[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schwede66

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Schwede66

[edit]

Final: (162/1/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 18:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Schwede66 (talk · contribs) – Schwede66 has been a prolific writer of New Zealand articles for some years, contributing work such as Linwood House and Joseph Brittan, both good articles. As part of this, he helps out with assessing new NZ articles (i.e. he undertakes new pages patrol), and would like the admin tools to help in this area, particularly with resolving some of the issues that cut and paste moves give us. He's been a prolific contributor to Did you know in the past, and hopefully he can work more in this area which frequently needs admin attention.

Above all else, I get the impression that Schwede66 is a polite and helpful contributor to the project, and would therefore be a useful addition to the admin team.

In the interests of full transparancy, he has an alternative account that has been declared to ArbCom, and it was used for legitimate purposes until 2009. Due to a real life concern, ArbCom has agreed to courtesy vanishing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Kudpung

Schwede66 is one of those people who just gets on with the voluntary business of contributing to make Wikipedia probably the most worthwhile knowledge base project on the planet. There is no climbing of greasy poles, no interest in attracting attention to himself and no indication that he will use adminship to further any such goals. Like most people who know what the work of an admin really entails, he realises already that the tasks and responsibilities he will take on are not going to be a joy ride, but here we have a dedicated Wikipedian with a calm disposition with whom it will be a pleasure to have as a colleague, and from whom it will be a pleasure to seek advice. He is also going to be 'on duty' in a time zone that is poorly covered by most of us on the English Wikipedia.

Ritchie has provided all the background, I have done the same independent research, and I cannot think of a single reason why he should not have your support. Let Schwede with his perfect mastery of English and a couple of other languages to boot, usher the New Year in as one of Wikipedia's first new admins for 2017. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words. I graciously accept. Schwede66 18:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Apart from a recent break of four months, I patrol new New Zealand pages, and would thus be involved with admin tasks related to new pages patrol, but mostly on an ad hoc basis. Repairing cut and paste moves, history merges, and blocking vandals are issues where I have often requested admin help. I have nominated a few editors at WP:RFP/A and have that page on my watchlist, and could get involved in reviewing requests. I've moved quite a number of media files from WP to Commons and that always leaves the WP image behind for an admin to delete; I'm reasonably familiar with copyright issues (I have license reviewer status on Commons) and are aware that public domain rules are different in the US compared to other countries. With all these admin tasks, I would feel my way into things and when issues aren't clear cut, I would seek advice from those who have had the mop for a lot longer. I'm sure every new (and sometimes not so new) admin stuffs up once in a while, but having awareness around limitations of rules and policies is important. I was active as a content creator at DYK for a long time and that's certainly an area where I'd be glad to help. But my main focus will remain on content creation; there has to be enough time available and given that I haven't been around at DYK in a couple of years or so, some of the rules will have moved on, so I'd need to feel my way back into it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm primarily a content creator with around 600 new articles. Some of my contributions are substantial and my 5 GAs are a good cross section of my main interests: heritage buildings, biographies (mostly of people long dead), post-earthquake Christchurch, political history and geography. Things I'm proud of include having made a major contribution to the New Zealand politics task force; I started in 2009 and by the end of 2013, there were complete sets of articles for the most important topic areas. Don't get me wrong, there were quite a few others who also created much of the content, but one of my major contributions was to organise the effort of everybody through the task force page. Beyond content creation, I was very active at DYK for a long time and that involves as much reviewing of other articles as writing your own. I've been very active with article assessment over the years and have brought article names in line with naming conventions; an area where I've often needed admin help to have redirects deleted and sometimes requested history merges. It's also an area where I've actively formed and reshaped New Zealand conventions. I'm quite well read on New Zealand history and I believe there isn't anything comprehensive written anywhere about the capital of New Zealand as a topic covering all three location apart from my Wikipedia contribution.
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: I've looked through my entire talk page archive to gauge this, and whilst there is sometimes disagreement, I count three instances at most that I would class as conflict spread over the seven years. I acknowledge that conflict may also happen elsewhere, but I suppose that low talk page count is a good indicator of not getting into too much trouble. The first time I encountered a truly unpleasant editor was in July 2010 on two occasions. I simply didn't take the bait (going forward, not doing so remains the most appropriate response at times), as it was rather obvious that engaging with the editor wouldn’t have got me very far, but others dealt with that person. Later that same month, I felt inclined to give advice to a sysop (see the passage after the outdent) for what I regard as inappropriate conduct, but I didn’t get a response (it's thus debatable whether it was a conflict). It didn’t have a positive outcome, and although it was six years ago, it’s etched in my memory as my saddest interaction on Wikipedia, as we lost what I thought was a promising new editor. That said, at the time I did assume that I was on that editor’s watchlist, but maybe I wasn’t; these days, I would certainly use a ping in that situation to make sure that my advice reaches the intended recipient. The third occasion was earlier in 2016, when after years of having been annoyed by an editor on numerous occasions, both here and on Commons, I offered some advice that wasn't well received. Reflecting on this, as some people just rub you up the wrong way, I should have kindly asked the editor a long time ago to address his queries to other fora (e.g. this one).

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Epicgenius
4. To clarify your answer to #1: are you planning to reduce any specific admin backlogs? You indicated that you've moved many files from enwiki to commons, so would you be interested in WP:FFD or WP:FCSD, for example? This question is optional, but I wanted to know if you were also interested in file backlogs in particular.
A: At DYK, I've often been at the receiving end of the queues being just about empty and only admins can promote them, so that is an area where I want to help out. It's not a huge backlog as such, but it just needs to get done when the need arises. With regards to FFD, I've never had a look at the backlog there, so I'm not aware how bad things are. To be honest, it'll probably evolve over time what I'm going to be involved with. Schwede66 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Lourdes
5. You have undertaken a number of reverts through your contributions. If you can, could you please provide at least five examples from your last six months' contributions, where you have reverted new/IP editors edits on articles and have left an appropriate message (templates or otherwise) on their talk page guiding them on what was wrong with their edit?
A: Happy new year from downunder. The new year has arrived, and I've tackled Lourdes' query by going through my contribution history starting 1 July 2016. I have tried to identify each edit where my edit summary contains the word "minor". The disclaimer is that I may have missed identifying edits due to the shear volume of edits I have made over the last six months (but I've tried to be as thorough as possible and hope that I've got them all), and it's based on the proviso that I had that target word in my edit summary (and given that I'm usually giving a detailed edit summary, I'm pretty sure that I didn't miss anything due to that). I have come to realise that I refer other editors to Help:Minor edit quite a bit! Lourdes wanted to know about my interaction with new or IP users, but for completeness, there have been four occasions where I have commented to more experienced users on this matter, but none of this involved a revert: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. My most common modus operandi is that I post a notice via Twinkle to a user's talk page, and the following instances did not involve a revert: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Since early December 2016, I have modified those Twinkle messages by adding "Not a biggie; just so you know", so that new users don't get scared by the standard Twinkle message. But again, no reverts involved: [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Sometimes, I post individualised messages to user talk pages, and the following don't involve reverts: [17], [18], and [19]. The latter diff refers to an action where I further modified the editor's contribution (i.e. not a revert, but a change): [20]. I've welcomed a user including pointing to the minor edit policy without reverting their contribution here: [21] There are two reverts where I mention the minor edit policy in the edit summary, but it's clear that the reason for the revert wasn't related to ticking the minor edit box: [22] (the revert was to restore the red links) and [23] (the revert was to restore content as per the cited source). That leaves me with one revert ([24]) where my edit summary states: "technical revert as you used the 'minor edit' box when this is not a minor edit; please see Help:Minor edit" What's wrong here is my edit summary; what I should have said was something like "restore referenced content". Not sure why I used the wrong edit summary; I do apologise for that.
To sum up, I could not provide you with five diffs for the last six months that meet your specified criteria, but could only find one. And in that instance, I provided the wrong edit summary. Lourdes, please let me know if you have any further concerns, or if you have kept a diff that I overlooked. Schwede66 19:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"To sum up, I could not provide you with five diffs for the last six months that meet your specified criteria, but could only find one. And in that instance, I provided the wrong edit summary." To accept an error is more than enough... Have a great new year. Lourdes 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Some editors undertake appropriate edits, but mark the same incorrectly as minor. I have noticed that your stand is to revert such edits. Why would you do that, rather than simply guide the said editor?
A: I think you must have got the wrong impression, as my answer to your previous question clarifies. But as I said before, if you could point to specific occasions, I'd be more than happy to shed light on what's been going on. Schwede66 19:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've already clarified above that the particular edit had a mistaken edit summary... Thanks. Lourdes 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Leaky
7. Security of websites has been a topical issue this year. What are your thoughts about the use of 2 Factor Authentication on WP which is being actively encouraged. For example, should it be mandatory at any level?
A: I see that two-factor authentication (2FA) is, according to Wikimedia, "currently experimental and optional". I'm not aware of what discussion is going on about the issue, or where the discussion is being held. I remember The Signpost report on two admin accounts getting hacked in November 2015. In general, I fully support trials of improved account security, and 2FA on Wikimedia is part of that. But there's a fine line of not making things too hard. For example, Wikipedia has a declining pool of active editors, and if 2FA were to be perceived as a hassle by those editors, we may potentially be creating a problem that is bigger than the one we are trying to fix. There also needs to be evidence that account security is a real problem. Ok, accounts (of ordinary editors, say) get hacked. But what are the problems that are resulting from this? If there are a limited number of those cases, and when it happens it's easily fixed through admin action, why impose something on every editor that they may not wish to have to deal with? Having an experimental system where you can opt in is the right thing to do. Once it's stable, the wrinkles have been ironed out, and the vast majority of users don't have a problem with it, we could then have a discussion on whether 2FA becomes mandatory, and at what level. If there is an identified problem, it may make sense to impose it on admin accounts. I would think it's unlikely for it to make sense that it should become mandatory for entry level user accounts. Schwede66 20:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
8. One of your nominators has been criticizing the wp:WMF extensively. How do you feel about getting involved in wiki-political activity? For example, do your share my views that wiki-tools are frequently broken and it is important to have them better maintained?
A: In general terms, it is in my opinion healthy to point out when there are problems. Most of the time, one won't know too much about the background to the problems, and in that case, the skill is to stick with pointing to the problem rather than to criticise. My philosophy is to only ever get involved in criticising an organisation, or individuals, about problems that are evident when I have a deeper understanding how the problem evolved. For example, without knowing the relevant background, one may be criticising certain employees of an organisation, who may be as frustrated as oneself about the situation. It may be inept management, or budget constraints, or political interference that stops them from doing what they ought to do. So without having a decent understanding of how an organisation functions, in my books it is not appropriate to criticise it beyond stating in a calm manner, civil and respectful manner what the problems are. And yes, I have also noticed that WMF's tools are sometimes not working, and when that happens, it's obviously not helpful for editors. Schwede66 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as a well qualified editor, shown by both their excellent content creation and their involvement in the thankless task of patrolling new pages. As mentioned in the nominations they are polite and show a willingness to help, which are some of the most important qualities we should be looking for in admin candidates -- samtar talk or stalk 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Two great statements from nominators whose opinions I respect coupled with a brief look at the candidates stats and contribs leaves me with no concerns (other than whether NinjaRobotPirate should take Kudpung's original declaration of "Wikipedia's first new admin for 2017" personally). Sam Walton (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Have seen Schwede66 edits a lot as we follow some similar articles. Every one has been constructive and they range from gnome-like through to valuable content contributions. My only complaint is that I get the impression they tend to avoid conflict and controversial areas (as evidenced by question 3). This can be good as it means they don't take things too heart and you can still be a good admin by handling the straight forward and uncontroversial stuff. AIRcorn (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as conominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Solid editor, no reason to believe they would misuse the tools.--MONGO 18:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE: I see no issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Jianhui67 T★C 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good content track-record and cooperative attitude DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Zero concerns based on a quick review of contributions and stats. -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -No problems here. Good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Another quality candidate that I've seen around before. Great resume, and great answers so far, so I have no reason to suspect anything less than greatness with the mop. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support 7 years of activity without any blocks is already impressive. Seems like your typical outstanding, Casliber type content creator. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)su[reply]
  14. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – Well qualified candidate. United States Man (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Very experienced candidate; no concerns. Joshualouie711talk 20:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good candidate. Faith in the co-nominators. Looks ideal, even if lacking the useful "how-it-feels-to-be-blocked" experience. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will be a net positive to the admin corps. Full faith in the research the nominators have done. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 20:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Good editor. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Have seen his good work around the traps for a long time, and support absolutely. And gee, he's a "content creator" as well. Moriori (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support NPP is an area desperately in need of new admins. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Another easy one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per noms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support no concerns. I trust Schwede66 with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Seems to be the kind of person one would ask to look after their houseplants and pets while on holiday. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great editor will make great admin. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support great noms, no reason not to, enough content creation to show they know what this is about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support He'll be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, I've known him on-wiki for very many years (though I don't think I've met him in real life) and have always been impressed by his work.-gadfium 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I've seen his contributions, and in my opinion he more than qualifies to be an admin. N. GASIETAtalk 01:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I'm confident that he'll do a good job. Kurtis (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. He's civilized (and won't dissemble with ever-changing inaccuracies ;) ). IHTS (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - I've seen him around, and I don't recall anything unpleasant. Working through what's provided in the RFA Toolbox, everything checks out fine. Let's put him on board. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support even though the AfD voting could be better. Excellent content creation and great work overall. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Babymissfortune 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has clue, deserves mop. Katietalk 02:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Seems like a very good editor. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Thorough responses, balanced/civil editor, respectable response to oppose, and rich namespace diversity and contribution amount--to name a few. --JustBerry (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - this seems to be the month of "about time" supports. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as a net positive to the website. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support love seeing such a great focus on content creation. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support excellent experience, great candidate, but concerned with overqualification Dschslava Δx parlez moi 07:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. A quick check of his contributions shows overall good edits and civil behavior. Some AfD !votes seemed a bit rushed (couple of delete !votes for articles that were kept) but nothing that can't be chalked up to honest mistakes. Regards SoWhy 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. An excellent track record - over twice my edit count, solid content contribution, and good contributions to AfD and DYK. Good response to my query below, and good indications of being willing to change their mind. Fences&Windows 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Experienced editor FITINDIA (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: A great candidate...balanced, civil and respectful to everyone! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Appears sound on BLP and AFD issues. Collect (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Went back a year in the candidate's edit history and looked at a series of edits (especially talk page posts) that demonstrated to my satisfaction the general tenor seen above – that the candidate seems levelheaded articulate, calm and clueful – is an accurate picture.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support After going through the past of the editor I conclude that it is very unlikely he will do any harm with the additional rights and tools. I therefore support him simply per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Dead Mary (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nom. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No concerns. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 17:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - To me this is an example of "no big deal". Here we have someone who has demonstrated a commitment to the project, who engages in a number of productive activities, who would actually make use of the tools, and who has managed 7 years without seemingly any drama. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I would recommend Schwede to undertake a few more backlogs if he wants to help out with administrative part of Wikipedia (DYK is a good start, and so is deleting files that he moved to commons). As an editor, though, he is more than qualified to have a few extra tools. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support 68% of edits to article space, a bucketload of articles created, a positive and cooperative attitude, an aversion to drama, and helps out in a wide range of areas. Added to that two rock-solid noms. A content creation aware admin is a definite plus i.m.o. No issues. Irondome (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - good work at creating articles and at AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Lourdes 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support wit his track record, and a Kudpung nomination I have no doubts. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Can likely be trusted with the tools, and had a great interaction with the candidate here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - I see no issues here, Can probably be trusted with the tools. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I'm impressed by the answers to questions. This candidate is entirely devoid of controversy. I normally provide only marginal support to admins who are primarily content creators, but Schwede's involvement in new page patrolling and his willingness to work on backlogs where there's a need make this a more enthusiastic support than usual. ~ Rob13Talk 21:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - While I've had limited interaction with this editor, and have not always agreed with them, they have always been civil and professional. Researching their stats, I see no reason not to give them the mop. Onel5969 TT me
  67. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support - If it were possible to do so, I'd be a co-nominator of this deserving candidate. We've worked together on articles over the years and I have always found him to be bright, collaborative, polite, and all-around great to work with. He has my highest vote of confidence. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosiestep: I do apologise - when I was looking for potential co-nominators, your name did come up, but I didn't think you were interested in RfA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Ritchie333! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support The candidate has the wide experience and professional demeanor to have established trustworthiness. Good experience at new page patrolling. Great and extensive content creation gives a good grounding in the mission of the project. Long-time contributor. Willing and competent to work on backlogs. Well qualified candidate. Also, since the two nominators are among the most thorough and conscientious contributors to the project, we know this candidate has been well vetted. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support easily has the required experience, skills and attitude. Gizza (t)(c) 04:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support A solid content creator with a good track record, who I'm sure will do just as well as an admin. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I'm familiar with Schwede66's editing on New Zealand-related subjects (including in relation to various issues concerning problematic articles and editors) and am confident that he'll use the admin tools very well as a result - he's always been an advocate for sensible approaches. The excellent answer to question 1 above also demonstrates that he has a sound understanding of what admins do, and will put the tools to good use. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support as it appears Schwede66 can be trusted to use the tools of adminship fairly and appropriately. He also knows the areas in which he intends to work, is sufficiently experienced in those areas and will be a benefit to the project overall working in such areas. Furthermore, I am impressed by both the quantity and quality of his content creation work; although I wouldn't oppose an RfA based on low content creation this is an added benefit, showing how he was worked constructively in different areas of the project and can identidy well with the concerns of content creators. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - great candidate with an outstanding track record. 600 new articles (and 5 GAs) is also among the best I've seen. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - from a recent interaction, and the tone and response to me suggest a very competent and capable potential mop handler, regardless of being across the ditch (Tasman Sea) JarrahTree 16:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. A trusted longtime contributor who has demonstrated responsibility and an understanding of policy. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Unfailingly civil; helpful to newbs. I can't find anything even the tiniest bit alarming. Glad to support. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Checks all my what I look for boxes, no red flags and has a need for the tools. Clearly a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Long-term editor, prolific content contributor, helpful demeanour. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Incredible contribution to the encyclopedia. - TheMagnificentist 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Good track record with the project and after a very in-depth review I think we should hand them the tools. -- Dane talk 19:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per nominators and everyone else above me. Risker (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per noms: good record and no red flags. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Principally because we need admins here in the New Zealand time zone empowered to block disruptive and vandalism editors that sometimes don't get attention for hours until the rest of the world comes online. My only concern is that Schwede66 is not a native born New Zealander and I have seen one instance where his lack of familiarity with NZ English led to a misunderstanding. Akld guy (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per noms. st170e 21:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per noms. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Cannot see any issues here. Another for the mop. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support after reviewing the answers to the questions and looking through the stats, I have no concerns. Bradv 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  92. All Blacks Support - Impressive and with over 750 articles written, one of those rare admin with article/content creation experience.--Stemoc 00:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Tautoko! -- haminoon (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Babymissfortune 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babymissfortune: You've already voted. So I have struck this one as a duplicate. --Majora (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me being dumb. Babymissfortune 01:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support after a modest review of contributions and Q&A. --joe deckertalk 01:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support: There's work that needs to be done and Schwede66 has volunteered to do it. There's no indication that he or she will do a bad job and there are definite signs of competency.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support – a strong content creator with years of solid experience. Interacted with him a couple of times in DYK and he's extremely civil and friendly. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I do love administrators with a solid content background. Vanamonde (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - Absolutely. Atsme📞📧 17:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support WP:100. Should make a fine admin. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support: you're in pillar 1 of my RfA criteria! Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Great work with New Zealand articles! GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Awesome content contributor. -- Ϫ 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The more admins around, the less of a 'special status' it'll seem.--v/r - TP 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Great content creation background and no other concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Clear decision here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support—net positive. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I don't think that we have crossed paths, because I don't edit in that topic, but that actually reflects well on the candidate. How nice: a very experienced editor who knows how to navigate disputes, but who intends to continue to focus on content creation even after RfA. Easy support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Although our paths haven't crossed yet, they seem well-qualified. Miniapolis 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Impressive candidate, well-respected nominators. I haven't done much independent research beyond what has been pointed out here, but what I see is enough to convince me that Schwede66 is both a qualified candidate and a model Wikipedian — MusikAnimal talk 01:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions so far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Content creators require the admin tool set. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Wizardman 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support History here is outstanding, and has a smart head on their shoulders. Worthy of the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE. — Music1201 talk 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support per CAPTAIN RAJU.--Mona778 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support no reasons to oppose. Banedon (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, no concerns. Looks like a very well-qualified candidate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support as my default stance since I see no reason to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support; no concerns. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I'm rather surprised I'm wasn't very familiar with this candidate. I could support on my respect for the noms alone, but on further investigation I'm enthusiastic about their contributions, CLUE, and their communication/answers at their RfA. Interest in assisting at DYK is a huge bonus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Competent, has the right temperament. Mduvekot (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Sure, no obvious red flag and I trust Kudpung's positive review. Deryck C. 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. will be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Supprt and happy to. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I've never heard of this user until now, but looking over the nomination, I have faith they'll do a good job as an admin. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I liked the candidate's reasoning in answer no. 7. Mihirpmehta (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Seems like a fine and eminently sensible candidate. Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Is a great fit for an admin. Very helpful on talkpages from experience. Sirpottingmix (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support I have worked with Schwede66 on a couple of articles and have been impressed with his sensible and constructive approach to wiki matters. I think he will be an ideal admin candidate. Zawed (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. A candidate who's willing and able to help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Well qualified candidate; worthy of pile on support.--John Cline (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. I haven't really ever interacted with this editor but I've heard about them - and what I hear has been solidly positive. They have a great reputation for being helpful and hardworking, two things that all admins need. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - no causes for concern here, doesn't appear to have any interest in deleting the main page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Sneaking in yet another pile-on support while I still can. Best of luck, Schwede66 :) GABgab 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose No oppose !votes yet? This is too good to be true. I am suspecting witchcraft and hereby declare that the candidate be burned at the stake. Nah, just kidding. I don't see any pressing issues with this candidate, and given the dearth of oppose !votes, I am happy to see another qualified candidate receiving the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Adequate tenure, over 100K edits of which a healthy 2/3 are to mainspace, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Easy call. Carrite (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Looks good all around. It is nice to see article > 50% and article not pumped up with auto edits. Glrx (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Use for sysop rights and can be trusted with access to it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Excellent candidate, Clear net positive, no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support per the noms. Answers to the question are solid and well thought out. MarnetteD|Talk 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support well demonstrated potential and responsibility. Aeonx (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support per everyone. A clear slam-dunk. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support: I have no concerns about Schwede abusing the tools and believe that they will be a good addition to Wikipedia's admin cohort. Thank you for volunteering to help the project even further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support No blocks. 10 years ant 100,000s of edite. Soppourt --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. A straight-up good editor. An asset with the tools. bd2412 T 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. An energetic editor with strong content creation skills and supportive temperament. New Zealand articles (which are created and tinkered with while most of the Wiki-world sleeps) will benefit from an administrator with local knowledge. Buistr (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. An excellent content creator with a positive, helpful attitude. Kudpung's support is something I take especially seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Strong Support I need to admit that I am immediately suspicious of unanimous !votes—not just on RfAs, but in any area of the project. It was therefore with great care that I went through the candidate's contributions and talk page archives. What I found was a frankly jaw-dropping demeanor and excellent quality of work. Those talk page archives are spotless; it's like the user is incapable of conflict or vitriol. I have never seen a candidate more qualified for adminship. AlexEng(TALK) 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Strong Support - Schwede66 was the user who welcomed me and has helped me get to a start on Wikipedia. Schwede66 will make a great administrator and will help, support, and introduce new users to the mechanics of the vast Wikipedia. He is an active editor in WikiProject New Zealand and WikiProject New Zealand/politics. I see absolutely no reason to oppose him in his nomination for adminship. J947 22:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - Yet another qualified candidate. Clear block log and very good for becoming an admin. NgYShung huh? 05:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - I can hardly object to someone with strong content contributions getting the tools. No sign that they would abuse them. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Happy to support - Mop please Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 14:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Excellent candidate. Good answers to the questions above. Welcome aboard, Schwede! Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Denisarona (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support -- A user of great value to the project who will use the tools wisely. -- Shudde talk 16:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Long term user with solid edit history. Gets it, can be trusted to ease into adminship and 'do no harm.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support I am especially impressed with the quality of this editor's content contributions. Mamyles (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. The encounter noted in Question 3 above (last diff) reveals the extent of the lengthy animosity held against me and about which I was complaining. All I can do is at this moment react in kind though I will happily enter correspondence about the backstory for that particular diff. Eddaido (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  • (Moved to support) I was ready to support as Schwede66 has an excellent track record - over twice my edit count, solid content contribution, and good contributions to AfD and DYK. However, I believe Schwede66 has edited in areas related to their professional life without declaring a COI, e.g. using a website they are associated with as a reference and editing about someone they have worked with. I will not give diffs, especially considering the courtesy vanishing referred to in the nomination, and the latter was early on in their editing career, but I would appreciate a pledge to be more careful about potential conflicts in future. Fences&Windows 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guilty as charged! You will appreciate that the 2009 edits happened early in my WP career. There have been two edits by me since then (adding a category, and a link to commons) and I assume that these later edits won't be seen as representing a COI. Having looked through the edit history more carefully, I believe that a 2012 anon edit is mine, too (but again, a maintenance edit only; no prose involved). I say that I believe that it's mine because I recall having edited all pages among the seven edits by that anon account. I haven't edited prose since 2009 and I hope you will see that as confirmation (or pledge, if you wish) that I have become aware of the COI policy. I'd appreciate if you could amend any of the paragraph of prose that I added seven years ago if you feel that it doesn't comply with NPOV. Lastly, I appreciate your discretion of not posting diffs. Schwede66 02:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a talkback template over at User talk:Fences and windows. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One reference was added earlier this year, but I appreciate the acknowlegement of this issue. Moving to support. Fences&Windows 12:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • "Schwede with his perfect mastery of English". "I graciously accept." (OK, but isn't that complimenting oneself as "gracious" [kind & courteous, tactful, elegant]? [When perhaps better is ... the *nominations* were gracious and "I appreciatively accept"!? Anyway, something I've always wondered about, answers welcome. {"So confusing!" <Chinese Japanese-American actor in Sixteen Candles after opening a closet door, instead of the front door, in response to the doorbell>}]) IHTS (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RD/L (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That actor was Japanese (American) not Chinese. All Asians don't look same. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been years since seeing the film, so a memory issue, and not reflecting like I could've. (Japanese & Chinese neither look nor sound the same, I know, plz believe, thx.) IHTS (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no offence taken. I was jesting as well! And to be honest, in many cases even we cannot differentiate between nationality, merely by looking. Of course, once a person starts speaking, it is easy to identify.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that it certainly beats many native speakers at their own game. Naturally I haven't heard you speak, but it certainly runs rings around those whose only mastery of it is to employ snide literary devices ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So 7 years of positive contributions to the encyclopedia and a real need for admin tools.... but no drama? Seems suspicious to me. Almost like he/she has been overeager for adminship and has been gaming the process since registering. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of my RFA. Looking back, I'm sure the community is filled with regret ; ). Mkdw talk 20:12, 31 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Schwede66&oldid=1143889448"