Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

SWD316[edit]

Final (24/23/3) ended 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

SWD316 (talk · contribs) – I do not know SWD316 well enough; however, I decided to renominate him for adminship based on the recent revelation that sock puppetry was involved in opposing him in the last RfA, leading to likely prejudice against him even among other voters. (See WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details.) I am bringing this RfA to hopefully restore some procedural justice to SWD316. Nlu (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and may I just say I dont care if I am accepted or not but I just like the fact I got another chance. SWD316 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Permanent strong support - Trustable, and if sockpuppetry is used in his RfA, and he's denied, I'll support him on his next RfA. Sceptre (Talk) 12:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - I trust you to be a responsible admin. The Fox Man Of Fire 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - he deserves it. FireFox 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support yes I agree, would be great admin.Gator (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support absolutely and the info about McFly appears to be correct [1]--MONGO 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. KHM03 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In spite of annoying pastel box and tons of pointless user boxes on user page, this use deserves my support. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support as before - brill user! --Celestianpower háblame 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Admin material; chances should not be ruined thanks to sockpuppetry. - Wezzo 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, (s)he deserves it. He should control his temper a bit more at times, though. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I supported the first one, still do. Some of you may have noticed that I have consistently opposed RfA re-nomination unless 2-3 months have passed, but I feel like in this case the first one was not given a fair shot --rogerd 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support. the wub "?!" 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything Bishonen said below. the wub "?!" 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support.He does deserve it.--Dakota t e 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. King of All the Franks 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yet again.--Sean|Black 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Another bipolar admin? I guess since I'm gone, somebody has to take my place! -- Essjay · Talk 04:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Need I say why? Same reasons as last time. Banes 07:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. «LordViD» 07:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sure, he deserves it. — Wackymacs 10:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC) changed to Oppose[reply]
  19. Support, trying to counterbalance somewhat the opposition over SWD316's "I quit" tirade. It is a tirade, but all it shows about SWD316 is that he's human. McFly's unscrupulous sockpuppet attack on SWD316's RFA:2 is about the worst I've seen on this page, and I'm sorry SWD didn't get more support from the community, including myself. :-( Bishonen | talk 16:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Jcw69 18:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Still a strong Support -- Francs2000 04:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Need more admins. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 01:08
  24. Support. El_C 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Woah, your nomination was withdrawn yesterday. Dont you think that just one day is enough time between adminship requests? Oppose also per censoring McFly's user page regardless of him being a vandal/troll/sock whatever he's called. Jobe6 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still you can always decline. No harm in waiting. Jobe6 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason this RfA is being redone is because the prior RfA for SWD316 this week had at least three votes done by a single person, and were the first three votes. The RfA was polluted and affected by the sock-puppetry. --Durin 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; note that this was not a self-nomination by SWD316; I brought the RfA because otherwise the process would be a travesty. Please reconsider your vote; obviously, I am not asking you to vote a particular way on the merits (I myself voted neutral), but the tainted RfA should not cause you to vote against him. --Nlu (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand Jobe6, no problem. SWD316 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, see my comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SWD316 2 for my reasoning Mcfly85 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mcfly85, I thought you had said that you aren't going to be around any more. Changed your mind? --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoever will be tallying the votes on this one, I'm going to request that Mcfly85's vote not count, as a vote by a sock puppet. --Nlu (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Im sure since you were just been found out about making 28 sockpuppets you vote is invalid. SWD316 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please let others handle the sockpuppets for you. It doesn't look good when you delete opposing votes against yourself, even when it needs to be done. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ]
        • I just wanted to add a point to my vote. I have used Kate's tool to find that he has over 1,500 edits on his user page alone (nearly 20% of his total edits), yet one of his headings is titled "Vandalizing againts SWD316". I think admins should have a better grasp of grammar and spelling, and should spell check their user pages to leave a good impression. Mcfly85 03:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? What's spelled incorrectly? SWD316 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this case Mcfly is correct: 'againts' is not the same as 'against'. It is also being pedantic as this is (1) a clear typo, not spelling error (2) a user page where the purpose of spelling correctly is, as he points out, merely to give a good impression. Who gives? jnothman talk 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Agreed. In addition, what he does on his user page is mostly his business; I'm fairly sure that I've got more edits on my user page than he does. If you think it's such a big deal, subtract them from his total edits - that still leaves more than enough edits to be among the top umpteen users by edit count. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Woah, guys calm down, please. It was just a typo in which I fixed yesterday. Let's just forget about it. SWD316 15:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Inconsistent use of edit summaries (although this has improved lately). Very few edits in Wikipedia namespace outside of the Esperanza or wrestling WikiProject pages. I'm not convinced he has any working knowledge of policies. A quick glance through his contributions reveals a dearth of any experience of reporting copyvios, working with AfD/CfD/TfD and a continuing neglection of the preview button. Furthermore, his response to the sockpuppet-infested previous nomination demonstrates a lack of levelheadedness that an administrator should have. At this point in time, I'm worried he'll fly off the handle and block someone undeservedly or unilaterally delete something he disagrees with. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the thorough vote of howcheng. The corruption of the previous vote is unfortunate, but this user needs more experience and would have been better advised to have delayed this re-nomination. (I realize he didn't self-nom, but it might have been wise to have declined Nlu's generous offer.) Xoloz 22:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. strong Oppose no way. freestylefrappe 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I was not influenced by the sockpuppets' votes in the beginning. My voting was due to SWD316's lack of edit summaries and lack of vandalism fighting. His claim that he was "rolling back vandalism" when I "typed in that SWD316 never roll back any vandalism" is false after checking his contributions page. He never rolled back vandalism while I was adding in my oppose vote. I am stupid enough to listen to sockpuppets? No, I am not, and I am not screw-ups either. Olorin28 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The time you entered your oppose response the first time the time was, 03:02, 15 December 2005, I rolled vandalism at 03:03, 15 December 2005 here. How do you figure I did roll back vandalism? SWD316 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure that's right link? I don't see how User:Nhill76's edit was vandalism. Also, in your edit summary, you wrote "reverted edits by anon" but that's clearly not an anonymous user. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I didn't clarify to good. I was reverting the edits before him by the anon 70.251.27.150. Not Nhill76. Sorry for the mix-up. SWD316 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • My bad, I actually noticed when paging back through the history, but I forgot to edit my comment. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, sorry to you Olorin28, I was just mad. I was also not calling you a "screw-up" in particular, I was calling the system in which Wikipedia works a "screw-up". Sorry if you thought that was directed towards you. SWD316 01:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, due to the inappropriate and seemingly immature tirade cited by howcheng and freestylefrappe. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:57, Dec. 17, 2005
  7. "Gay little sockpuppets"? Wikipedia admins should be more grown-up than this. TacoDeposit 14:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose This user has demonstrated a total lack of maturity and stability to be an admin. TruthCrusader
  9. Oppose per above.  Grue  16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above. Would reconsider in a few months. Carbonite | Talk 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. His immature, homophobic over-the-top response three days ago is the opposite of what we need to see from an admin. Sockpuppetry is an everyday fact of life here, and if you don't know how to deal with that in a mature, even-tempered way, adminship is likely not for you. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. His withdrawal message is far too impulsive and immature. Using "gay" as an insult is step toward being on RfC, not RfA. rspeer 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per freestylefrappe's link provided above. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per freestylefrappe's evidence of immaturity and lack of civility. —Psychonaut 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Freestylefrappe's evidence. Although I haven't had much contact with SWD316, his reaction to his previous RfA showed him to be quite volatile as an editor, and possibly prone to abusing admin tools. While I'm a firm believer in no double jeopardy and would be willing to reconsider in several months, this edit was only 3 days ago - much too recent. --Idont Havaname 20:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Administrators need to be models for the Wikipedia community. Using hobophobic terms in discussion, no matter what the context, is simply unacceptable for an admin. Not to say that we shouldn't forgive -- I definitely made some mistakes when I first started out -- but a few days is just too short for me to forget. I fully support redoing the VfD, though. Revived 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Freestylefrappe's evidence and TacoDeposit's statement. Admins need to be able to handle adversity and stress, and I do not feel you can do that well enough to entrust blocking powers with. - Pureblade | Θ 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose User takes adminship too seriously --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strongly oppose. Using "gay" as a put-down is really annoying and offensive. CDThieme 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I've decided to change my vote to oppose, based on Freestylefrappe's evidence and CDTheime's comment above - Using "gay" as a put-down is typical and saying sorry does not make up for it. This user seems to keep making up excuses and reasons for what he has done in the past. — Wackymacs 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose As a gay male, I hardly take kindly to people who use gay as a negative word. It shows a lack of maturity of character. User:PZFUN/signature 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not fit to be an admin for the aforementioned reasons. Gflores Talk 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, because adminship shoudl be "no big deal". This user took it all too personally, resulting in his infamous outburst. I urge you to think of the good things you can do on wikipedia without the need for admin tools. They're just a bunch of tools that make some things simpler, after all. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. As mentioned, I don't know him well enough; the RfA is brought to remedy the wrong that has been done. --Nlu (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per last time. I agree with Howcheng as I think you need more experience in a number of areas including fighting vandalism and AFD's. If that's taken care of, I would gladly support in a few months. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I think that as of this moment this user is a little to controversial for me to vote support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • My Previous RFA; User Page edit - I know I have talked to some people about this but so I dont have to post it again, please try to hear my side of the story before you think of me that way on my RFA. I apoligize for ever posting that on my user page. Being bipolar doesn't seem to help the situation when I got mad. User:Mcfly85 has been annoying me for weeks now. The previous RFA was so frustrating because Mcfly85 voted 3 times oppose. Once as Mcfly85, and twice as sockpuppets. Now he is having to deal with his RFAr. I never meant anything put on my user page that day. I was just mad at myself for allowing Mcfly85 to get to me like that. As I stated, I'm bipolar, rage comes and goes. I try to control it the best I can. If your voting oppose, please reconsider, at least to a neutral vote, I'm only human. I edit in nothing but good faith. I wish people knew that before Mcfly85 ran around Wikipedia spreading lies, although I know you probably knew nothing of it. I dont care if you change your vote or not but I would like to try and clear the air with everyone about what really happened. Thanks. -- SWD316 17:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bipolarity may partly explain your behavior, but it doesn't excuse it. I used to consume alcohol to excess, but I always knew better than to try to drive while drunk. An editor who lacks sufficient control of himself to step away from the keyboard when drawn to irrational behavior is a liability to the community, regardless of the reason. As many have stated, you are clearly an experienced editor, from whom one would expect a higher degree of civility. I will gladly reconsider my opposition in a few months, and I'm sure others will as well. I do encourage you to learn from this rather than deciding to permanantly quit out of disappointment. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:12, Dec. 18, 2005
    • I want everyone to see this!
I just want to add something on to your discussion of bipolarity and alcohol. Consuming alcohol is a choice that everyone in thier life has the ability to make to consume it or not to comsume it. Did I have a choice in the life I have, bipolarity, no I didn't. I CAN control bipolarity at times but sometimes it can't be controlled. I have apologized many times for my comments and if no one seemed to spot it before, I'll make it very clear now: I'm Sorry. Sorry to those I blamed for voting oppose were "influenced" by Mcfly85. Sorry to Banes for running out like that, and on his birthday, on an RFA he made for me. To others who held me in high regards before this and now think I'm a maniac. I'm sorry to Celestianpower, Nlu and Titoxd for bothering you so much these past few days. I'm sorry to those who continually supported me Bishonen, LordViD, Francs2000, Sean Black, User:Sceptre, The wub and a bunch of others, who I let down. I sorry to Howcheng and Freestylefrappe for getting in near arguments with you other this. I'm sorry to Essjay because his last edit besides his user talk page was at this RFA, and I let him down. I wish I could tell him how truely sorry I am for making his support not be worth anything at the end of all this. Sorry for using the word "gay" like that in my leaving statement, I don't hate literial gay people; I was mad at Mcfly85. In addition Im sorry for ever posting that at my User Page. Sorry to Mcfly85 for making accusations I shouldn't have, even if they were true about you making sockpuppets. I hoped you aren't blocked permanently. Look at me, I'm sitting here literally almost crying because of these last 72 hours I spent here at Wikipedia, talk about a Wikipediaholic. I glad someone, Freakofnurture, for one read my comment, and two for reconsidering your opposition in the future. All I ever wanted was an RFA without the mentioning or appearance of Mcfly85 but I guess RFA 4 is in my future. I never actually thought of running out permanently as many thought. Only wikibreak would have been my only alternative, as I am hopelessly addicted. I wouldn't worry about me quitting Feakofnurture, because my motto in life is "Never say Die". SWD316 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to apologise to me, I like helping people out :) --Celestianpower háblame 22:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Same here. You're a good editor. Maybe you're not ready to be an admin right now, but it's no big deal. Keep doing what you're doing, and you'll become an even more valuable member of the Wikipedia community. I like you, and I'm always willing to help. You can be a wonderful administrator someday. Right now you're just a good guy, but that doesn't lessen my respect for you one bit.--Sean|Black 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ditto. Good editors are just as important to the community as good administrators. Additionally, I'll be happy to support you down the line. Just keep working on editing and I urge you to dip your toes into policy-related discussions to get a feel for the water (to further mutilate the metaphor). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • SWD316 has asked me once again to respond to his comments. I'd like to clarify that the only parallel I intended to establish between bipolarity and drunkenness is impaired judgment and the consequences thereof, and I wish I had been clearer. I realize the underlying causes would be an apple/orange comparison, and I meant no offense by it, however both fruits can be pressed into juice, and sometimes juice goes bad. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:38, Dec. 19, 2005
  • User:SWD316 recently posted the following comment on my talk page regarding his personal attacks: "I really can't control my temper or actions at all". While I am sympathetic to his medical condition, I think this admission is reason alone to oppose his adminship. —Psychonaut 22:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant when bipolarity gets the best of me, not the rest of time. I can control what I am saying and doing now. Its just those rare moments when I feel inclined to exploding at someone. SWD316 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and have synpathy for your situation, but if you are so prone to outbursts like this, especially using homophobic slurs, perhaps you should voluntarily withdraw from this RfA for the time being. You seem to be a good editor on the things you do edit, but perhaps you just aren't able to handle the duties of an admin due to your condition. I mean, what would happen if you 'went off' and mass banned a lot of people? Sure, the matter would get resolved once everyone realized what happened, but it would create a mess and would lead to your probable termination as admin, which no doubt would effect you most adversely. Look, its no knock against what you are going through, but there are limits sometimes on the things we ALL are physically or emotionally or mentally able to handle. In any event, I wish you well. TruthCrusader
      • I see what you are saying. Ok, taking to what TruthCrusader just said, I PROMISE to never act out like that on Wikipedia ever again. SWD316 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is, how much stock can we put in a promise that, by your own admission, you have no control over keeping? —Psychonaut 02:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't promise much control with the temper I have. I have pretty much no control over my temper if I get a little steamed. But what I can promise not to act out on my user page anymore like I did previously. SWD316 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you'd act out outside of your userspace the next time you lose your temper? If you have no control over your temper, then you probably shouldn't be an admin. That's a pretty fundamental requirement you won't be able to meet. I'm sorry. I'd advise you, for your own sake, not to reapply for adminship, because I'm pretty sure you won't like the result. rspeer 04:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Outside my user space and Wikipedia. I mean the real world, not the area on Wikipedia. What I did when I lost my temper the first time, in the real world, was just to go take a walk, and go to sleep, and a few meds work too, :-). Thats why Im promising not to act out on Wikipedia, not just my User space. SWD316 talk to me 04:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being bipolar is not an excuse nor a justification. If there's one thing this RFA should teach us, it's that we shouldnt blindly vote in support for every editor who applies for adminship. I'm gonna go ahead and suggest something unprecedented, that may be a little mean, but it's still good advice: Don't bother reapplying for adminship in a couple of months because no one is going to vote for you. Instead I suggest you create a new username and start from scratch because at this point your reputation is shot. freestylefrappe 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, may I ask, are you bipolar? Meaning, you have no idea what it like to be me. I find it hard to belive that well-respected admins such as Essjay, Celestianpower, Sean Black, Francs2000 among many others just randomly vote on weather someone should be admin or not. About your advice, I dont think thats the best advice to give unless you dont want the user to come back at all. By the way, about no one voting for me, I have about 25 users above that would probably vote for me again, when the time comes. SWD316 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless SWD316 does something really stupid before his next RfA (which I don't think is any more likely than anyone else doing so), he certainly has my vote. the wub "?!" 11:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As SWD316 has invited me to comment, let me say this:
    I am not changing my neutral vote, but I do think a number of you who pointed out SWD316's outburst after the last RfA are somewhat missing the point. Yes, he should have handled it more maturely. (I do not consider his bipolar nature a point in mitigation or, for that matter, aggravation, because while it is something he has no control of, we vote for administrators based on their likely contributions, and I don't see how SWD316's bipolar status, other than what we've seen in his behavior, affects my view one way or another.
    What should be considered, however, is how the elaborate sock puppetry personally aggravated SWD316. Still doesn't completely excuse the immature response, but goes a lot to explaining it and I think alleviating the impact thereof. This was a particularly sophisticated case of sock puppetry -- masking the sock puppetry by using different arguments and different language. I did not believe SWD316 when I first saw his (turned out to be correct) accusations about Mcfly85's sock puppetry, and I apologize for that. Without FredBauder running the CheckUser, we still would not know by this point. What wrong was done to SWD316 was substantial, and it should not be brushed off with "Oh, sock puppetry happens everyday." Sock puppetry does happen everyday, but not in this kind of elaboration. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree utterly with freestylefrappe's comments. I have no real knowledge about what it is to be bipolar but I have had experiences with a person who is bipolar, and I know how uncontrollable and unpredictable it is, and it should in no way disqualify you from adminship. My one piece of advice is if you feel youself getting angry, step back, close the browser, wait a while and think before editing. Common sense I know, and the same applies to any editor. We all have feelings and emotions, we all at some stages want to say things we probably shouldn't, but the thing is to not edit while your temper is running high. If you can follow this (I belive there is a guideline page about this that I can't find) you will make a great admin. Raven4x4x 06:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that SWD316 would by no means be the first bipolar admin. the wub "?!" 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that would be true, the great Essjay was an bipolar admin. Also the recently created admin, Mo0 is bipolar. SWD316 talk to me 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SWD316, no need to apologise. I hope in the future things will work out better. IMHO, Raven4x4x is right. Bipolarity should not prevent someone from becoming an admin, but it would be wise to take a break when the editing gets hot. Banes 09:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I want to work with Account suspensions.I already work with The deletion process with Wikipedia, I already roll back vandalism where I can, and I try to spot copyright infringment where I can. I will try to improve in areas I dont already investigate in. Rolling back vandalism would be tons easier if I was an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, there is one I consider good. the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster I created a while back has been one of the most frequently updated and prefered list on the internet, see www.mywrestlingspace.com and other lists all over the internet. Most other edits are clean-up, vandalism roll back and other stuff. I edit only in the area of professional wrestling as of right now but I would edit in more areas if I could.
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 many users have caused me stress over edits because of not adding correct information, no source, wrong sources and such. I usually asked for better sources of information from the user and if they continue to edit with faulty info, I usually contact and admin. Not many conflicts outside that over editing an article as much as a sockpuppet vandal conflict. I would like to add a big fat "duh" at the end of this statement considering thats why I have been renominated because of Mcfly85's attempt to ruin my second nomination.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SWD316_3

Leave a Reply