Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scottywong

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

Scottywong

Final (89/4/11). Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) at 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Scottywong (talk · contribs) – This is my second time at RfA, and I had a slight username change since that time. My first RfA attempt can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snottywong. I have received several offers for RfA nominations, but in the end I prefer to self-nominate to avoid the politics of RfA. In my view, there were three primary reasons for the opposition to my first RfA, and I've tried to address all of them:

1. ARS Opposition - Some editors thought I was unfairly critical and/or too emotional when it came to my opposition to some of the ways the Article Rescue Squadron works. In response to this concern, since my last RfA I have made a conscious reduction of my contributions to WT:ARS, I've stopped patrolling articles that are tagged for rescue, I've not participated in any arguments with ARS members, and I've even volunteered to code a bot task for the ARS which keeps track of articles that are tagged for rescue (which is no longer running since the rescue template was recently deleted).
2. AfD comments and deletionism - Some editors thought my comments at some AfD's were too harsh, and that I was too deletionist to be trusted as an admin. In response to this concern, I strove to be more fair and level-headed in the AfD's to which I contributed. In AfD's in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period. On average, 18.9% of AfD's close as Keep, so I think I'm squarely in the center as far as deletionism/inclusionism goes. You can find just about all of the AfD's I contributed to since my last RfA by using this link. I have edited over 1,000 AfD pages total throughout my time here.
3. Divisive username - Some editors thought my previous username (Snottywong) was divisive and/or potentially could be interpreted as vulgar. Even though it was not intended as such, I have decided to be proactive and make a very minor change to assuage those concerns.

I hope you agree that I have sufficiently addressed the concerns made one year ago. Thanks for your time and consideration. —SW— ^converse 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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 am very familiar with the deletion processes, and could hit the ground running on closing XfD's and responding to speedy deletion and PROD requests. This is where I would likely work the most. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to {{editrequested}} requests on protected and/or high-use templates. Finally, being an experienced bot operator, I could respond to requests for adminbots. Most importantly, I know what I don't know, and therefore I won't go wandering recklessly into unfamiliar admin areas without having familiarized myself with their processes fully.

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

A: The reason why I first registered an account was because there was no article on CobraNet, which is an important protocol in the industry in which I work. I spent a few months writing CobraNet and bringing it to GA. Later, I discovered the maintenance underworld of Wikipedia and took to that moreso than extensive writing. However, I still find time to write from time to time, and a short list of some articles I've written or significantly contributed to can be found on my user page. However, since my RfA last year, I've primarily delved into the realm of bots and tools, which is part of the reason why my edit count declined somewhat since the previous RfA (I'm not spending any less time on WP, but a chunk of that time is spent programming instead of editing). I now run a handful of bot tasks with User:Snotbot, and I've created some toolserver tools which are used by hundreds of users per day. My statistical analyses of various aspects of Wikipedia can be found on various pages throughout Wikipedia. I also try to help out from time to time at WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:GAC, and WP:3O.

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: It took me awhile to learn how to communicate effectively in the strange social environment of Wikipedia, but I think I've got it figured out now. Prior to my last RfA I was involved in some conflicts, some of which were perpetrated in part by me. I managed to keep them all in check, as evidenced by my clean block log, but they were still conflicts nonetheless, and unnecessary ones at that. However, since my last RfA, I can honestly say that I haven't participated in anything I would label as a "conflict". Some of this is because I've been concentrating largely on creating bots and tools (a solitary process without much potential for conflict), and some of this is because I've made a concerted effort to defuse any escalating discussions long before they rose to the level of "conflict".

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 4a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

• A: An editor should be blocked when it is believed that the block would prevent damage and/or disruption to Wikipedia.

• 4b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

• A: Articles should be protected when they are being adversely affected by excessive edit warring, vandalism, or other persistent damaging/disruptive behavior. They should be unprotected once the underlying problem has been resolved. Many non-article pages (like high-use templates) are routinely protected indefinitely for various reasons.

• 4c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

• A: A page should be speedily deleted if it strictly meets any of the various criteria listed at WP:CSD. It can be restored if it can be shown that the prior objections can be overcome.

• 4d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: A rule should be ignored when it is sincerely believed that the rule is preventing the improvement or maintenance of the project.

• 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Evaluating a discussion for consensus is more of an art than a science. There is no step-by-step method by which you can instruct someone on how to determine consensus. With that said, consensus is evaluated primarily by judging the strength of each editor's argument, and whether or not that argument is congruous with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arguments that have no basis in policy, or that have been sufficiently refuted by other editors are generally removed from consideration. If, after removing invalid/tenuous/refuted arguments, there is a general agreement among most of the remaining editors, then a consensus has been achieved. Generally, there is no fundamental difference between evaluating consensus on talk pages, XfD's, or DRV's; except for minor adjustments for the various quirks of each area as well as their average participation rates.

• 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: This depends largely on the specifics of the situation. If the situation is fairly tame and harmless, I might do nothing or simply encourage discussion. If the situation has progressed past 3RR, then both editors might receive either a stern warning or a 1-day block. If one of the editors is reverting a BLP violation or blatant vandalism, then they would likely receive praise while the other editor is blocked. Let me also note that it is not my intention to work in areas which require me to frequently block other editors.

• 7. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Anyone reading this right now is here because they believe in the project and want to improve it. This includes me. I'm aware of administrative backlogs that exist every day which I am capable of helping with, but don't have the tools to do so. I believe that I could improve the project more with the help of those tools.

Additional questions from Whenaxis

8. Why have you participated in the request for comments on the Article Rescue Squadron, despite your history with the ARS, in close proximity to your RfA?

A: A few reasons. Firstly, I haven't made adjustments to my behavior just because I knew I was going to make a request for adminship. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part, but I can assure you that what you see is what you get. Secondly, my history with the ARS has taught me that my previous battleground behaviors were unhelpful. So, I stopped battling, but didn't self-impose a complete topic ban on myself with respect to the ARS. I still occasionally post messages on their talk page and try to provide helpful ideas. As I mentioned in my self-nom statement, I also ran a bot task for them for awhile. I felt rather strongly that the recent RFC was misguided, and decided to post a statement on it.

9. In the event that someone alleges that you are abusing your administrator power, what will you do?

A: If I felt that the accusation was genuine, I would probably start a thread at ANI asking for advice, and if others agreed that I was abusing my admin privileges, I would do whatever is required to undo what I've done. I think I have a strong track record of not having a problem with admitting when I'm wrong.

Optional question from —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline

10. Because of this discussion that took place not too long ago, I find it necessary to know if you prefer fruits or vegetables as I will basing my vote off of this.

A: I hope that my preference for fleshy seed coverings will sway your vote.

Additional question from Achowat

11. You have indicated an interest in working XfDs; as someone who is active in MFD, I would like to ask you what your opinion of WP:FAKEARTICLE is. Specifically consider the situation where User:FrankRovin has set up a page (page [[User:FrankRovin]]) that uses familiar formatting to an article. The page has an infobox, a free use picture (of Frank, or so he claims) is broken up into sections with a Table of Contents, etc. However, the content of the article is not tremendously more detailed than what one might expect from UBXs (Nationality, Country of Origin, WikiProjects, alma mater, etc), though there is a tremendous amount of it. It is written in the Third Person; for instance, there is an Education subsection that contains such phrases as "Rovin attended Cambridge University in 2002, graduating with a Masters in 2007." Do you believe WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to this situation?}}

A: I generally fall somewhat on the liberal side when it comes to editors using their own userspace. The situation you describe is squarely in the gray area of WP:FAKEARTICLE, and could fall either way depending on the details. For instance, you mention that Frank's user page includes an infobox, however consider that {{Infobox user}} is an infobox that is designed for and apparently acceptable to be used on one's user page. Using that infobox would certainly be more acceptable than one that is designed for use in articles. In summary, it's unlikely that I would personally bring Frank's user page to MfD, I would probably just ask him to add something like {{User page}} to the top of it to make it clear that it's not an article.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Snottywong
• Requests for adminship/Scottywong

• Links for Scottywong: Scottywong (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Scottywong 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

• Edit stats are on the talk page. →Στc. 05:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note: Previous RFAs box added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. One of our more experienced and hard-working editors, happy to support. 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support I agree with 28bytes, and I think that the concerns from the earlier RfA have been addressed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Support I have seen this user around quite a few times and am surprised his first RfA was a bust. Plus this user likes fruit so, I hope it goes better this time.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Great editor, no significant issues, great work at WP:XFD. Bmusician 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Support: This user is technically savvy and will be a welcome addition to the admin-corps. He has addressed the concerns raised in his last bid for adminship. I am happy to support. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Absolute, 100%, full support. Scottywong, Kudpung, and I did a huge amount of work together to prepare WP:ACTRIAL, and while we know what happened there he really proved his worth. He's done a tremendous amount of good, and he's fully suited for adminship. I look forward to seeing him in our admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)And as a strong agnostic myself, and a huge fan of Into Eternity, Rush, and Mayhem, I'm all on board with the userboxes being complained about in Oppose 1.
7. Support I have been watching over his edits since i saw this pettish comments in RfA talkpage. I was surprised to see that acctually this user is a genuine editor and has done good edits since i have seen them atleast. I dont find anything wrong about them. Yasht101 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. Useful editor with clue. That's what matters. Alarbus (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Support – I think Scottywong has done a very good job at allaying the concerns expressed by the community at the previous RfA. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Seen him about the place, seems to know what's up. — foxj 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
11. Support I too have seen him around quite a bit, and have no doubt he'll serve the project well as an admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
12. While I think he's a bit blunt at times, I think he will make an excellent administrator. Secret ^account 03:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
13. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
14. Support While I did indeed oppose Scotty's last RfA, his work since then has been exemplary. I have no concerns. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
15. Sure. An active and thoughtful editor who will make a good admin. A little bluntness is actually quite a useful thing. --regentspark (comment) 05:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Yes, definitely. One of the most active and famous users of Wikipedia, who can be trusted with the tool. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Have encountered Scotty across AfDs, where, for a change, he's the one who's pointed out corrections to me. His contribution in AfCs is also quite sincere. Scotty should necessarily take into account the points that Keifer mentions. Unfortunately, as an admin, there is no leeway for quid pro quos in encomiums, and Scotty has to accept that without qualifications if he wishes to be an admin. I've come across Keifer and my personal opinion of him is quite positive. And I'm sure Keifer would reconsider his opposition to Scotty considering the work he's done for the project. Wifione ^Message 07:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you. I agree that Scottywong is an excellent member of the project, and his bot work has been particularly valuable. Indeed, in the previously mentioned discussion of "fruit", I was the first to welcome him back from his WikiBreak, partly to let him know that I wish him well and have a generally favorable impression of him. If he would declare that he will avoid using the tools in dealing with content-editors (and remove the "DefCon" box about new articles, which also suggests a problem still with this deletionist tendencies ...) I would weaken my opposition or even withdraw it. Wanting to become an administrator has and becoming one probably would improve the conduct of about any editor---crooked timber of humanity and all that...  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

18. Strong Support Seems unually honest and honourable. Doesn't seem to bear grudges; Ive seen them defend rescue squad members with whom they've previously had extended disputes. Also technically competent and seems happy to help out any editor regardless of standing – think they'll make an excellent addition to the admin core. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
19. Support - Fit enough to be a admin.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Experienced in the right areas, and in general. Forthright, but not uncivil. Technically competent. High level communication skills. Helpful. Analytical. Trustworthy. These are all ticks. No big red crosses I can see, so easy to support. Begoon ^talk 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. I am old fashioned and still believe that if you are trusted and technically competent to have the tools then why not... I see no reason to say no, so yes. QU ^TalkQu 14:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - Keifer's issues are long in the past, and while I am diametrically opposed to ScottyWong both politically and theologically, that doesn't really matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
23. Support - issues in the Oppose seem non-convincing. Relative lack of content creation is a small concern, but having a process-heavy Admin isn't the worst thing in the world. Achowat (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
24. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
25. Support as no concerns. This editor has made invaluable contributions not only to the Wiki but toolserver as well, with multiple useful tools being available created by Scottywong. I also think the opposes are just exaggerated paragraphs of old grievances and not terribly convincing. I see nothing to make me not vote 'support'. Rcsprinter (yak) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
26. Support I think Scotty has come a long way since his last RfA. He is a skilled and hardworking editor. He clearly has the technical know-how to be given the tools and any previous concerns I may have had about his temperament, have been overcome. Pol430 talk to me 19:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Don't see any reason not to. Head is sufficiently screwed on, won't get into anything stupid. AfD always needs more admins. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. I'm convinced that SW has sincerely looked in the mirror since the previous RfA, and that he has the best interests of the project at heart. This is someone I trust not to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
29. Support: Even though this candidate has made mistakes in the past, he has significantly adjusted his attitude that I am confident enough to support this candidate. The actions that he has undertaken since his previous RfA have shown high levels of maturity and effectively counteracts the actions of his past. At the start of the RfA, I was hesitant to support this candidate because of reasons mentioned in the Oppose and Neutral sections of this RfA as well as his previous attitude up until his previous RfA, however, now I am comfortable with vesting powerful admin tools to this candidate without a doubt in my mind. I would like to see this candidate expand further into other administrator actions that he is not so familiar with such as request for page protection and responding to the administrator's noticeboard upon the closure of this adminship. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Overall seems to be a good editor. There have been issues with conduct in the past, but most of what has been raised is not recent, suggesting that Scottywong has moved on and matured since any problems. Unless and until evidence of harassment and incivility from recent discussions is provided, I am happy to support this candidate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
31. Support despite the change in the name. Seen SW around a lot, never had a problem with them. Probably knows a damn sight more than I do about how things work in this place. If there have been issues about civility, I feel sure there won't be more than from others currently wielding mops. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
32. I don't see why not. I've seen his signature around plenty of times and I think he'd make a great administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
33. Support I don't see any reason to oppose.--В и к и T 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
34. Support – someone who I know will handle the tools brilliantly. Airplaneman ✈ 04:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
35. Support I've WikiKnown SW for around a year now, and (having done my usual thing of stalking around someone's communications contributions) I can certainly say that I've noticed a significant improvement in terms of "bluntness". SW is hugely clueful and I don't foresee any risk of the tools being abused whatsoever, which is why I'm happy to support. Just a word of advice - the "blunt instrument" is still just a tad heavy-handed occasionally, usually in situations where SW has had previous history with another user, and in those cases it seems very often six of one and half a dozen of the other, but worth considering continuing to improve in this area. It's certainly not a major problem, at all, and I'm sure SW won't mind me saying this; there's just room for a bit more polishing on this front. :o) Pesky (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Every editor makes mistakes at some point of time and Scottywong is no different. The user had been in some conflicts and disputes in the past and most of them seem to have been solved. User intends to work in some of the administrative areas of the project and should be given a chance to use these tools wisely. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - whenever I have encountered SW on noticebiards or elsewhere I have found then to be helpful & informative, and see nothing of great concern. GiantSnowman 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
38. support I still worry about maturity issues, but on the whole find SW to have become a much more reasonable editor. The name change helped too. He's always been helpful, just occasionally very difficult. I'm seeing the helpful continue and the difficult largely fall away. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. Has shown a lot of improvement since his last RfA. We all learn from experience, and I believe Scottywong, having gone through many trials and tribulations, has learned many lessons along the way on what it means to be an outstanding Wikipedian. We can confidently give him the keys to the janitor's closet. -- œ^™ 14:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. Will make a fine admin. No real concerns. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. After a sampling of about 200 edits throughout his career, and paying special attention to the editors bringing forward concerns in the oppose category, I agree Scotty has leveled off from where he once was. He certainly does not sugarcoat his stance on content, but plain honesty is hard to come by these days. His earlier actions aside, a proficient and active contributor. I fully support his candidacy. An Illusive Man (Contact) 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
42. Sure. I do note the comments by Kiefer below, but they don't concern me to a degree that would lead to me opposing. It's a net positive thing. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
43. Support You have matured so much in the past year that I am more than willing to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
44. Support, and gladly. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
45. Support While I don't know this editor very well, I've seen him making decent comments at ANI before.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - I've never found SW to be an unreasonable person bumping into his comments here and there and I've got confidence that he'll be a reliable administrator. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
47. Support I opposed the RfA of 13 months ago, and said then that I hoped to support in the future. I have seen significant improvement in this editor's behavior since then. I, too, like to be an early participant in AfD debates when possible, so that my opinion is not unduly influenced by those of others. His work with bots is impressive and using one of them has helped me develop useful insights into my own participation at AfD, and of the participation of others. My interactions with him have been cordial since then. Kiefer Wolfowitz raises some legitimate concerns, but given that the incident happened nearly a year ago, I will offer ScottyWong the benefit of the doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    Cullen328, ScottyWong's speculations about BadgerDrink's enjoying attention from causing drama, etc., occurred in November.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

48. Support. I supported last time, and I see no reason not to do the same now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
49. Support. While issues of civility often concern me, it is rare to a significant pattern of incivility by SW that would cause me to oppose. Great improvements since last RFA. Full support. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - Good editor and one who definitely has the experience needed. I'm very familiar with his work and he'll be a great addition to the admin corps. Shadowjams (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Good candidate with experience in lots of areas. Happy to support an editor with whom I have agreed and disagreed so pleasantly. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Familiar with SW's work, he clearly knows his way around WP. No problems expected. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
53. Support A very useful contributor.Merging people in meh Chambah. (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
55. Support User has overcome concerns raised in previous RFA which was in Feb 2011 and has waited for an year before coming back to RFA again.Feel the project will only gain with user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
56. Stephen 03:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
57. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
58. Support; I think SW is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
59. Strongly oppose the username change equally strongly support the RFA Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
60. Support. A thoroughly competent editor. No reason to fear handing him the mop. Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
61. Support Has always seemed like an intelligent and adept editor to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
62. Support per previous interactions, through the work I observed attempting to put together ACTRIAL, and per a review of random contributions. I am confident that allowing SW access to the tools will prove beneficial to the encyclopedia. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
63. Support - "Scotty" has addressed everything that gave me pause in the last RfA (when I was neutral). --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
64. Support - Will be a positive addition to the Admin Corps, although I prefer his old username.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
65. Support - See no concerns. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - use your powers for good, sir. I'll miss our old fights as you have become all too respectable. cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
67. Support - no more concerns. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
68. This is an interesting one. I didn't really have a problem with the previous username, but I think it was one symptom of what could be called immaturity. It's not very often that an editor completely takes to heart the words of their critics and becomes not just a better editor, but even an editor almost unrecognisable from their former self. It's obvious that Scotty has matured (and perhaps mellowed) considerably since, and partly as a result of, his previous RfA, and so I think he is such an editor. He's come a long way in a year, and I think he's ready to realise the potential he always had to be a damn good admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. I'm taking it on trust that SnottyScottywong hasn't just changed temporarily to get this promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    The world is changing. Even The Hulk has become more thoughtful and self-controlled.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    But for how long? Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

70. Support. Great user, seen a lot at AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. Whenever I've seen him, he's done well. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 06:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
72. Support Seems to be able to be trusted with the tools. Mrlittleirish 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
73. Support - a good user from what I've seen. Mato (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
74. Support -Great responses to all the questions above, appears to have the right stuff to be an admin.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
75. Support- Supported last time. No reason whatsoever to change my opinion. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
76. Support Scottywong has worked hard to address and overcome earlier concerns. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and will do a great job helping the admin crew keep the backlogs clear. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
77. Support (tentatively). Is dedicated? yes. Has technical knowhow and familiarity with the project to be of benefit? Yes. Deletion-minded mindset should not be too much of an issue as long as not closing too many AfDs in one direction. Will be barraged by DRVs if this occurs anyway. Ultimately worth a trial with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Should be fine. AniMate 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Since his last rfa, candidate has improved. Good answers to the above information. Time to give him a shot at some janitor duties. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 04:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
80. Support Though I have not interacted closely with him, I have seen Scotty doing good things here and there over the years. He strikes me as someone who would do good things with the buttons. -Pete (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
81. Support Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
82. Support Érico ^msg 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
83. Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
84. There has definitely been an improvement since the last RfA, and I'm hoping we'll see Scottywong continue to improve. I think Scottywong does good work, and I am happy to support his RfA. Acalamari 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Seems reasonable.  Frank  |  talk  21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
86. Support - Good luck, hopefully you'll do well...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
87. Support lots of good work, and frankly the who the folks are in the "oppose" column speaks almost as well for this candidate as the "support" column does. :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
88. Support The Helpful One 22:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
89. Support Why not? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I appreciate that Scottywong has read comments at his last RfA and made some improvements. However, his statement that he has avoided conflicts since his last RfA omits his conflicts with myself, e.g. about "No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in": Other statements that suggest that approving his RfA would be premature: (a) "But while WikiProject Atheism is still active, shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself." (b) "Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence." ScottyWong had added 4 anti-religious boxes. (c) "If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block)." Perhaps in 6-12 months if severe personal-attacks or personal attacks with the appearance of hostility towards groups have stopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   While I'll be the first to admit that my comments were a bit over the top, I'd like to also point out that the comments were made nearly a year ago, it was an isolated incident, and the cause of my emotional over-reaction was your assertion that atheists are a hate group. I think even you'd agree that this was only a brief argument that didn't rise to the level of a "conflict". I'm sorry that our argument has caused you to believe that I am unsuitable for adminship. —SW— ^converse 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   You have confused me with Keepscases, who objected to the user-boxes, which you then added, directly to spite him and Fetchcomms. When you were still "Snottywong", in November you made personal attacks against Badger Drink in his RfC---good editor and "frankly a troll" .... who ..."seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets"---- that you did not retract even after your violation of WP:NPA were pointed out. Having violated NPA so severely at a recent RfC/U, you should withdraw your nomination. Good luck in 6--12 months.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   I was initially going to write something very harsh, but decided a more tactful approach would help. I think the distinction between bluntness and incivility can be difficult at times, but in the case of Badger Drink's RfC I thought it was firmly in the bluntness category. Badger Drink did display every behavioral characteristic that Scottywong wrote about, so I can't see it as a personal attack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Blade, Scottywong did violate WP:NPA by speculating about psychological problems of BadgerDrink, rather than behavior. I did not object to Scottywong's discussion of behavior, and you can see that I signed statements critical of BD's behavior (as I have when there has been discussion about improving behavior of other editors, including friends and myself 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   I feel this discussion is going to get very heated very fast... — foxj 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Everybody is cool, just like Fonzie.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose hostile and offensive language is not the kind of thing I look for in an admin. I'll have to oppose for now.--White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Can you tell me that, what and where offensive did Scooty write? Yasht101 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, please give us a diff in which Scottywong used "hostile and offensive language". Bmusician 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think this user simply read Oppose #1 and decided to make a second oppose out of it.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, even I think the same. It is baseless. And if it is not baseless oppose, then prove it and show us "hostile and offensive" comments by this user, @White Shadows! Yasht101 12:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yasht101, read the quotes above (recalling that the predecessor of 2 is 1). Please go back to asking polite, ungrammatical, and stupid questions rather than issuing impolite, ungrammatical, and stupid orders.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Can I remind other editors not to pile on useless comments such as "Yeah, please give us a diff" or "then prove it and show us" when such a request has already been made? Not everyone is on Wikipedia every minute of their lives; asking thrice will not make a diff appear any faster. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   My apologies to everyone if i was rude. Yasht101 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm sorry that I'm not able to be on Wikipedia as often as I used to. My opposition is based on previous encounters with Snotty (before he changed his name). I did NOT though, just join the non-existent bandwagon.--White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   #Oppose (maybe) I am not convinced it is learning from experience, as contrasted with a temporary accommodation in order to get the mop. Others have done this, though I accept it is necessary to judge each person individually. Going by overall percent agreement at AfD is not really evidence--anyone could easily show themselves in any direction desired by commenting only when there was already a clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

   "anyone could easily show themselves in any direction desired by commenting only when there was already a clear consensus." But that's precisely what Scotty says he wasn't doing, in the nomination above. Do you dispute that statement? Begoon ^talk 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   you're right. My apologies to you and him both. I'll look at everything more carefully tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   I may just be too tired but, I have no clue what you're trying to say.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   I am withdrawing the oppose, on the grounds that perhaps i was unfairly pessimistic DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose per "In AfD's [typo] in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period." It seems like you are just doing what others want you to do and "among the first votes," I do not think that it's that good. We could just see your AfD edits easily. You are pointing out the obvious and it's facts that are not that helpful to know. Don't go with the flow, but be more independant (only bound to the policies). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   A similar comment was made in the neutral section below, and I feel it would be best if I clarify why I decided to add those statistics to my self-nom statement. There seems to be a perception that after my last RfA, I calculated how many articles are kept at AfD on average, and then went around AfD making sure that I vote in exactly that proportion, to make everyone think I'm being a good boy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, as I was preparing for my RfA, I thought about how I could quantitatively demonstrate that my voting tendencies at AfD are centrist, not deletionist. Since I already had previously completed a study to figure out the frequency of different results at AfD, I decided to compare how often I vote to keep articles to how often articles are kept. It turned out the two percentages were very close, so I simply decided to mention that.

   I understand why the abundance of statistics may make you come to the conclusion that you did, but just because I'm aware of my voting statistics doesn't mean that I'm conspiring to manipulate them. The comment about often being among the first voters was meant to demonstrate just that; as it would be quite difficult to manipulate your voting statistics while being among the first to vote at many AfD's, while conversely it would be quite easy to do that if I just popped by at the end of AfD's that were about to snow close and add a vote.

   It may also just be that I tend to think about things mathematically more often than most other people. In any case, you're obviously free to oppose if that's how you feel, but I thought I'd attempt to clear up that misconception. —SW— ^express 01:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose He does some interesting technical work and seems to have mellowed a bit but his experience of the actual business of content creation still seems too small. And as he still seems to be a dogged deletionist, I don't think he can be trusted in that department. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paraguayans. That seems to be a fairly plain and simple list but his opinion is "This list is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose." As we have lists of people for just about every nationality which are clearly being maintained and finding some usage, this seems too disruptively destructive to be trusted with the delete function. And on the other side, I've observed his actions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation from time to time where his standard response seems to be "Declining submission". If he created some content himself, this negativity might be ok but it just seems to be one-way traffic. Warden (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Don't you think that a user's opinion about what should be kept and deleted is different from what they would keep and delete as admins? I mean, I regularly delete stuff I wouldn't like deleted, as an admin my job is to follow and apply the policies, whether I disagree with them is immaterial, while an AfD is based on editor's opinion and the building of consensus thru it. I really would hope that one can differ between one's own opinion, and voice it on talk pages (and AfD are discussion pages in practice) and consensus and policies, which should be applied regardless of one's own private ideas. Just my two cents. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   I have seen numerous cases where an admin has ignored the consensus or lack of same and imposed their own opinion of the matter. SW seems to be strong-willed and opinionated and so seems likely to behave in this way. And when you have a rogue admin, it's just about impossible to do anything about it. Better safe than sorry. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I disagree with the approach, but it's far from being baseless, sadly. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   As much as you may dislike it, a desire to work primarily on the deletion side of content is not a negative for the encyclopedia. Previous opposition has largely been because editors in good standing perceived SW to have the same sort of attitude towards deletion as you do to inclusion, namely a disruptive battleground mentality. SW has improved while you have not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   99% of the encyclopedia is still unfinished but the barriers to entry continue to rise and so the project is threatened. An admin class which is relentlessly hostile and negative is not good for Wikipedia's future. The Foundation is alive to the problem and that's why they would not implement SW's ideas about article creation. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you wish to oppose on the grounds that you do not trust SW to obey WP's existing guidelines on content deletion then that's one thing. Opposing simply on his ideology is quite another. I would imagine that those few editors involved in the XfD process who are unfamiliar with your own history would prefer recent examples of such behaviour to consider such opposition valid. To be quite honest a large part of the reason I'm neutral is because SW (formerly, though awaiting further evidence) acted in the same sort of "bulldog" role as yourself at AfD in order to counter the formerly-prevalent case of AfD having a host of ever-present inclusionists to stifle the process on ideological grounds. In a way this was valuable, but it's something we don't expect from admins. I'd like to think (and hope to be convinced) that SW has moved on from that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Deletionist ideology is very relevant to this discussion because access to the delete function is at issue here. Someone who doesn't want to create content but only wants to delete it is not suitable as an admin because they lack a good appreciation of the heartache and discouragement which is provoked by such action. Why should editors volunteer to have their work sniffed at and then destroyed by someone who does no such work himself? Please see the parable of The Chicken and the Pig. Warden (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   The thing that always gets me about this line is that anyone from high school onward who is aware of the term "editing" should surely be aware of what that entails. But never mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Though I disagree with Warden's conclusion, I think his rationale is reasonable. All he is saying, I think, is that an editor with a strong deletionist bent and little content experience may not be best suited to use the deletion tools available to an admin (or, to put it another way, you need to have created content extensively to be able to delete wisely). He isn't opposing merely on the grounds of ideological differences. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   We have admins in good standing of both persuasions. Hell, we've had Arbs of both persuasions. The crucial thing is not what an editor believes: it's how that editor applies himself. "Little content experience" is an orthogonal aspect, and IMO it's primarily an issue where the candidate does not appear to be interested in content (spending all his time on user talk, or ANI), whereas SW is certainly interested in content even if his direct editing of such is less than the average candidate these days (bearing mind mind that we have plenty of admins in good standing from back when 1000 mainspace edits was considered an appropriate milestone). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   That is why I disagree with his conclusion (or !vote). But the thought itself is not an unreasonable one and it did put a small ? in my thinking. A very small one :) --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Opppose - Getting called a "raging dick" by this user for fulfilling his request in his AfD didn't leave the best impression.[1] His quote was "If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination", thereby belaboring the project's time continuing an AfD that he himself felt should've been withdrawn. Not comfortable with this person being an admin.--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think that, the comment made by SW was a long time ago. After going through his edits before their 1st RfA and after, there you can see a notable change in him. Even, probably his name was 'Snooty' 'Snotty' spelling mistake which is now 'Scooty' 'Scotty' spelling mistake AGAIN. This shows that how willing this user is for improvement. By calling dick, i dont think, he ment for any kind of offence to you. Though your oppose is resonable as that comment was a bad one, still it is little rough as this user changed his attitude after unsuccessful RfA and learned a lot. Yasht101 :) 03:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Scooty? 28bytes (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps they meant "Scotty" Bmusician 04:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   My bad, I m sorry for my spelling mistake. Yasht101 :) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Snooty? Rivertorch (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Alright friends, I think that I missed out on both names. Yasht101 :) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yash, you rock! Long time since my sides split guffawing! Don't stop please. Wifione ^Message 10:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   What could "raging dick" mean? Maybe ScottyWong was referring to Lacan or Kristeva?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think Snotty Scotty was referring to Oakshade only. Because Oakshade's comment probably enraged them: These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them? In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. Yasht101 :) 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Ah.... *Moment of clarity* "When we point at someone else, we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Well said sir. That grumpy response from SW was 2 years back and since then they did make few changes in their comments. I think, both the editors are in fault in one or other way for the enraged-not-related-to-subject comments BTW, Rageaholic needs little Wikification so I have tagged it under wikify template with reason of a infobox missing Yasht101 :) 11:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Scottywong has a good understanding of AfD. However his signature does not actually include his username, which can make it difficult to find his comment in a page. "SW" is not sufficiently distinctive to ease searching. I am also disappointed by the "non-apology apology" in response to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's !vote. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Does it help that User:SW redirects to my user page and User talk:SW redirects to my user talk page? —SW— ^confer 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I've never had anyone complain that my sig isn't the same as my username. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Nor I. -- œ^™ 01:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   But wouldn't the newly created redirect be confusing if a new user called SW arrives and demand that you remove the redirect? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Good point. I could probably just created a doppelgänger account to prevent that from happening. Or, I could just change my sig to include my full name. —SW— ^chat 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral: Awaiting responses to my questions. Let's see the responses and I'll decide whether to support or oppose this candidate. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Appears to have improved his attitude and behaviour in recent months, but this RfA may be too soon, and the lack of mainspace contributions is a concern. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I would like to see any admin working in deletions to have more article-writing experience; however, Scottywong has taken steps to alleviate many of the problems perceived by voters in the last RfA, and I applaud him for doing so. I may change my mind, depending on how this RfA plays out ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now. The talk page shows 20+ edits on only 4 articles, and only 2K article edits, which is less than I'd look for. Average total edits for Jan-March 2012 fewer than 200 per month, much less than 2011 average. Have seen him around being fairly abrasive. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral There was something that SW did in just the past week or two that I remember thinking, "Wow, that won't help him if he decides to run for admin." It was something that bothered me and if I could remember what it was, would probably move me to the oppose column. But since I can't recall what it was or what it was about, I'll simply go neutral with the caveat that I have some concerns about his passing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you can't remember, even a few days later, what it was (despite having noted it at the time), then it probably wasn't anything too awful! Pesky (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

6. Not having had any significant interactions (or any interactions at all) with the user, I was rather puzzled by the heavy emphasis on what I think are meaningless AfD vote statistics in the nomination statement. AfD is not a vote, and what should matter and be valued there are the user's comments and arguments, not what % of the time they come on one or the other side of the argument. It is rather worrying to see a (likely) future admin placing so much emphasis on this, especially given it's clear that AfD is not a vote but an occasion for consensus determination. However, the lengthy list of supports above and the lack of any mention of this issue seems to suggest that so many others did not found this reason to be worried, and likely they have had more chances to personally notice if that is indeed the approach of the user or a misplaced emphasis issue, as such I will stay neutral while voicing my concern. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   Agreeing with exactly your point, I did a comparatively extended look into the AfD issue - again, nothing that hasn't been said. A little heavy handed at times, but most of those times are quite a while ago. I still think despite these relatively minor etiquette issues, handing him the mop won't blow up the encyclopedia. I trust him enough to endorse him as a sysop. He hasn't done anything so controversial to throw away his positive track record overall, and I think a few people are blowing things out of proportion. Things like this are the reason I hear so many editors on IRC compare RfA to Chinese water torture. An Illusive Man (Contact) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   Hi An Illusive Man! Please disclose all of any previous account(s), or at least whether any are blocked or facing bans of any kind.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Any torture (e.g., "Chinese" (sic.) water torture) must be gentler than facing only my ferocious opposition, which encourages him to apply in 6 months!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   The idea that a RfA is a "Chinese water torture" comes from a statement that Werdna (talk · contribs) made back in 2006. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   I will check back and move my !vote when I have time to look into edit history. No reasons to Oppose or Support as of yet. Mrlittleirish 00:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Moving to support Mrlittleirish 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

7. Neutral. I've worked with Scottywong a number of times, and I think he's one of the best editors we have out there, technically minded, hardworking and overall a great asset to the community. However, he just doesn't meet what I'm looking for in an admin - who not only has the ability (which Scotty undoubtably has) but also the temperment which would allow him or her to deal with problematic editors or difficult situations. I'm not certain that Scotty does have that temperment, and as such I cannot offer my full support. At the same time, I'm not willing to oppose this hard working editor. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
8. For now. Can't remember any recent cases where SW's behaviour has left a bad taste in my mouth, and in general he's a clueful editor who has done a great deal of bridge-building in the inclusionism wars, but I'm still apprehensive of supporting a candidate who definitely wasn't suitable this time last year due to temperament and attitude concerns. And I know it's a trivial thing, and I know it shouldn't impact on someone's suitability for the mop, but I didn't even realise he'd changed his username on accounts of using a daft custom sig that hides most of it. Looking for positive reasons to support other than the mitigation of previous negatives. Not that it looks like it's going to matter at this juncture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Others seem to have a better recent experience with the candidate than what I'm seeing looking through their contribution history. That said, we all have our off days, and I'll defer to those above who suggest that it's probably not enough to oppose - but as adminship is given indefinitely, and admins should be able to civilly communicate with others, it's definitely a concern. I hope the candidate keeps these concerns in mind for the future when they are granted the tools and responsibilities of adminship. (As it looks like they will be.) - jc37 22:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I am a little concerned about the lack of article edits, (~20% and mostly on pages they have themselves created), the large amount of involvement at ANI, and the number of times disputes have occurred.

    While I appreciate there have been efforts to improve behaviour I cannot condone a support vote at this time, especially with some of the comments in Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal: Rename this project to WikiProject Rescue. I do have respect for them though and so am not voting oppose. If something can convince me of reasons for those recent off-hand comments I would consider voting support. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Not part of my consideration, I would like to point out that SW is a little difficult to search for!

    Maybe that explains why SnottyWong changed his signature immediately after his failed RfA?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

11. Neutral, not because I have any blocking concerns about this candidate, but because community norms seem to demand it. I see no participation in speedies, yet this is one of the areas in which the editor is proposing to wield the mop; this concern is partially ameliorated by a very good AfD success rate of 84.9% so judgement ought to be okay. However, this editor has in the past objected to RfAs where experience didn't match desired admin areas; by his own petard he must be hoisted. Editors in past RfAs have rejected applicants due to lack of content work, yet this editor has created four-ish non-stub articles, and none are GA or FA; there was no mention of DYK work. The lack of substantial content work is of no major concern to me; being an administrator is about administrating, but others might complain that this is an encyclopedia first, and a bureaucracy (close) second. The candidate has a clean block log, 12K edits, five years of service. I will have no complaints when this RfA succeeds, but I encourage scottywong to address concerns raised during this RfA during xis first months of adminstratorship. Josh Parris 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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.