Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SwirlBoy39 2

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

SwirlBoy39 (2nd nomination)

(1st nomination)

Ends on 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not active much on the Simple English Wikipedia, I know him on the english Wikipedia and see nothing negative there. He meets all the criteria for adminship and on the basis of the work he has done on the test wiki has only been positive. Alexfusco⁵ 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Thank you. SwirlBoy39 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom Alexfusco⁵ 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - if he meets criteria he meets criteria. There is no reason to hold him back then. Edits are edits no matter where they are made.--  † ChristianMan16  01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - With a total of just over 600 edits, only 30% of them are main space (185) and about 50% are user/user talk edits. There is a large(-ish) number of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, but most of these are simple yes/no votes with little to no explaination which could be used to show understanding of policy. Only 4 edits to VIP, all about the same incident and using the reason "Extremely long username" before the socks started showing (and then "extremely long username/possible sock"). On the plus side, time is within limits (pretty much 3 months to the day) and there is a decent number of deleted QD edits. Overall, no indication of need for block, low edit count focusing on less important aspects, no indication of understanding policy. -- Creol(talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Almost half of your edits are to the user talk namespace, and only 40% are in your article namespace. You haven't been very active in the past 2-3 weeks, and you don't have very many deleted edits, which means that you haven't marked many articles for deletion. This means that you have no need for the deletion tool. I haven't seen you revert much vandalism lately, which means you have no use for the block tool. Not sure about the protection tool, but wWith only 600 edits total, that does not show to me the activity nor the trustworthiness that I want to see in someone that I support to become an administrator. I would suggest you come back and start editing much more and start reverting vandalism again. Otherwise, for now, I have to oppose. Razorflame 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Shows no reasonable experience for adminship. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mostly because of the things Creol listed; This does not mean that you have a good chance of getting the tools when you show a need for them. Focus more on the Wikipedia and Main (Article) namespaces (perhaps also Template, if you are good a scripting), and show us you understand policy, and have a decent number (around 800-1000) of edits there.--Eptalon (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per mainspace. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Creol.--Lights Deleted? 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for various reasons, mainly your actions on another wiki. Although this is a different website, I fear that you may go against consensus again, or at the very least go against your word. Nanochip08 ^Microchip08 on_WHEELS 10:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also need to say that I am worried about the nomination, as he seems to have been nominated due to his work on English Wikipedia and his test wiki. Nanochip08 ^Microchip08 on_WHEELS 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Micro...I am a staffer there. I felt like giving you steward. TheHelpfulOne has done it, and I tried to rollback my oppose... SwirlBoy39 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Creol. - Huji ^reply 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Maybe we could WP:SNOW this, and tell him to get a WP:ER if he wants more feedback. --  Da Punk '95  talk  08:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much point when it ends in less than a day's time. Archer7 - talk 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to agree with Archer7 on this. Too late to snowball it. Cheers, Razorflame 16:56, 10 May 2008 (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.