Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malinaccier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Malinaccier

Final (43/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier (talk · contribs) - I'd like to present my seventh user for nomination, Malinaccier. Malinaccier is a dedicated, all-around Wikipedian who has experience from article-writing to deletion. Although he joined us last January, it was not until July that he became active. He mostly contributes to topics pertaining to Redwall and Harry Potter and was most instrumental in writing Spells in Harry Potter and keeping it safe from fancruft. Overall, Malinaccier has around 4000 well-spent edits. I acted as an admin coach to Malinaccier (which can be seen here) and was pleased with his maturity. I ask that the community consider Malinaccier as a good candidate for adminship. bibliomaniac15 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget: - I am proud to be a co-nominator for Malinaccier, an editor who I have admired and respected for a long time now. Malinaccier displays excellent judgement in all areas, and as Bibliomaniac rightly says, he works right across the namespaces. An extremely civil user, who has a very good temperamant, he has always impressed me. Although the edits aren't large enough to be shown on the Interiot editcount tool, I have continually seen Malinaccier perform good decisions and I've never had to refuse or deny any reports to usernames for administrator attention, the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard and additionally, he has a good presence at ANI. His mainspace contributions are first-rate, and I believe this combined with the desire to work in the AFD area, will enable Malinaccier to exercise his clue and article know-how. Overall, I believe Malinaccier, is in the truest sense, the perfect candidate. Good luck. Rudget. 13:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination and the chance to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. I would like to especially thank bibliomaniac15 for the nomination and for coaching me, and Rudget for his co-nomination. Malinaccier (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: I would begin by closing AFDs where consensus is clear, and then moving to more controversial discussions as I gained experience in determining consensus. Especially early on, I would target the administrative backlogs and help clear those out. On the vandal fighting side, I would help out at CSD when it starts to get backlogged, keep an eye on WP:AIV, and put in a bit of work at WP:RFPP. I would also keep WP:ANI on my watchlist and help out wherever I could. I have already been granted rollback at WP:RFR, and have begun using that to revert vandalism found during recent changes patrol. So far, it has proved very helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably to the article Spells in Harry Potter, where I added a very large amount of the information know on the page. I also believe that my work on Magical Objects in Harry Potter has been pretty good, and my contributions to WP:AFD have been helpful. My recent change patrolling using Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool has also been pretty good.
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: The only thing that really pops out at me was my arguement with User:75.11.12.136. The IP address was adding the same improper information to Spells in Harry Potter so much that it was getting disruptive. I warned the IP several times, and my userpage was vandalized, which made me mad, as this had never happened to me before. The rest of the day, I was in a sort of bad mood about the relatively small conflict. After this, I decided that I needed to cool down, and welcomed new users and started doing a little WP:RCP, which took my mind off of the matter.

Question from BusterD

4. We had brief interaction a few weeks ago. In this recent attempt to assist an editor on WP:EAR, your drew the conclusions 1) An edit war was ongoing at Template:American Civil War Menu, and 2) A lack of civility was causing the problem. What, in your opinion, constitutes edit war? What indicated uncivil behavior on my part? Why did you not judge the situation to be WP:OWN?
A. My idea of an edit war is where several editors continually revert one another's edits to prove a point in a content dispute. If I can recall, the situation went as follows:
First of all, I saw that User:Foofighter20x changed the flags on the template here, which you reverted here, including the term flag wars in your edit summary. Foofighter then made another change, adding the flags in a different way here, which you again reverted here. Foofighter then reverted you again here, and this was reverted by another editor (User:Hlj) here. After seeing this, I then looked on the talk page, noticing a comment made by you here, accusing Foofighter of being WP:POINTy and made light of the whole edit war, calling it "silly," when in fact edit wars are very harmful to Wikipedia—especially ones on templates that are seen on multiple pages. After Foofighter replies to you, "laughing" at your "inconsistency/inanity of trying to get me in trouble...." (taken directly from here), you again accuse him of being POINTy. At this point, I drop a message on the talk page here to remind both of you to Assume good faith, and to be WP:CIVIL.
I did not think that a lack of civility was causing the problem, I thought that both of you needed to cool down a bit and that you should assume good faith in one another's edits. To answer your question about the WP:OWNership, I believed that you had simply become a little too angry about the dispute, and needed a simple reminder about civility. I assumed good faith in you, and WP:OWN didn't even cross my mind. I was simply trying to help end an edit war in the least restrictive means possible, (compared to having the article protected) and to help calm the tension caused by the situation.
5. The recent addition of non-admin rollback caused some discussion recently. My take was the process of approval for the user rollback permission seemed very rushed (and implementation sudden and almost accidental), especially considering the holiday, when many editors were AFK. Do you care to offer an opinion on non-admin rollback? Do you care to offer an opinion on that particular process of approval?
A. I must agree with you that the sudden approval appeared rushed, and was set up without much notification. Despite this, I think that non-admin rollback is a good idea, as many editors would make good roll-backers, but not good admins. (I myself got clearance for rollback about right when the process was started; when I saw a recent changes diff revealing the page) This gives a way for users to better fight vandals without having to be rejected at WP:RFA for reasons that wouldn't hinder their use of Rollback, but their blocking abilities instead. The whole granting process for this is a little informal for my tastes, however, as discussions over whether an editor is granted rollback rarely last an hour. In my opinion, editors requesting rollback should have to leave a discussion open for a day, to allow for consensus to be reached. This would better expose edit-warring and other bad faith edits made by the candidate, while leaving the whole thing less rigorous than WP:RFAs. Even though I have a few problems with the process, I'm sure that more good will come out of it than harm.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Per co-nom. Rudget. 14:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Your user page is messy. :P Support Bout damn time! GlassCobra 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. SpencerT♦C 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - should get the mop.   jj137 ♠ 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. He looks good and ready to be an admin.KC109 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - on review, appears to be a solid user with no warning flags, demonstrates maturity and civility in interactions and has suitable editing skills. See User:Orderinchaos/RfA criteria. Orderinchaos 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. OK. Majorly (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - per noms. Definitely ready for the tools. -MBK004 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - Trust noms, appears to be civil user, experienced. Tiddly-Tom 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. I can't find any reason not to. - Revolving Bugbear 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, looks fine to me. BLACKKITE 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support looks good. NHRHS2010 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support VanTucky 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support You bet. faithless (speak) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. One of the few RfA regulars who actually deserve the tools. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Has clue. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Happy enough with this user getting the tools --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Good candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good editor, no redflags here. Good luck, Malinaccier - don't go crazy with the tools! Keeper | 76 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Good faith editor; I see no relevant reason to oppose. Good luck! ♠TomasBat 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support an excellent user, plus a WP:WPHP member. :) - PeaceNT (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support Clearly aware of policy & good attitude to boot. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Strong support per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Malinaccier#Deletion track record. I pulled up his deleted contributions history -- Malinaccier has an excellent track record with speedy deletions and AfDs. In other words, it's very rare for him to nominate or tag an article that should be kept. --A. B. (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Looks ready for the buttons. --PTR (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Cheers, LAX 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Valueless in terms of input this support may be, but it's all said above. Net Benefit to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support looks good. Dlohcierekim 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support per everyone. (what?) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support good 'pedia builder and trustworthy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - well known and respected editor. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support - Wikidudeman (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Almost overlooked this one. User:Dorftrottel 21:45, January 24, 2008
  40. Support - After our brief interaction, I wannabekated you to learn more, so I knew a bit about you before the process. Science-Fiction/Fantasy topics often draw a very young and consequence-free editor, much like myself back in the day, so I have some admiration for a prospective admin who has devoted one's edit career to these somewhat contentious pages. I'd like to see some more non-fiction area page edits (not editcountitis, merely for perspective), but what you've done is solid reliable work, based on contribs. BusterD (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support I liked what I saw. Looks like a good editor and a good addition to the project. -- Alexf42 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Good user. Acalamari 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - looks to be a good editor who can be trusted with the tools. --BelovedFreak 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

Oppose Not quite as many mainspace edits as I'd like, but that's not the problem. In this editor's dispute with the "vandalizing" ip, there were some problems I found. The ip was given a warning for making personal attacks. I however checked the contribs of the ip and found that no personal attacks were made. The ip tried to discuss the matter with this user in an edit note and on the nominee's userpage (probably because he/she was new to wikipedia and didn't know where to correctly discuss issues). Nominee gave several warnings to the ip after bluntly making the decision that any edits contrary to his/her opinion to the section in dispute would be considered vandalism. He made this decision without discussing it in depth with fellow editors or even asking them if it was alright to consider the edits vandalism. Although he removed it afterward, the nominee even gave a final warning to the ip. If anyone can offer counter-evidence, I will consider changing to support. Other than this, I see nothing else wrong with the editor's contributions. Timmeh! 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP was continually adding the same information to the article that myself and several of the other main editors considered disruptive. The IP then vandalized my userpage at this diff, under an old section of "my wikipedian goal". I then started a thread on the talk page to discuss what should be done about the information in question. I probably did handle the situation wrong by using user warning templates, but this was my first encounter with something of the kind. Please take this into consideration. Malinaccier (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Clarification. The editor's message, as it was under the section of "My wikipedian goal" appeared to me as if they were trying to make it look as if I was saying "But I guess im not a smart enough Harry Potter expert to figure out that myself" (taken directly from diff). I may have misinterpreted this however. Thanks. Malinaccier (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I see how he was talking about you and therefore vandalizing your page. I will change to neutral, however, I regretfully cannot support you. Your abuse of the warning templates, even if slight is very convincing and can cause many different kinds of problems if done again. I wouldn't have suggested using a very old dispute for your answer to the third question, especially because it is your first encounter of the kind. Timmeh! 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral per reply to my oppose above. Timmeh! 23:57, 20 January 2008 (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.