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

Salix alba[edit]

Final (80/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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)[reply]
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 loses, 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.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
In principle I support the ideas of WP:BLP wikipedia is not the place for gossip and allegations. I think some of the high profile BLP cases have taken far too much editor time which far outweighs the long term historical importance of these people. However I have seen wikipedia used as a place for self promotion. The Piotr Blass article springs to mind, it started as a self written puff piece, then as editors (my self included) did some digging quite a lot of negative material came to light. Its current state is probably optimal, a short stub (possibly protected). ... (I may add more later)
5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
In all likelyhood I don't think I would undelete. ... (I may add more later)

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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)[reply]
  2. Support - well-balanced candidate. Experienced in several different areas of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support - as Carcharoth. Quite a good candidate. Rt. 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, no reasons to oppose. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yep--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - a very positive presence, a calming influence in inflammatory situations. Mattisse 17:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - reasonable and level headed. JPD (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Good, solid, reasonable editor. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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. WaltonOne 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support What John said... perfect for the job —Cronholm144 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support ... a no-brainer. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks good to me. :) Good luck! GlassCobra 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support David Eppstein's comment sums it up for me, also. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I don't see why not. Icestorm815 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've run across him at WP:AFD at some point, and found him almost as pedantic as myself. Meets every possible standard for RfA. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Interactions (few) with SA have showed level-headed and sensible approach, leaning toward finding compromise -- something sorely needed on WP. <g> Also appreciate the interest in notifying people of CFDs and trying to increase participation as that ultimately minimizes (over time) disputes. Lquilter (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Definite yes. Jack?! 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Per the nom and the answers to the Questions. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  22. Support. The Candidate's answers to the questions are good, the contributions are good, and I see no concerns that would bar this user from the tools. Best wishes, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Near perfect edit summary usage, good answers to questions, overall obviously a user that knows what he's doing. Best of luck.   jj137 ♠ 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Welcome to the dark side. =D haha. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - A level-headed and dedicated contributor. Good Luck. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support- Rational, reasoned editor. And wiki could do with an admin who's a painkiller.:)Merkinsmum 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Anti-Inflammatory Support - good experiences with this editor, and we can always use less headaches on WP. As an aside, and unfortunately, I wouldn't call the Starwood situation over. I think people just got worn out dealing with it, so the spammer went back to his old ways. There is renewed edit-warring and probable sockpuppetry going on in that group of articles again, and we may need ArbCom intervention again. In many ways the spam situation in that walled garden is worse than before the Arb. *sigh* (Of course, this has nothing to do with Salix Alba, whose work in that area was welcome and helpful. But since you brought it up...;-)) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Richard would be a welcome admin. -- Fropuff (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Capable, sane, evenhanded, and level-headed. Also, he asked me to help with a math article, I failed horribly, and he didn't call me a stupid git. Thanks. Pigman☿ 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Fine editor Marlith T/C 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support emphatically per EncycloPetey (no, just kidding). Seriously, a spectacular edit history, excellent edits, keeps his cool in all kinds of debates. Great admin material. GlobeGores (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC) As an aside, my !vote here may not count due to the fact that I have a paltry 300 edits or so, mostly speedy tagging and the like, and thus may not be qualified to do so under these conditions. Feel free to move it to the discussion section if necessary. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone (with an account) can !vote at Rfa. No worries. —Cronholm144 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, no good reason to oppose. Tparameter (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support solid longtime user. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Starwood Support as per User:Pigman and User:Kathryn NicDhàna. This group of editors know how to use and enforce policy and have a thick skin. Keegantalk 04:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, of course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I can't find a reason to oppose. Seems to be a fine editor. faithless (speak) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. After a limited check of this editor's history, I support this user becoming an admin. spryde | talk 12:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, exactly the kind of admin we need. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Brilliant editor. Harland1 (t/c) 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate support. See support #1. - auburnpilot talk 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, yes please. Neıl ☎ 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support without reservation. Consistently helpful and level headed. When some admins lose their cool at AfDs, Salix Alba comes along and fixes the problem :-) Geometry guy 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Secret account 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per all the above and Wikipedia needs more admins who favour the sinister. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Excellent contributor. <cliche>I thought they were an admin!</cliche> Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. We need more admins who concentrate on getting articles improved rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. support don't see why not --.snoopy. 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I know his work through Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. He seems good-natured and fair, and should be valuable as an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Jmlk17 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Has demonstrated that he can be trusted not to abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. —Ruud 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. The candidate is well qualified and should prove a good admin. Majoreditor (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support AniMate 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support As per Newyorkbrad.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Thank you for deleting vandalism from mathematics pages, and for providing clear, informative edit summaries, among other things. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Good to go. Sirkadtalksign 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per above. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Decent and trustworthy. Acalamari 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support ~ priyanath talk 06:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. The Transhumanist 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Coredesat 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Well qualified. Some of the best wikipedia editors have expressed great confidence in the abilities of this editor. Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - definitely admin material--Cailil talk 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support; most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Go with the Support --JForget 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support without reservations. Maser (Talk!) 08:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Very good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support John254 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Snowball fight! <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Definite support. Good luck! --Maxim(talk) 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support see no reason to oppose, other than for the sake of just opposing. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category