Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swarm

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Swarm

Final (105/1/0); ended 01:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 01:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Swarm (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce to you an excellent editor, Swarm. I first came across Swarm as one of the few editors at WP:Adopt-a-user, showing helpfulness to those new editors out there. I've since collaborated with him in a few areas - where he always appears knowledgeable and with two feet firmly on the ground. His comments are well researched and he is full of that rare property, WP:CLUE. You may have seen his excellent work at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or his many anti-vandalism reverts. As a regular at In the news, Swarm is able to work well with some of the most high profile articles on wikipedia. When he's not working in these areas, he's looking at good article reviews or helping out Wikifying articles. Looking at his deleted edits, I see a scores of speedy deletion requests, which all look good to me. However, the most important factor is that I've found him to be helpful, diplomatic, understanding, calm and considerate. He's exactly what I look for in administrator and should make an ideal candidate for the bit. I trust that you'll agree. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Worm, for the immensely kind words. I accept, and I'd be happy to serve at the community's bidding. Swarm 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 already work in the areas of new page patrolling and anti-vandalism, and I'd continue to do so. I would review CSD tags, keep an eye on AIV and, of course, utilize the tools during my own vandalism patrolling. I'm also a regular at WP:ITNC (where "In the News" nominations are discussed before they go on the main page), so I might occasionally post an item with consensus, or tweak posted items as needed. I may also occasionally pop into AfD to close an uncontroversial discussion (though I don't really have any intent of working there regularly). Lastly, I've noticed uncontroversial/housekeeping protected edit requests go without answer for quite a while on several occasions; therefore, I would like to keep an eye on CAT:PER as well. Overall, I would ease into the role, and focus on "easy" and "uncontroversial" tasks until I'm very well settled in.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are definitely those in areas where I've helped other users. I've been involved with the Adopt-a-user program for a little under two years, and I've been privileged to work with and help out many newcomers who've contributed to Wikipedia in their own ways. Apart from Adopt-a-user, I've advised quite a few newbies who have simply come to me with questions— you'd be surprised how many people will email you for guidance after you place a welcome template on their page. I also try to help out occasionally at WQA, and I've received several compliments from users who had requested help there, and I'm proud of that. In addition, I have to say I'm proud of my Gnome-like edits through the years, and, if you'll forgive the cliche, my anti-vandalism work.

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: Yeah, I've been in my fair share of disputes, and I've admittedly been stressed out on occasion in my earlier days. Now though, I normally just don't get stressed over Wikipedia. It's never worth it. Editing Wikipedia is just a hobby of mine, and there's no reason anyone should ever get stressed something they do for fun. If, for whatever reason, I do start to get stressed in a dispute, I'll usually be inclined to just let it go, and focus on something else. Something as simple as a few minutes of vandalism patrol can do wonders to take your mind off things!

Additional question from Mkativerata

4. What is civility and what administrative or editing tools would you enforce it?

A: Civility is simply behaving respectfully, considerately, and politely with fellow editors. To some editors, this may mean "extremely friendly"; to others, it may mean "professional" or "businesslike". The basics, however, are always the same. Be respectful and polite. Don't insult, offend or attack others. Behave as you would in real life. The vast majority of cases of incivility should be handled by dispute resolution, not administrator 'enforcement'. I would only use the tools in extreme situations such as gross personal attacks, hate speech, extreme harassment or extremely offensive comments that only serve to disrupt Wikipedia. Obviously these would call for blocks, and depending on the severity or content, rev deletion might also be necessary. A block might also be warranted for an editor who has some kind of a civility-related restriction (e.g. an Arbcom or community-imposed restriction, an unblock condition, etc.) and is blatantly violating it. Generally, though, everyday, run-of-the-mill incivility is not and should not be enforced with the tools.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. While it's certainly nice to welcome new users to Wikipedia, how come you recently welcomed a user who has been contributing for nearly three years?

A: Ooh, I did do that, didn't I? I sometimes do an "unwelcomed users patrol" where I look for newbies with redlinked talk pages. I honestly hadn't noticed that this user has been editing since 2008. I've gone ahead and switched it to {{welcome-belated}} (which, incidentally, is nearly identical to the welcome template I use). Even that's probably not necessary, but the user's only been popping in a few times a year, so I don't think there's any harm done. Thanks, though, that was a good catch, and I'll have to watch for this in the future.

Additional request from User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

6. Please list your good article reviews. I believe you have done at least 10, according to an old version of your user page, and these would show how you interact with article writers, I believe. 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A: I have a list in my userspace that's linked to in the nomination statement; it can be found here.

Worm's nomination statement links your list of Good-Article reviews. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Sp33dyphil

7. What's is your view on IPs being allowed to edit?

A: I'm wholly supportive of IPs being allowed to edit. Wikipedia is traditionally the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". It's simply part of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. But idealism aside, I just can't possibly imagine that we would be able to maintain an updated encyclopedia without IPs. Sure, us registered editors could probably keep all the "major" topics in check, but there is a vast amount of minor writing, tweaking, updating and copyediting that is done by IPs that I just don't believe would or could be done without their participation. Yes, there's vandalism, but I believe that the good contributions that come from IPs outweigh the bad by far, and that our anti-vandalism network amply controls the bad. Lastly, I'm a supporter of IP editing because I'd edited as an IP for a couple of years before even creating an account. It was my first step in getting involved, and if I had never been able to start getting involved as an IP, I don't think I'd ever have signed up. I can only assume that this holds true with other users as well. In other words, disallowing IPs to edit would be a huge blow to our already-declining number of active editors, IMO.

Additional questions from BuickCenturyDriver

8. You block someone on the suspicion of the account belonging to a blocked user. User requests unblock, protesting your suspicions. You or another sysop decine the unblock and insist the account is indeed a "sock". Blocked user comes back with a new account, and keeps editing as if nothing happened. How would you react to this, aside from considering a reblock?

A: Well, just to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't block on a suspicion; if I was simply suspicious, I'd submit a sockpuppet investigation case. Anyway, though, assuming the situation is blatantly obvious or checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry, I would simply block the new account in accordance with WP:SOCK without hesitation. Block-avoiding sockpuppetry is just not allowed. Of course, the details would vary depending on what and how long the main account is blocked for, the extent of the sockpuppetry, the severity of the disruption caused by the user, and how they have behaved otherwise, but reverting the sock's contributions may or may not be involved (it would be if the contribs were disruptive/unconstructive, but reverting constructive, positive edits doesn't better the encyclopedia). Communicating with the main account may or may not also be involved (again, this would widely vary depending on many different factors); if the level of disruption was relatively benign and the user seems to be generally well-meaning, I may offer to work with the user in the hopes that they can become a constructive member of the community. If the user is a vandal or troll, I'd obviously just block and ignore. I guess the theoreticals can go on forever, but bottom line: block the sock. And just as an aside, I'd never decline an unblock request from a user who I blocked myself.

9. You block a user for sockpuppetry. User requests unblock. Reqest is granted by another admin. How would you react? Would you reblock or "let it slide"?

A: I suppose just how I'd react would depend on how strong I feel the argument is for an unblock. I think in most circumstances, I'd try to be understanding and accept the decision. If, for whatever reason I strongly disagreed with the unblock, I'd probably let the unblocking admin know my opinion on the matter, and keep an eye on the user who was unblocked, but that's about it. I absolutely wouldn't reblock. Generally, I'd maintain this kind of policy with admin actions in general.

Additional questions from Aleksa Lukic

10. In which situations would you use extreme sanctions (longer-time blocks) for unregistered users?

A: That's something that would probably be extremely rare for me to do (not that it's an unrealistic scenario). The only circumstances in which I would place a lengthy IP block would be in cases where long-term vandalism/abuse is being conducted from an IP address, and "shorter" blocks (be them weeks or months) are clearly not proving effective. A very common example is schools. Vandalism may very well continue moments after a month-long block expires, and a longer block may simply be necessary; an example situation would be something like this. Open proxies can be blocked for long periods as well, but that's something I wouldn't ever get involved in (unless it somehow happened to affect me directly, in which case I would leave it to someone more experienced in the area).

11. What is the best article of yours, and please tell me something about it.

A: Alright, this is an easy one. My best article is, undoubtedly, 10-20-Life, not least of all because it's the one article I've written in full! Incidentally, it was quite noticeably altered by another editor just yesterday, but pretty much everything up to this point was my doing. I had the urge to write this article because I often travel around my state, and whenever I pulled over at a rest stop I was seeing these glaring red posters about this law. My curiosity was peaked, but when I went to look it up, I was dismayed to see that Wikipedia actually lacked an article. So, I just woke up one day and decided to write the article. I just intended to write a stub, but somehow I just kept going until I had (what I feel was a) very respectable article— particularly for a first one. Finding sources was not particularly easy; most of the details and statistics related to the law could only be found on government sites, and the few news articles I could find discussing the law were really not that helpful. Still, though, I think it turned out pretty well. I would throw a 'fun fact' in this answer if I could, but considering we're talking about a mandatory sentencing law I can't very well think of one. :P

Additional question from Hurricanefan25: 12. Say you come upon an article that reads:

"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.^[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"

Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do?

A: My first step would be to evaluate the sources both in the article and from Google to determine whether they're reliable, or unreliable/hoaxes. If I could find reliable sources to back up the article, I'd simply decline the speedy, obviously. But if I couldn't find reliable sources, I'd begin to investigate further. So, first of all, the .org site claims the company has shut down, and that would presumably tell me that there was a real company that's no longer in existence. This would make claims that "BYG research" is currently operating suspect, at least. The Facebook page seems to promote the company but lists the wrong CEO. Possibly evidence of a hoax, but also possibly just outdated information. I'd set that aside for the time being. Then we have this 8th source that's a blog, and it presents this connection to Brazil, not Oregon. Certainly highly suspicious and further evidence to consider. Then we have this MySpace page, which was created after the .org site, that's flat-out claiming the company is fake? So I'd review the evidence:

A .org site claiming the company has shut down.
A promotional Facebook page that contradicts the "official" site.
A blog that links the company to Brazil and thus is clearly and blatantly being used to source false information.
A MySpace page that's flat out telling me that "the company was fake and promoted Brazil".

Now, let me just say, in a real situation, I would search for other sources and use them to make a final determination, and based on those findings, my handling of the situation may be altered, and I would probably consult with one or more other administrators for additional opinions. That being said, just focusing on the evidence you've given me for this thought experiment, I believe the evidence points to a hoax, and/or that the article may be subtle vandalism. However "subtle" is the key word, and {{db-hoax}} (that is, WP:CSD#G3) is quite specifically for "blatant hoaxes". While I would call this situation a possible or probable hoax, I certainly couldn't call it a blatant one. Therefore, I would decline the CSD tag, explain why I did so to the editor who tagged it, send the article to AFD as a probable hoax, explain my suspicions, lay out the evidence, and let the community decide.

Additional questions from Surturz

13. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?

A: Yes, I will be open to recall. I think all administrators should give the community that option. What those criteria will be are not written in stone yet, but I've read many different recall criteria, and the one of the best, in my opinion, is Alex Bakharev's criteria (which, interestingly, were written way back in 2006). Therefore, my recall process will probably be largely based off of Alex's, which I feel is simple and fair. Some of the details will probably vary, but very basically, the the process would be:

At least six editors in good standing petition the recall.
An RfC is held on whether I should reconfirm adminship. If a simple majority of participants in the RfC support a reconfirmation RfA, I'll have one. (In other words, I'll submit another RfA.)
If the reconfirmation RfA (which will be no different from any other) is unsuccessful, I lose the bit. I'm blown away by the level of support I've seen in this RfA. If I couldn't pass while I'm an admin, I clearly shouldn't have the tools.

If anyone disagrees with this process for some reason, or thinks that there's a better way, I'd be more than happy to take their advise into consideration on the matter.

14. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: I've talked to Worm (my nominator) about the RfA in casual conversation via email, but other than that, no, I've talked to absolutely no one off-Wiki about this RfA.

15. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?

A: No, there's certainly been no canvassing from me, nor from any other editor that I know of. Adminship is not a big deal to me and I wouldn't want to even try to influence the result of my RfA in any way. Nothing that could be remotely construed as canvassing has taken place.

Optional question from Σ

16. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: Well, if it were really my block, I would leave it to another administrator to review. But ignoring that factor, if I were reviewing that unblock request, I'd find their credibility to be almost nonexistent. Still, though, I'd be willing to AGF one time and cautiously unblock the user. I'd keep a very close eye on them, and at the first sign of vandalism, I'd reinstate the block with talk page access disabled, as they're clearly only abusing their privileges at that point. It's a bit of a leap of faith for sure, and I'd totally understand and support another administrator's decision to decline the request, but I'd be willing to give them one single shot with an unblock.

Additional question from Ebe123

17. How do you think about WP:ABUSE?

A: Well, I've never been involved with the abuse response team in any way, so I can only offer an uneducated opinion, but it certainly seems like a good thing, and an important part of our efforts to combat disruption on the encyclopedia. I'm definitely supportive of those efforts in principle, though I honestly have no idea how effective they are.

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

18. Should content writers be concerned with what appears to be a network of activists, with its own community of RfA schools etc., that seem to be becoming a majority of RfA participants and a rather cohesive network of administrators?

A: Well, I agree that the "admin corps" is too cohesive and that this creates an atmosphere where some admins (not all, mind you) feel that they're "untouchable" regardless of their behavior (and this, unfortunately, is all too often the reality). The ever-declining number of RfA promotions is certainly not helping. I don't think this is something that should just concern content writers, though, this is something that should concern the broader community. However, I'm not sure if I feel that a majority of RfA participants are "activists" (indeed, I'm seeing many new faces in my own RfA), though I still do think the RfA crowd is a bit too "regular" and I'd like to see a broader spectrum of "old timers" and content writers participate. Overall, I think content writers should be brought into this area of Wikipedia more, and that more of them should be nominated and/or encouraged to run for adminship.

General comments

Links for Swarm: Swarm (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Swarm can be found here.

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

Discussion

Relatively late edit stats on talk page. →Σ τ c. 03:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the questions asked by Surturz objectionable. I am not at all concerned of a negative impact, I am becoming concerned that Surturz may not be a fit juror for RfA, and is tending towards disruption. My76Strat (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The increasing hysteria about Surturz and about Keepscases is disruptive. It is a pity that Swarm has been silent while the mob has been sharpening its pitchforks and tarring its torches. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't want to see Surturz mobbed (he's certainly not a remotely malicious user), neither Surturz's questions or Strat's comment stirred up any drama so I thought it'd be best to just let the issue go. I don't feel strongly about Surturz's questions and it's one controversy I've been staying out of anyway (TBH I thought it had died down by now, but evidently not). In this particular case (specifically with the off-Wiki communication/canvassing questions that I think Strat was referring to), I think it's clear that they asked the questions in good faith and they assumed good faith with their support. Swarm 13:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad no drama ensued my comment. I realize it could have, and for that potential, I should have kept it to myself. Yes I was disturbed by the canvassing question, and I realize it was probably an overreaction. It just seemed accusatory, which was likely my own misinterpretation. Congratulations Swarm. My76Strat (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support. The advice given by Swarm is evidence that he makes very good judgement in complicated situations, and always civilly. RfA criteria listed on userpage shows that he understands what adminship is about. Can only support.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well rounded experience; trusted; should be an asset for the project. Wifione ^Message 03:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Swarm around doing vandal work from time to time. He looks like a good candidate for adminship. -- Luke (Talk) 01:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In before the transclusion. I was actually wondering today why you weren't an admin. I'm happy to see that you are interested in taking that step. And, much like Jasper Deng above, your RfA criteria alone proves you have a clue. Trusilver 01:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Malformed nomination, user already admin Support Why is user already not an admin. Pwr below, Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any reason to withhold support. The candidate strikes me as very cluefull. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yeah Swarm, in my opinion, is one of the most thoughtful and well grounded editors around. I agree with Buggie111 that Swarm is easily confused with being an admin. Definitely trustworthy.--v/r - T P 03:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust the candidate, and I trust the nominator. Swarm's passion for the project is clear. 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hate using the whole "I thought you already were one" argument, but I seriously did. I have seen you active in many areas of Wikipedia, and have no doubt that you'll do well as an admin. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I've met Swarm months ago and I can say he's more than ready to receive the promo. I especially liked the way s/he answered my questions. –BuickCentury Driver 04:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one of the best here--Guerillero | My Talk 05:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly in the same boat as Ajraddatz - I'd thought you'd done the RFA bit already! Whenever I see Swarm's signature it seems to have sound commentary before it. User is a pleasure to interact with and I see no reason to not grant the buttons. Pedro : Chat 07:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Swarm has made some excellent contributions to the encyclopaedia. Of particular note is the work Swarm has done in the wikification of articles. Every time I have interacted with Swarm, especially on WP:RFA2011, he has appeared highly competent, very civil and amazingly patient (even in the most trying of circumstances). He will make an excellent addition to the janitorial ranks. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Good vandal fighting. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a clueful and levelheaded user. /ƒETCH COMMS / 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Easy decision. —SW— ^prattle 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fastily. --John (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DoRD (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You look like a good editor who makes valuable contributions to both content and discussion. I see no reason for you not to have admin tools and I'm sure you'll do a good job with them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AD 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fetchcomms' analysis. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, over 10K edits, seems oriented to administrative tasks rather than content creation. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Swarm is a good editor who needs the tools to continue being good. Has helped me out of a sticky spot or two, and the powers fit them just right. Rcsprinter (chat) 17:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support causa sui (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Swarm will be even more helpful here with the bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keepscases (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my digging on this one. I think the candidate's contributions to ITN are very helpful and it would be good to have some new admin blood over there after a few recent cowboy moments. I'm also impressed by some of the talk page contributions, including throughout the archives of Talk:Anders Behring Breivik (although not at all a fan of the facepalm template: [1]). Swarm demonstrates a capable enough awareness and understanding of policy to be a good administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had this RfA pre-watchlisted and since I cannot find any faults in the candidate's contributions, I probably did so because I really think he should be an admin. Regards So Why 20:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Baseball Watcher 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 04:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lagom Support. Generally has good sense and a self-deprecating sense of humor. He is one of the best editors associated with RfA deform, whose effect would be to make it easier to become an administrator if you lack interest in writing encyclopedia articles; his association with the RfA schools is both a merit and demerit. His comments on Dylan's RfA were the best of a bad bunch. I have some concerns about intellectual maturity based on a convenience sample of ITN edits, where Swarm opposed the story on super-symmetry and supported Amy Winehouse and seems to under-appreciate the significance of the Arab Spring. Of course, more article-writing experience would be useful; the 10 Good Article reviews would be even more meritorious if they pushed the writers to improve the article (to a greater extent) besides check-listing GA criteria. My main turn-off was his hard-ass approach to Lihaas, one of Wikipedia's most valuable members, who obviously was pissed off about events some months ago. A frequent contributor to ITN should have shown empathy for Lihaas, while justly complaining about Lihaas's rhetoric. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What, you're not one now? Citing quality work and engagement with other users. hmssolent\Let's convene 07:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course <<New mop please>> $Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 08:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The username gives me pause. How do we know this user is not a swarm of locusts? Or killer bees? But then, I have yet to see a swarm of anything abuse an advanced technical access on a website, so I can't say I'm all too concerned about what would happen if we granted this account sysop rights. Guess we'll just have to wait and see... Master&Expert (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HurricaneFan 25 14:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Answers seems to be brilliant. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 18:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support good spirit, huge constructive contributing, poised, with high level of understanding and helping other users. This is what all admins should be! Alex^{discussion ★} 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support good answers and has responsibllity Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be too early to tell, but I think you are going to have admin powers soon! :P smithers - talk 00:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure to make a good admin. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I had known this was coming up I would have been a co-nominator. Swarm opposed my RfA, but ironically has become one of nicest and most clueful editors with whom it is my great pleasure to collaborate. I wholeheartedly support this candidature, and strongly echo all the sentiments above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasant surprise. I just kind of assumed that you weren't an admin because you didn't want to be, but you have my unreserved support! We need more admins at ITN, and a level-headed editor like Swarm is the perfect candidate, and I'm sure his calm, well thought-out comments in heated discussions are appreciated elsewhere as well. Good luck, mate, not that you need it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – Swarm is an absolutely brilliant candidate for RfA; the mop will just give him more tools for day-to-day work. —mc10 (t/c) 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure they will be a very good admin. Jamietw (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Useless pile on but still enthusiastic Support Crazynas^t 16:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had reviewed edits. Good Job!Gregory Heffley (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strike another one off my list.... Peridon (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brandon (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Wait a minute, didn't you just say a day or two ago that you disagree with me about an FFD? I should clearly oppose. No, just kidding.) Seriously, I like the commitment to adopting users. I went back and looked at talk page history, and everything checks out. I also like the answers to questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of brevity, I'll not list my reasons for support My76Strat (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Baseball Watcher 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Strike duplicate !vote--v/r - T P 20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong candidate who has been friendly, level headed and a good contributor to the project. SMasters (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highly competent editor. Happy editing! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All opposing users have very unconvincing rationales. →Σ τ c. 07:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good contributions. The answer to question 12 is particularly good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Looks great, despite concerns about your holiday in March of this year. ;) Dru of Id (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When I saw this request listed, my first reaction was "Oh no, not another reconfirmation request". I'm as surprised as Pedro and others above that you're not already an admin. Happy to support. WJBscribe (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great admin material. Best of Luck! -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very strong candidate that has been active in enwp operations for a good while. Highly knowledgable of our policies and our culture having worked across most areas of our project. More importantly, Swarm has been very helpful to new users, adding to our ranks of good contributors that help improve our quality. This generous help cannot be understated as our project has thousands of articles that could use improvement. So a steady stream of well-taught new users is an immense value to our project. I'm pleased the candidate has accepted the nomination and I'm very happy to add my support for Swarm ^X. Yeah, I miss the old sig - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user is a regular editor on some controversial articles such as War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present), Iraq War, and Waterboarding and despite the conflict he always stays cool and keeps other users calm and focused on article content also. His work on 10-20-Life shows that he knows how to make a good article. The most important work that an admin can do, though, is set a good example for new users and his time on the "adopt a user" project demonstrates that he can do that. I support his adminship for these reasons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Although i don't know him that well, he's pointed out a few of my errors and looking at their contribs they seem to be a good editor. --Kangaroo powah 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No surprises. Top-quality answers to the questions. Evidence shown by WormTT shows that he has the right personality for an administrator. Minima © (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems excellent! Ironholds (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Strong Support Fantastic candidate. All vandal destroyers are A okay in my book. Has experience with vandals, article creation, etc. Good guy with good faith. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ditto. Very useful contributor.--The Master of Mayhem (talk, contribs, email) 11:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Double ditto. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good contributor. Don't see any problems with giving Swarm admin tools.--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big on clue, low on drama. Them From Space 21:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUCK, yeah (an attempt at humour per my comment at Oppose 1 below). Support I've been impressed by this candidate's work for some time, and I'm sure this will only help the encyclopedia.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything I have seen looks good. GB fan 02:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've got plenty of work, have fun. Courcelles 02:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good answers. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Swarm's done good work improving the encyclopedia, and the answers above demonstrate readiness for the mop. Wikipedia will be a better place with you as an admin. Lagrange 613 07:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to. Big Dom 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support- Top-drawer answers, nom. statement, vandal-fighting creds, content creator - the candidate presents a complete package.--Hokeman (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support, high level of clue indicated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good friendly interactions on WP:ITN/C. Marcus Qwertyus 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for all your contributions! I hope you will submit some cases soon! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs • 19:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support All interactions with Swarm have been positive. Thanks for your work with new users and and with resolving civility disputes. The Interior (Talk) 19:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SUpport logs (moves and uploads) and deleted content look fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you receive your mop, stop by. I'll give you ten bucks to mop my kitchen! ;) Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see any reason to oppose. Chzz ► 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like candidate will be a good admin. --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
open-minded Support - worth a go with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When I was still a new editor, I disagreed with the way User:Swarm handled a dispute in which I was involved. Since then, though, I've come to appreciate Swarm's detached and nonpartisan dedication to Wikipedia and the efforts he invests in promoting cordiality between editors. In the particular area where I edit, Swarm's neutral application of policy can be illustrated by these two diffs. Wikipedia benefits from precisely these kinds of contributors. I'm confident Swarm'll prove himself an invaluable asset to our project as Admin, just as he has as a lay editor.—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per response to question 12. Anyone who is willing to wind their way through that circuitous hypothetical will surely do well when it comes to an actual administrative task.--~T P W 11:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally cannot find any reason not to - their work on the project is fantastic, their detachment from things should be a huge benefit to the thick skin needed to be an admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally. Last time I hold out for 100! Of course I support, I'm the nom. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited interactions with the candidate, I firmly believe he has the competance and knowledge to be an excellent admin. Full (if somewhat late) support. NLinpublic (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the better RfA's, good answers to the questions. Time for another mop. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Late to the party, but I'd still like to comment. Sound candidate, excellent answers to the questions. Great stuff. WilliamH (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't find anything concerning. The candidate is well versed in policy and clueful. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I start checking out the candidate's contributions and discover that he thinks that DGAFism is a "serious editing philosophy". He has edited that essay repeatedly and so seems to support it. This does not seem an acceptable attitude or mode of expression for an admin. Warden (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of clarity, I used the term "philosophy", not "policy". Swarm 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden - can you clarify your oppose? Given the above reply and looking at your supplied diff, it seems from direct evidence you are either poorly construing the edit summary or outright lying in your above statement. Pedro : Chat 20:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a typo, which I shall correct now. My objection remains as, whatever one calls that essay, it seems an improper attitude for an admin. The point of the essay is that one should act in a strong-willed way, caring only for your own opinion, not that of others. This attitude is quite improper for an admin who should be acting upon the consensus view, i.e. the view of other editors. The language used as the title for the essay is arrogant and contemptuous. Both the language and the attitude are not wanted in our admins who should be servants of the community, not its masters. Warden (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have a really bad keyboard if "philosophy" comes out as "policy". "Typo" indeed. You're discrediting yourself further. I'd just give it up Warden. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret that essay quite differently, Colonel. I don't believe it encourages us to disregard other editors, but rather to put things in their proper perspective to avoid unnecessary stress from clinging to a particular position too strongly. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another way to look at it. Supposing, at interview, a candidate is asked about their attitude to the job and organisation. If their response is that they DGAF, they would not normally be improving their chances of acceptance, right? Please can the candidate here explain whether he DGAF or not and what he means by it. Warden (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the "point" of that essay to simply mean, as the essay says, "Suffering is caused by attachment and can be relieved by detachment." You clearly have a different take on it, and that's fine, but your interpretation of that essay is basically the opposite of how I feel about Wikipedia and other editors. I can assure you that, but I would certainly hope this is reflected in my editing history as well. So, in sum, do I "GAF" or not? I most definitely do. Do I believe that "one should act in a strong-willed way, caring only for your own opinion, not that of others"? Like I said, absolutely not! If I can clarify further, let me know. Best regards, Swarm 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not especially worried that you would be a loose cannon but still don't get what you see in the essay. I'll leave my oppose for now as a talking point and revisit the matter in a day or two. Warden (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt users who know their history of WWII, and the English Prime Minister for the majority of the war, will find your comments laughable given your username - I digress. Whilst this RFA is likely to pass easily, I'm sure bureaucrats will righty discount this particular commentary anyway. Warden appears to be objecting to someone editing an essay which he finds "arrogant and contemputous". Frankly the fact that he doesn't like the essay is very relevant and speaks volumes of Wardens' problems on Wikipedia. I'm not a big of Hitler, Communism or Religion. But I would not knee jerk oppose someone who had edited those articles.Pedro : Chat 21:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the essay was just a bit of levity then I'd let that pass as humour is a matter of taste. But, in this case, the edit made by the candidate was to remove the {{humor}} tag on the grounds that the essay is serious. If the candidate thinks this then please can he explain this serious position. My impression remains that the essay condones wilful behaviour, e.g. "Not giving a fuck also lends itself to ignoring all rules and being bold.". The idea that one should act without caring in Wikipedia seems absurd. If you don't care then why are you acting? The ultimate result of DGAFism is surely to achieve nirvana by exiting the project, not by seeking more responsibility and power. Warden (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit that providing ad hominem responses in not useful, I'm going to slide out of this. Warden clearly has his own (misguided) agenda and the fact is that bureaucrats will not take his comments as adding value; many editors recognise that Wardens' input is generally so biased as to be unusable. Luckily for us all, at RFA passing with no opposess or a handfull of silly ones still comes up with the same result. Pedro : Chat 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, I think you've completely missed the spirit of WP:DGAF. The idea is to bring detachment to your editing so when other editor's disagree, you can remain calm and not get upset (and misuse the tools). Read Wikipedia:MYPRIDE#I_don.27t_really_care for my take on WP:DGAF.--v/r - T P 23:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (not much, I know) WP:FUCK is probably the single most important bit of advice I've ever read here, for when I get stressed and feel like quitting the project (again). I'm serious. It's a wonderful essay that I remind myself of, in my darkest Wiki-moments, and it keeps me going. So thanks to the candidate and all involved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than responding to this oppose, we should just see how much of a fuck the closing bureaucrat gives about Colonel Warden's opinion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this post Warden's !vote constitutes 1/83rd (.012%) of the total. I certainly hope any bureaucrat if they closed it now would not discount Warden's opinion to a lessor value. Apparently, I have more confidence in Warden's motives, because it never struck me as a contrived notion. Frankly, it would be more within Warden's character to vacate his opinion based on a fair assessment of the edit in question and the merits of the candidate. But to mock his 1/83rd voice is actually counterproductive. IMO My76Strat (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Last November you made a claim about the Iraq War without backing it up with a source and then protested my removal with counter-reverts. WP:BURDEN. Marcus Qwertyus 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relevant discussions here, here and here. Swarm 09:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good oppose reasoning. Neither user was blocked, and the dispute is nearly a year old. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, is that the worst that can be dug up on Swarm?--v/r - T P 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it isn't exactly incriminating, I remain unconvinced for the moment. Waiting for a response from Swarm. Marcus Qwertyus 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might be confused about which edit you are questioning because you provide a link to all the user's edits to that article rather than specific diffs. It seems like Swarm was saying that the US in Iraq was a "foreign" war (e.g. WWII, Vietnam), rather than a "US" war (e.g the Revolutionary War or the Civil War). This seems to be the kind of self-evident statement like "the sky is blue" or "1 + 3 = 4" which does not need any sort of citation. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm stated that all coalition combat operations had ended. This was after the United States declared the end of its combat operations. Marcus Qwertyus 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me try to explain the background and my thought process real quick, then. Here's the change that was disputed at the time; the article's infobox said "U.S. combat operations concluded". However, the US was one of 39 or 40 foreign (i.e. coalition) nations that took part in the Iraq War (and all others had previously withdrawn from the country), hence I thought it best for the wording to reflect that (the reference happened to support the former statement, but not the latter directly). From my perspective, this was common knowledge and easily verifiable, and I tried to explain the change to Marcus. Looking through the page history from November, it looks like I reverted Marcus a couple times that month (another user made a similar change a couple times as well), and I fully admit that the simplest method of settling the dispute would have been to simply provide a source, as another user eventually did. Anyway, Marcus, I'm sorry that that our first interaction gave you such a negative impression of me, even after all this time. That's the last thing I would want to come out of that dispute. Swarm 18:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attention should be given to WP:SYNTH when statements concern material that may be out of date. This was all a year ago so I am casting a support vote. Marcus Qwertyus 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights