Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Malber

Final (12/37/6) Ended 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Malber (talk • contribs) – Malber has been around for quite a while and I've found him to be a good editor, always working hard to improve the encyclopedia. Anomo 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Rollback would be extremely helpful with RC and newpage patrolling. I'd also like to help with the AfD and image/media deletion backlog. I've been fairly active in AfD debate which recently helped expand one of the critera at WP:BIO. I have some experience studying intellectual property rights and can help editors with understanding why their contributions may not qualify as fair use.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Probably the two article's I'm most pleased with are Up to eleven and First Internet Backgammon Server. The first, because I was surprised that an article on the phrase didn't already exist and was excited that it gave me first crack at creating an article on the neologism. I'm happy that it's gone on to other editors for further contribution.[1] The second article on FIBS had a little bit of vanity involved: I've been playing on that server since 1994. I was also surprised that the article didn't already exist and was happy to contribute. Both of these articles were featured as DYKs on the main page. They're not FAs, but I'm pleased with them nonetheless.
But aside from article creation, I'd say I'm most satisfied with my WikiGnome activitiy. I particularly enjoy reading an article and being able to do some WP:MOS formatting, fixing grammar and spelling, converting inline citations to the {{ref}} format, cleaning up refs to conform with the footnote style, and other assorted gnomish tasks.
I also enjoy interacting with new users, which is common when patrolling new pages. This is especially rewarding when I can help a new user understand policies related to notability and suitability for inclusion. Being an admin may help in reviewing recently deleted images and being able to explain to a newer user why their contribution may or may not have met the fair use criteria.
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 think anyone editing on Wikipedia for a significant amount of time runs into disputes with other users, particularily with new users unfamiliar with basic policies like WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. Following the dispute resolution process is helpful, but I've found most disputes over content can be resolved on the article's talk page. A recent example can be found in the talk page for Teen Titans (TV series).
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • Hi, perhaps you could expand on the reasons you felt it was worthwhile creating the {{lame}} template and adding it en-mass to a large number of articles? Thanks/wangi 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was very instrumental in pointing out those people who took their edit warring a little too seriously. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, could you talk more about what you meant here ? Dina 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that I looked forward to the RfA process, whichever route it took, with a positive attitude and a sense of humor; a quality many admins should strive to gain. Afterall, Wikipedia is serious business! -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Malber

I'd like to take the time to comment on the oft mentioned, allegedly "bad faith" nominations for deletion; you missed two: Magic: The Gathering people and Olivier and Antoine Ruel. Ohnoes! They got deleted anyway; maybe they weren't bad faith after all!

The successful nomination for deletion of the Roy St. Clair article brought to bear the question: Are ccg players notable enough for inclusion? I opened up the debate on the articles of the top Magic: The Gathering players as a way to test whether or not there is true consensus that being a top rated ccg player is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The results of this helped expand the critera of WP:BIO to include competitors in a noteworthy activity. Those that think the AfDs were retailatory or that a nomination for deletion is somehow an attack on the article or subject seriously misunderstand the AfD process. As a result of the crucible of AfD these articles saw much improvement. The Mike Long article in particular benefitted by the removal of a lot of unsourced derogatory material, bringing it up to a better standard under WP:BLP. I still think that the articles lack citations from more than one non-trivial third party source, but enough people seem to want them to stay. I notice that no one voting oppose who cited these nominations as a reason to oppose bothered post a question about them. I question the good faith of these votes.

About the {{lame}} thing, srsly, if you took your edit war too seriously, you could have removed the template from the talk page. I put it on the talk page for Christianity and didn't hear a peep from them, but I did hear it from a Stargate fanboy. If you look at the template (which is archived at the talk page for WP:LAME) you'll see that it calls on editors to not edit war and to remain WP:COOL.

Am i the "Stargate fanboy"? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you?

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Anomo 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I think that the template lame was created in good faith. Anomo 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support looks like a very good user. I'll assume the Template:Lame thing was a mistake - for now at least. Best of luck :-) --Alex (Talk) 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Malber has been very helpful in opposing nonsense from troublemakers, both on and off-wiki. He's got an excellent balance of edits between articles, article talk, user talk, and project space. He's smart, has a lot of common sense, and I think he'll make a good admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support the lame thing got completely blown out of proportion. As for the "bad faith nominations" as listed below, theres another side to it... having seen one person failed to be kept, the precident had been set to delete them, so the similar entries were listed for deletion. I've certainly done that myself... that doesnt make them "bad faith". For the record I even opposed Malber on those "bad faith" nominations. I see no reason why Malber couldnt be trusted to use his admin powers appropriately.  ALKIVAR™ 02:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Good candidate, clear thinker. FeloniousMonk 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support seems to be a competant candidate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I would let his prior past go by, his last block was in three months ago, the lame thing wasn't very big, he would make a good admin in my opinion. Jaranda wat's sup 04:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Everyone makes mistakes and he has grown to be an excellent and dedicated user. Guy Montag 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I think Malber has shappened up, and I think he will make an alright admin.-- danntm T C 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Moral Support in face of the pile up. I have never seen this user gang up on anons. 205.157.110.11 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, you have to log in to participate in RfA. Grandmasterka 03:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak support. The {{Lame}} thing is not a big deal to me and he has one 3rr block back in July for god's sake. Could use a slightly better temperament and no revenge AfDs for a few months though. Grandmasterka 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - I though the lame thing was creative even if it didn't fly. Why would anyone have a problem with this? Other than that, he's taken on a lot of unpleasant but necessary tasks as an editor - that's the kind of conduct you would hope for from an admin. --Leifern 08:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - per creation of {{Lame}} and the controversy (see here). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Edit warrior, also blocked at least twice before. -Splash - tk 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Almost getting blocked less than a week before your RFA is not a good sign. Breaking 3RR is not good either. You should have mentioned these incidents in question 3 or elsewhere. T REXspeak 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Opposing due to above concerns. --Alex (Talk) 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The problem with the lame template is that admins are supposed to help resolve conflicts, not stir them up. Also, I'm not that excited about this edit in response to the criticism s/he received for the creation of the template. Admins are often called on to defend their actions -- not always fairly -- and they need to do so with civility. I don't think this user would abuse the tools to be deliberately destructive to WP, but I worry about what this user's idea of constructive really means.Dina 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I believe that making Malber an admin would not be helpful, due to the concerns above.--Runcorn 21:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose No, no, no, and no. -- Kicking222 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. See above. --Nishkid64 22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Answer to question 1 doesn't demonstrate a need for admin tools; a WikiGnome can be just as effective without them. Also opposing per lack of understanding of WP:3RR and other policies/incidents mentioned above. (aeropagitica) 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. If the nom had mentioned and explained the blocks, I would have certainly considered their nomination. Themindset 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Matthew Fenton. Michael 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per most everyone opposing above. — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose A whole slew of bad-faith nominations (here, here, here, here, and here), following deletion of an article candidate wanted kept. Should not be given deletion tools. Irongargoyle 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per the noms - retaliatory Afd's are bad enough, and I shudder at what could have happened had this user had the buttons. Daniel.Bryant 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per most above. Huldra 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per what has already been said. People Powered 05:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per concerns above. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Let me point out that that list of retaliatory AfD noms were from less than 3 weeks ago. I don't feel like Malber could never become an admin: s/he certainly seems to be improving, but I need to see more time between the nom and errors in judgement like that. Try coming back in 3 months. Also, question answers are not inspiring. Mangojuicetalk 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Maturing judgement isn't there yet. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per T Rex -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  10:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Not just yet per Mangojuice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per above. Dryman 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per [2] Agathoclea 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Premature - needs to prove himself.--Holdenhurst 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per all above. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, I'm afraid. Too many negatives. There are enough loose cannons running around with a mop & bucket. Jcam 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per everything above. Hello32020 21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose You have potential but please try again next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seadog.M.S (talk • contribs) .
  29. Oppose As above. Duke of Duchess Street 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose per immature and vindictive behavior related to the Brandt controversy. KleenupKrew 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Seemingly unneutral at times when comes to discussion. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose per concerns raised by other editors. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose per lapses in judgment pointed out by other users. Perhaps in a few months. Heimstern Läufer 06:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strongly Oppose as per above No. 2. •Sean•gorter•(Talk) 10:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong Oppose per what the others have said. Does hard work, but he is much too biased and unfair. I don't see him being promoted anytime soon either. Orane (talk • cont.) 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong Oppose. Per above. --Esteban F. (con.) 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Definitely oppose. Irongargoyle's points. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Pile-on - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. While I don't think that this user's behavior is worse than the way some of our current sysops act, that's no reason to give someone the tools. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral – all right, I think he gets it. Is there any need to pile-on the opposes? Malber, I suggest that you withdraw and take very serious note of the concerns above. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 06:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral to avoid the pile-on and not to discourage the user further. I too suggest you withdraw from this nomination soon and work on the concerns raised by the other users. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Unnecessarily long neutral This certainly isn't a pile-on avoidance vote (voting is evil, RfA is not a vote, etc.)—of those I'm no fan—but, instead, a comment that reflects my utter inability to reach any definitive conclusion here, which inability is well evidenced by my having, across the pendency of this RfA, opened the window to edit as a supporter, an opposer and as a...neutraler. I am quite sure that, as an admin, Malber would not abuse the tools, but I don't know that I can be certain that the effect on the project of the user's becoming an admin should, on the whole, be positive, principally because I'm not altogether sure that he might not, in good faith, avolitionally misuse the tools; consistent with my RfA guidelines, where I don't expect that a user would, even avolitionally, misuse the tools but can't be overly confident, I neither support nor oppose. Joe 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I recommend a withdrawl. You still have time to go far.--Tdxiang 04:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral pile-on avoidance !vote. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Malber_5660.html"