Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvag

This nomination has been delisted due to the heavy opposition. Acetic ' Acid  09:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Salvag
[ Vote here] (0/10/2) ending 06:06 14 September 2005 (UTC) - I nominate myself for admin as I believe in ridding Wikipedia of vandals in order to make it the best place possible. I check Wikipedia for vandals every day and often spend up to an hour+ editing articles with new information. I will do the job of admin as best possible. --Salvag 06:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination. Salvag 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Salvag 06:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, only slightly over 1000 edits, and only 16 in the Wikipedia namespace. Also most edits seem to be minor, without edit summaries. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Salvag has wiped his/her talk page twice (last week and again today) without ever having replied (on a talk page, at least) to any comment left by anyone. Most of the removed comments were critical and requested an explanation or action. Salvag, I'm not implying it was done in bad faith because I can see you did act on some of the suggestions made, but it still doesn't provide evidence of the sort of participation in the Wiki community I  expect from an admin. Only 9 edits total in the User talk: namespace. ~ Veledan • Talk + new 11:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as above. the wub  "?/!"  15:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, as per Veledan. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) As per Veledan. Andre ( talk ) 21:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per everyone. Also, user talk pgae is blank :(   Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 7) As per Veledan. --Sn0wflake 03:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - too soon you have too few edits in the time you have been here, and talk page concerns are discouraging. In time, you'll get into the flow of talk page discussions. -- BD2412 talk 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - As per Veledan. Fire Fox T  C   E 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Merovingian (t) (c) 10:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) encephalon  έγκέφαλος   14:55:49, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
 * 2) Not enough edits. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-09-7 21:39

Comments


 * 1) Oppose, did not answer any of the questions for a self-nomination.  I am concerned over the fact that Salvag has not followed directions in how to place a self-nomination, which may indicate he or she may not follow the Administrator's guidelines. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In reply to AllyUnion, I wanted to state that I just completed the questions for the candidate. It took me a few minutes to write my responses which is why you saw them as blank. Salvag 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvag. It's always nice to see a candidate with the confidence to step up and self-nominate. I'm voting neutral, however, because I wonder if you currently have sufficient experience for the responsibilities of adminship. I see 1132 edits to the mainspace, which is commendable; however, you appear to have made only 9 edits to article Talk pages, 1 edit to a User Talk page, 26 edits to the Wikipedia space (of which 12 were for this nom), and no edits to Wikipedia Talk. None of this means that you might not make a fabulous admin of course, only that it might be a bit difficult to judge at this stage. I'm sure many of us would love to see you here again after you've gained a little more experience. Best wishes— encephalon  έγκέφαλος   14:55:49, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
 * Salvag may not know this, but it's not customary for self-nominating candidates to "vote" in support of themselves. Beyond that, I find it difficult to evaluate his qualifications because of the narrow range of interests and lack of interaction with the community. --Michael Snow 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems all anybody cares about is numbers and the user talk page. Is that all that is important? Salvag 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that that is all that we have to go on so far. Give it a little longer and interact with other editors (in particular collaborate with them on a group of articles and talk to them) so that you can become better known as a personality. Then you will be much more likely to win support. It's not that anyone thinks that you're a bad person. It's just that no one knows that you're a good one yet. Time and the right sort of collaboration will sort that out. Cheers -- Derek Ross |  Talk 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Salvag. No, numbers and talk pages are not everything. I am a firm believer in promoting people who spend most of their time doing the main work of the wiki (building an encyclopedia), and who will only need the 'mop' occasionally, as well as people who spend most of their time on janitorial tasks and who will use the mop lots. The reason people here quote low edit numbers as if they were bad isn't because we think that people who've made a few good contributions are somehow less deserving than people who've made lots of (maybe minor) edits; it's simply that low talk: edit numbers mean we don't have access to the sort of positive evidence we like to see before promoting someone.
 * The reason I (and the others who referenced my rationale) opposed your nomination wasn't because we think you'll be a bad admin. The fact that you have acted on nearly every request placed on your talk page is a sign of your good faith and an indication that you might make an excellent admin in future. However, the fact that you haven't replied to any of them, and the fact that you have deleted the comments, implies that you don't really have a good grasp yet of the way things are done around here.
 * Admins are more than just trusted editors, and a vote against you here doesn't mean the voter doesn't trust you. Editors (especially new ones) look to admins for guidance, and before we promote someone we want to know that they'll welcome enquiries and assist where they can, and support the wiki way. You may well be that kind of person, but we can't know that yet.
 * Please don't be disheartened by the failure of your nomination at this stage. My advice would be to start answering Talk page posts, start using edit summaries and to get involved in a wiki project or two, then reapply in a couple of months (or wait for someone to nominate you).  Your participation with the community on those things will prove you have what it takes to be a good admin :-)  ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would most like to help with Articles_for_deletion. I would also continue to help rid Wikipedia of vandalism and assist in blocking repeated vandals.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am most pleased with my edits that concern TechTV, G4techTV, and G4. The articles related to these subjects are nearest to my heart and I am happy to have been able to provide detailed information concering these topics.
 * 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 have had to deal with vandalism daily. It can be stressful, but I always deal with it in the correct and most proper way. In the future I hope to crack down on vandals in order to make Wikipedia the best place it can be.