. It's well within anyone's control to look at edits. If one thinks of welcoming as a video game to do as fast as possible, that's not what I'm looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you are fully conceptualizing this. SwisterTwister could've spent 6 hours researching the user, we can't know that. What we do know, is that at whatever point that SwisterTwister decided to give a welcome, the user vandalized an article that was so close in proximity to SwisterTwister's welcome that it would've been impossible to have seen it. That is not to say that SwisterTwister didn't spend a good amount of time checking the other contributions before this happened.--v/r - TP 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me more credit than that. There were no earlier contributions by that user. Just creation of an account, then the two edits that I've diffed above, and both of those edits were obvious vandalism to anyone who bothered to look. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, you asked, how do you know it happened more than once? Well, here's a few more examples just from my own interaction history: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I don't think ST has bad intentions, but he certainly seems sloppy (imo). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment as I feel I've made things worse rather than better. I thought Tryptofish was being a bit harsh, and I responded to what I perceived as unfairness. To the extent I pushed him in the "wrong" direction, that would be a shame as he apparently disagrees with me, so he shouldn't allow my comments to influence him. Dori's diffs are different, and it's harder to follow the history of them beause of their nature, some a function of someone recognizing that the username chosen is a violation of policy (not sure I would have noticed). Anyway, there really are far worse things than quick welcomes of new users that give them the policies and guidelines, etc., at Wikipedia. I don't agree with everything Drmies said (god knows the handsome part is completely off the wall), but I do agree we should get back to the nomination, and for my part in this extended detour, I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that. I do appreciate it, and I understand what you are saying. Please understand, everyone, that I'm still open to being convinced to change to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am concerned about the level of content creation and some of the issues pointed out by the opposes, but remain on the fence overall. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support but still neutral. Agree with the oppose !voters above that content creation experience should be a prerequisite for the mop, but the sheer number of anti-vandal work this editor has done kinda quenches that. Should the editor show that s/he is capable of good content creation (perhaps with a DYK), I'd !vote support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing alarming in SwisterTwister's contributions, but on the other hand I see nothing especially positive. I see lots of welcome templates on user pages, and a standard delete comment on AfDs - "Looked for sources, found none", but I see little else. The account has really only been active just over a year, and hasn't shown the understanding of policy and procedures we expect of admins. The contributions SwisterTwister has made have not been in areas where one is able to make an assessment of their character, ability or judgement. It is possible that SwisterTwister would make a good admin, but as we have so little on which to make that assessment at the moment I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting. I'd rather see SwisterTwister working in dispute resolution for a while, and see some evidence of collaborative work and prolonged discussions with other users. SilkTork✔Tea time 15:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Not getting the warm fuzzy enough to support, but not finding a reason to oppose either. Answers to the questions are very brief and non-specific, which doesn't make me feel great about their communication skills. And, I'm usually not concerned with a lack of content creation, but I think there needs to be a bare minimum; more than just stubs. If this RfA fails, go create a few substantive articles (maybe get one to GA), and on your next RfA, be more forthcoming in the answers to your questions. The questions are intended to give us an idea of who you are and how you operate. Single-sentence answers don't give us much information, and without sufficient information, people tend to default to the oppose column. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support: I have no reason to distrust SwisterTwister with the tools, and my observations of their behavior at NPP have overall been positive. However, I can't quite see supporting; I don't feel that SwisterTwister has quite enough variety of experience to use the tools in other areas when necessary (and yes, I recognize just how much more experience ST has than I do). If Jc37's "moderator" proposal goes through, SwisterTwister is the kind of editor I'd reccommend apply for that level instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outright Neutral It's my rule that ask first before lean to an answer for some extent. TruPepitoM (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As exciting a placeholder as this may be, neutrality for this reason doesn't have to be announced. You can just ask a question, and then put yourself in a camp. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now camping to "Nothingland" since I may not question him due to personal time problems. TruPepitoM (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On purely objective terms, I would have opposed (short duration and activity gaps, lacks content, not enough persuasive meat on the answers). I'm down here instead because despite those issues, I cannot see Swister doing any worse than the sample of admin behaviour that is his nominator's badger at Opp #30. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To each their own... I'm just being honest. I'm not trying to badger anyone, but I figured this was worth a short reply. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this RfA and SwisterTwister the whole time, and I am still neutral as all get-out. I really do like to see some content creation from admins. I don't need 10 FAs, but I prefer that candidates have at least some audited content, just because of the nature of the tools. However, SwisterTwister has done some good gnome/maintenance-type work, and I don't think he'd be out of his depth in doing routine anti-vandal or CSD work. My concern lies with his ability to close AFDs and handle disputes - I think he needs more experience creating content to be ready for that part of adminship. So I'm on the fence and will happily jump off on the "support" side in a few months when I see his name on the main RfA page again. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sympathetic Neutral SwisterTwister is very good at what he does, and all my interactions with him have been positive. I understand the desire for more experience in mainspace/article building. He has no reason to be discouraged by this vote. --Jprg1966(talk) 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This user has good and bad traits. Unfortunately, the good and bad weigh the same.—cyberpowerChatOnline 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no doubt that SwisterTwister has good faith intentions for the development of the project and wants to improve the encyclopedia. But after seeing the answers to all the questions, viewing and evaluating on various concerns and issues raised in both the support and oppose sections, and looking over many contributions, it leaves me with only one choice which is Neutral. Best of luck for the future SwisterTwister! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.