Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba

Salix alba

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/0/0); Scheduled to end 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Salix alba (talk · contribs) - Richard (Salix alba) has been a Wikipedian since 2005. I have met him in discussions on mathematics articles and deletion debates. From what I've seen, Richard is a very level-headed and committed editor. I believe Richard has the experience, knowledge, and temperament to be trusted to use the tools for the good of the project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks to Oleg for his nomination to move over to the dark side. which I accept. --Salix alba (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: In my day to day wikipedia activities, i've only occasional felt the need for admin rights, occasionally blocking an IP vandal, moving pages and once or twice editing a protected template. Beyond those I would expect to close a few XfD debates especially those in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology). I'm also somewhat curious about Special:Unwatchedpages as I'm sure there are many mathematics articles on that which could do with being on a watchlist.--Salix alba (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

A: My general objectives in wikipedia is to make mathematics articles more understandable to non experts. In particular the article edit I'm most proud of is on Algebra. Here a very elementary understanding of the reader was assumed and the abstract concepts were explained by generalising concepts that they would already be familiar with.

I was also involved in starting the mathematics article rating system creating the {{maths rating}} template. This was one of the first to use a priority/importance rating, which has now been widely adopted, this rating was turn was copied from [1]

Part of the motivation for this system was to help focus the attention of the mathematical community on our core articles.

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 was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood and related RfC's, checkuser requests, etc. This was indeed the ugly side of wikipedia which lots of accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment. A prime example of a ForestFire a small dispute spreading out of control. A lot of people left wikiedia as a result. One of the most worrying parts was that a users past mistakes can hang over them and be used as a Scarlet Letter. Another problem was in how long the dispute took to resolve, nearly a year. Swifter action from someone with sufficient authority could have averted a lot of problems. My role in the case was somewhat less than successful attempt to resolve the conflict. I tried to get a mediation cable case going, wrote a well supported outside view on an RfC. In the end the RfA managed to more or less managed to preserve the community.

I've also been blocked once over a CfD on Category:Wikipedians by mental condition for notifying a lot of users about the debate using AWB. This was a good use of blocking as a quick means to stop an action, and accept I was in error here. I do think there are problems with lack sufficient notification about CfD's, mainly because few people have categories on their watchlists so often only notice a particular category is up for deletion after the event when a bot removes the category from articles.

In general I've not been in many disputes. Events in outside life have led me to realise that in war the most likely outcome is that everybody looses, and I've seen the same repeated many times in wikipedia. Sometimes I find myself in a good-cop role hoping a little WP:AGF and patient explanation of what is acceptable will prove fruitful. See for example [2], [3] Only to then have an admin come along with the ban hammer.

General comments

• See Salix alba's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Salix alba: Salix alba (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Salix alba before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Good experienced editor, I see no reason to suppose he would abuse the tools. Good luck! Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - well-balanced candidate. Experienced in several different areas of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. My interactions with the candidate have been uniformly positive. He clearly has the best interests of the project at heart and would use the tools well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - as Carcharoth. Quite a good candidate. Rt. 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. With pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, no reasons to oppose. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Yep--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - a very positive presence, a calming influence in inflammatory situations. Mattisse 17:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - reasonable and level headed. JPD (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Good, solid, reasonable editor. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. The last (and only) time I interacted with him was back in March/April, when we were both members of the AMA and involved in a very complex and difficult case. I was impressed with his tact and good judgment (far more than I personally possess) and I have no hesitation in supporting him for adminship. Walton^One 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support What John said... perfect for the job —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)