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

I WITHDRAW MY NOMINATION (talk page) 'Final (0/13/0); ended 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC) - WITHDRAWN swinquest (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)' [reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to continue what I normally do as a contributer, which is monitoring articles for vandalism and smaller edits. However, I would also use my Admin rights to block users guilty of edit wars and protect pages with frequent non-relavent changes. Wikipedia's sole intention is to be a place of valuable information, and my intent is to insure that it remains that way.

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

A: My best contributions include removing unsourced documentation and keeping an eye out for vandalized edits. Most recently, I requested a block of two IP addresses and the protection of Jessica Simpson due to a user consistantly adding unsourced information.

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 have not been in any conflicts over editing, and if there is an issue with an edit that I made (and was reversed), I look into further why it was removed and seek resolution. In my opinion, there is no need to get stressed out over any situations. I think that if an edit was removed, it may just not be the right time and will reconsider it in the future.

Additional question from 28bytes

4. This article you created appears to be lifted wholesale from this. Thoughts?

A: I created this page quite some time ago, while I was still getting my feet wet with Wikipedia, and I thought I would try my hand at creating some pages. I admit that I am not good at creating pages, and thus I have ventured away from that and only work on current articles.

Withdraw

I had submitted this request as I felt that I was ready to become an admin to help revert edits that are not suitable for Wikipedia. After reading some of the comments below, I will not look at this negatively, as I will now have a better understanding what I would need to do to earn this title.

I would, however, like to comment on some of the items listed below:

Mato - I was not edit warring, and while I admit that I did not know at the time how to go about requesting this, I did find out how to request it and I feel that I can make these requests in the future without any hesitation. I was simply reverting back to the previous version until I was able to find the proper process.

Sphilbrick - To make this comment when I have reviewed a previous request with far less edits than mine and time on Wikipedia, I was a little offended. But not to let it get me down, it is not going to bother me.

For everyone else, thank you for taking the time to make your notes and to let me know what I do need to work on. I look forward to another request in the future.

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

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

1. Strong Oppose - WP:SNOW having only 1800 edits is not a thing that I look in an admin. I would support if there were 5000+ edits. But for now have to oppose. Sorry. Yasht101 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think you understand what WP:SNOW means. Perhaps you were looking for WP:NOTNOW? Achowat (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - Edit warring in the last 24hrs. Mato (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Barring a brilliant answer to 28bytes'question, a copyvio so egregious is simply unacceptable from an Admin. Achowat (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   Just straight Oppose; candidate states he wants to help with Page Protection, but admitted yesterday that he couldn't even find the proper forum to request protection. Achowat (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Achowat dif which shows WP:NOTNOW, and for Mato he wasn't really edit warring he was reverting unsourced BLP content from apparent sockpuppetry that was protected soon after. Secret ^account 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The edits were hardly contentious, I don't see that as an exemption to WP:3RR - and there wasn't any sockpuppetry going on at the time as far as I can see..Mato (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Strong oppose Well per others, and a additional reason of mine I'd like to include is that though you've 1,800 edits, only 40 edits are in the Wikipedia: namespace, and about 5 in the File namespace. Sorry, but this makes me to oppose your RFA. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Please don't waste the time of volunteers. with 1800 edits, you needed a STRONG explanation why this should be an exception.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong oppose as per Dipankan above. GMolewaterdelaRiveBox (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Oppose - You've made some great contributions, however your edit history is lacking evidence that you understand many of the important wikipedia policies and the tools available to you. You don't have any CSD/AIV history despite wanting to to do countervandalism. Nick Wilson ►Talk 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Your enthusiasm and contributions are welcomed, but you do need quite a bit more experience and some reasonably detailed understanding of how to do admin type things before you'd be ready for a mop. Get some experience reporting vandalism at AIV, requesting page protection at RFPP, etc, but most of all more general experience of WP:Gnome type article work. I hope to be able to support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Good contributions to the encyclopedia, but there are some valid concerns are raised above, and only 1800 edits shows a general lack of editing experience overall. Sorry, but WP:NOTNOW. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Oppose - per Edit Warring, WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - you need to show some maturity as an editor, especially with respect to policies. Do take some time to familiarise yourself with them. If you need help, feel free to ask any editor. I don't mind helping. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose -- I'm sorry, it seems not at this time. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.