Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cmach7 (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 6 January 2013 (→Neutral: Voting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Salvidrim

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination by User:Sergecross73

Salvidrim (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I would like to introduce Salvidrim. We first started working together around October 2011, as we were both taking on similar goals; I was cleaning up and maintaining articles related to Sonic (series), while he was doing the same with the Mario (franchise). Ever since taking on these similar projects, we've worked together extensively at WikiProject Video Games in regards to solving problems and interpreting policy. He's always really impressed me in how he always caries himself in discussions, always remaining calm, interpreting the situation accurately and without personal bias, and handling things according to policy. Seeing his participation at WP:AFD, WP:RFCs, and WP:ANI shows that he has a firm grasp on policy and determining consensus, and equally important, whenever he makes a rare, minor error, he's always been quick to own up to it, and fix it, without any or attitude or hard feelings. We tend to follow each others edits and talk pages pretty closely, so I can say with relative certainty that this editor doesn't have any skeletons hiding away. He's got a clean history, strong admin knowledge, and a sort of humbleness that makes me certain we'd never regret giving him the mop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from User:TParis

I would like to nominate Salvidrim for adminship. He doesn't have 700 billion edits, but he has clue and I'd like to demonstrate that. Now, you'll notice that his recent activity hasn't been as strong as this time a year ago, but I think the graphs are misleading. You'll notice that during that period, he is an experienced content writer having brought Dr. Mario from this to Good article and A-class status. He also shows that he has clue as seen here where he offers advice to an experienced admin on how to close a discussion on WP:AN. He doesn't have extensive administrative experience, but he has shown clue at WP:UAA with [1][2][3] ect and clue at WP:RFPP here [4] [5][6]. A check of CSD tags shows not a whole lot of WP:CSD experience, but they do show accurate uses of A1, G12, and A7. He has participated in 84 AfD discussions with a 95% accuracy showing insightful arguments such as here, here, and here. You can say this candidate lacks edit count, but you cannot say they lack clue. I ask that before anyone oppose this candidate over edit count, they offer the candidate a question first. v/r - TP 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to do so. As TParis has aptly stated, I may not have the large amounts of experience that some other editors have, but I have faith that being granted the tools will enable me to help improve the encyclopedia in my own way even more. I am well-aware a number of you may consider it to be "early", however I've recently seen many lament the shortage of admins, or rather the fact there are much less additions than losses... I feel I could help, I want to help, and hopefully the community will trust me to do so. I may not be as frenetically active as others might, but I believe every bit helps. As can be seen in my editing history, I may spend a week with passively minimal contributions, then spend an entire evening clearing a whole months-old backlog; the rhythm of the contributions, in my opinion, do not diminish their worth. Salvidrim! 02:30, 6 January 2013 (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 believe that for the moment, it is preferable for me to help in areas in which I have experience -- namely XfD, RMs, UAA and potentially PRODs. I also plan on taking on a more active learning role at RFPP and AIV, and slowly phase in clerking these areas. I will continue engaging in discussions at AN & AN/I, and will learn from them, but will likely refrain from performing more disputed actions until I feel it is appropriate. I will also start monitoring CSD more actively to grow more intimate with the process; access to deleted contributions is definitely a good way to learn. I will continue doing some predominantly non-administrative work which could benefit from the tools, such as Recent Changes Patrol, taking care of Edit Requests, and occasionally helping out at the Help Desk. In any case, I have had offers for mentoring which I intend to use to their fullest before doing anything I am not entirely confident about. I want to help, not to create more trouble through eager inexperience. Salvidrim!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a toughie, because I evidently tend to be more gnomish, so my contributions hardly stand out enough to be considered "best". As mentioned above, it is obvious that my large improvements on Dr. Mario probably constitute my best content contributions. However, while I believe content improvement are the most crucial way to contribute to building Wikipedia, I would have to say the work that I've done that I believe was the most helpful was all the help I've provided over the months at WP:VG. While I'm far from alone in this WikiProject, I have done more there than anywhere else. Salvidrim!
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 am not someone who gets stressed. The last time I was stressed was in 1998, just before my first kiss... all joking aside, if there is one thing that I take for certain, it is my own ability to remain cool and collected in any situation, be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I believe being calm and frank can sort out practically any conflict, unless there is a desire for the conflict not to be solved. Perhaps it is for that reason that I can honestly say I do not recall being involved in anything I'd call a conflict. I've dealt with a handful of disruptive editors, some more... tenacious than others, but even there, I am having a hard time calling it a "conflict", at least in the way conflict generally happens on Wikipedia. I have not been in any content dispute that wasn't resolved peacefully. I have been reading AN & AN/I for a while now (although contributing for a shorter while), and nothing I have been involved in comes even close to some of the recent drama. As for the future, I do not anticipate that my behavior will change drastically, thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts -- however, if I do, I will make sure to do two things: remain calm and honest. Salvidrim!
Additional question from Theopolisme
4. While above you said that you doubt you will interact on pages like AN/I, your highest number of Wikipedia-space edits is ironically to that very page. Is this simply due to a lack of project-space work, or perhaps something else?
A: I am a tad confused -- in my reply to Question 1, I specifically mentioned I planned on actively interacting on AN & AN/I and learning from it (as a lot of different things certainly happen there!). What I meant was that I would refrain from taking administrative decisions in cases where the needed action isn't evident, and that I would wait before exercising administrative judgement on AN & AN/I threads that were more disputed until I felt I had enough experience to correctly analyze community consensus. I have to be part of the community before fully understanding it. :) Salvidrim!
Sorry for the misunderstanding; I was thrown off by your "thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts" in question 3. —theopolisme (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Although it may sometimes be a tad idealistic, I firmly believe it is possible to actively engage in discussions at AN & AN/I without devolving into intense conflicts. :) Salvidrim! 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ΛΧΣ21
5. This is an inevitable situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
A: Obviously, no block is to be handled lightly. A common mistake that I've witnessed is punitive blocks. Blocks are meant to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption, not punish human beings. A user who had been blocked may not perceive it as such, for obvious reasons, and will probably be angered by what they see as an expression of distrust against them. This runs the risk that a contributor who, outside of the situation leading up to the block, helped improve Wikipedia, could become so angry and frustrated that instead of accepting the block and moving on to continue their work after its expiration, would continue the incident and escalate, feeling they have been treated unfairly. This is one of the reasons why clear and calm explanations are needed for every block, to ensure the user understand exactly the reasons why they're blocked; it may also be helpful to provide suggestions as to how to avoid repeating the situation. Personally I think a block should only be used when not blocking has the potential of having worse consequences; judging that, however, requires a great deal of wisdom, and no man is perfect. Cases of obvious vandalism, spam, or other evident cases where the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia at all tend to be more uncontroversial, however. But no matter the case, I would be disappointed to see any editor who has shown some measure of constructive editing blocked without the blocking admin attempting to engage him in a discussion about the incident at hand, unless it is evident from other recent discussions the editor has no intention to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Salvidrim!
6. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?
A: CSD constitutes a set of criteria for deletion for which community consensus has already established that if an article meets these, they indubitably fail all criteria for inclusion; as such, any article meeting one of the criteria can be immediately deleted without further discussion, since the community has already demonstrated they believe an article of this kind doesn't have its place on Wikipedia. AfD is a process where community consensus is being sought and assessed as to whether an article should be included on Wikipedia, because the nominator believes the article doesn't fall in a category of articles for which consensus is already established, but that it could still fail criteria for inclusion. Salvidrim!
7. You said that you have experience in UAA. So, what do you think of this username: MichaeltheScript?
A: It evidently falls under the category of inappropriately misleading usernames which could seem to imply semi-automated or fully automated editing, which is not allowed unless specifically approved. Unless it is evident the user is, in fact, using a script to automate edition without previous approval, I would approach the user about the username, explaining why it may be confusing or misleading to others and asking if he intends to indeed run a script; if not, I would make sure they understand why it is important that they modify their usernames so as to avoid any misunderstanding of their edits. Salvidrim!
It seems that Salvidrim would need more information about the user in question in order to most appropriately answer this question. —theopolisme (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a lot of UAA cases are judged precisely when very little information about the user is available. :) Salvidrim! 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

  • True, although I am speaking more about the concern with the low level of activity at RfA, compared to years past. Hopefully, the trend will not continue this year (congrats on being the first candidate to start an RfA in 2013)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support as co-nom.--v/r - TP 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - as nominator Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support. I was hoping to give a strong support, but I feel that he is not sufficiently active; I haven't seen him do much anti-vandalism work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. He will make a good administrator based on his work in different content areas. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The low edit count does not concern me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support - I would like to see more contributions in administrative areas like RfPP and UAA, however the work he has done is fine for me. Would be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to WP:NETPOS -- I debated linking to it in my opening statement, but I worried that doing so could look slightly arrogant. I do strongly agree with the spirit of the essay, however. :) Salvidrim! 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Rather low edit count, but not a concern to me. Pretty good worker over at WikiProject Video games. ZappaOMati 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support The user seems to be trustworthy. TBrandley (what's up) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Excellent work at WikiProject Video Games; definitely has the maturity required for adminship. Satellizer talk contribs 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I am very very very sorry. I admire the candidate for throwing his hat into this horrible, horrible arena. I would not wish the RfA process on ANYONE. I feel doubly terrible writing the first oppose opinion. You look like a really good person, I just don't see the time, experience, and variety of work needed to be an admin. You are very clearly on your way there, perhaps in a year, or even six months? I'm sorry to have to oppose. You are braver than I to go through this. :) Be well.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of people keep telling me how brutally torturing RfA can be, but I personally take every bit of criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow. :) Salvidrim! 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. This user is a good contributor, but I don't know if he would make a good admin and show signs of improvement. Cmach7 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Salvidrim!&oldid=531566684"