Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SaltyWater


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

SaltyWater
Final (0/8/1) ended 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Withdrawn early by bureaucrat. Essjay Talk •  Contact 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

– An excellent user who is calm in his edits, balanced in his views and extremely vicious in clamping down on vandalism. He has been key in maintaining British Sea Power, James and many other associated music pages. His music knowledge is second to none. I can personally attest to his lack of any major mental issues, something that may come in use on a busy arbitration page! Me677 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I gracefully accept. Many thanks for your support. SaltyWater 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Malformed RFA request and too few edits to Wikipedia/User talk namespaces. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Naconkantari. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Salty is on the right track, but the nomination was premature. Six months on, just over 1000 edits overall (756 to the main namespace).  It is just insufficient experience.  It would be better to wait until those numbers have about doubled.  Other than that, good work.  Redux 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Garr! It makes me cringe every time I see that sort of requirement (maybe I should just accept that times have changed since when I was new around here and maybe there are other reasons [such as not enough edits to WP namespace below])...but... Ilyan e  p  (Talk)  00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Malformed RfA requests indicate an unwillingness to read instructions and an overwillingness. Calm down and contribute some more and we'll reconsider soon. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) You ARE on the right track. However, nowadays we're concerned about possible misuse of extra tools, and without many edits to the projectspace, it's hard to judge if you understand most Wikipedia policy. NSL E (T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-04-19)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough project related contributions. — xaosflux  Talk  01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per User:Ilyanep A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Clearly has the enthusiasm. Keep on editing and you should be an admin in no time. (^'-')^ Covington 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Not enough edits to WP namespace. DarthVader 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * See SaltyWater's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.


 * Contributions Tree:
 * Username	SaltyWater
 * Total edits	1072
 * Distinct pages edited	332
 * Average edits/page	3.229
 * First edit	2005-10-25 22:47:23
 * (main)	794
 * Talk	116
 * User	37
 * User talk	42
 * Image	48
 * Template	7
 * Template talk	5
 * Category	1
 * Wikipedia	19
 * Wikipedia talk	3

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I regularly browse pages on wikipedia, but mainly ones related to my musical intrerests. So therefore I am mostly interested in removing vandalism, and helping delete articles which fall under AfD, as well as any other chores I come across within 'music' related articles. That said, any problems I stumble across unreleated to my interests I will certainly be interested in helping solve the problem should I be able to.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm proud of all my contribs. If I wasn't, I wouldn't make them. But if pushed to choose I must say, like my nominator, that my best work can be seen at British Sea Power and James (band), and their relevant sub-articles.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I'm not one to get invovled with conflicts, but rather recently I was involved in a conflict with User:Pigsonthewing, whom started "stalking" me and my edits. This user was subseqently banned, and I believe I kept level-headed throughout our conflict.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you dont' want to touch if you like :)


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A
 * 1) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * A
 * 1) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * A
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A
 * 1) Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A
 * 1) Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
 * A
 * 1) Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * A
 * 1) A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * A
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A
 * A


 * The above 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.