Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mallanox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Mallanox

Final: (51/1/0); Ended 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mallanox (talk · contribs) - It gives me great pleasure to nominate one of admin mentees, Mallanox (talk · contribs), for adminship. Mallanox has been an active Wikipedian since April 25, 2006 (five days until the one-year Wikipedia anniversary!) and has amassed 7,000 edits to his name since then. He's a great candidate for adminship since he both shows a need for the admin tools and demonstrates Wikipedia policy and its many applications across the namespaces. A member of WikiProject Films, Mallanox has spent most of his time doing remedial work cleaning up articles that are in bad shape. He's had a good deal of experience with RC patrol, XfD, and AIV. Mallanox is a great guy to talk to, and he's always civil and respectful to all editors on Wikipedia. I think Mallanox has some great characteristics and qualities, all of which will be of use as an administrator. Without further ado, I present Mallanox! Nishkid64 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I confirm my acceptance, Mallanox 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am honoured that User:Nishkid64 considers me to be ready to take up the mop. Also thanks to User:Mathmo for this, [1] which I at the time declined. I'd like to make it clear that I belive that being an administrator isn't a big deal. I realise this is said a lot though what it means to me is that I'm not out to make a big splash. I'm not here to be a revolutionary or to change anything. It is, in my opinion, the general user (including admins) who collectively make the big differences to Wikipedia. Admins are here to apply policy and ensure fair play. They have use of restricted tools not because they are fundamentally any different to anyone else but because they've put in the time and effort to show that they can be trusted not to abuse tools too powerful to allow everyone to have.

I believe, and I know there have been studies that show, that there are too few admins. Backlogs highlight this and it is in the backlogged areas that I intend to help out.

In case anyone picks up on it, I have recently removed from my userboxes one which identified me as an inclusionist. For the record, while I sympathise more with the inclustionist frame of mind, I put the policies of Wikipedia first and no longer consider it appropriate to categorise myself in such a manner. Consensus determines what happens around here so however you identify yourself, it makes no odds. I judge each case on its merits and I don't think it helps for me to have a statement on my userpage that could have a subconcious impact on my opinions and possibly prejudice others into believing that I am someone who will try to save any case I find that is nominated for deletion.

I thank, in advance, any who support me and any who oppose me offering constructive criticism. Mallanox 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer a few optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I certainly intend to take part in admin work, with User:Nishkid64's help I have actively been gaining understanding of an administrators function on Wikipedia. My main area of concern recently has been Speedy deletions which seems to be in constant backlog, at the time of writing 310 items. Whenever I nominate an item for speedy deletion, I always look at the other candidates to make sure they are genuinely speediable. I rescue those that I think can be improved, or if it's not Wikipedia material and not a speedy candidate I will prod it or begin an AfD.
I actively vandal hunt. I keep 500-600 articles on my watchlist and check them every day that I am on to ensure their most recent updates are not detrimental to their integrity. I use Lupin's tool to trace suspect edits and I give users misusing the site a warning whenever I find such edits. I would use the admin tools to enforce the rule of Wikipedia and deal with persistent trouble makers. At least to begin with I wouldn't block anyone until I had the agreement of another admin unless it was very clear that no other action would be appropriate such as violations of the three revert rule. Mallanox 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, I believe, are to the items which come under the auspicies of WikiProject: Films and WikiProject: Actors and Filmmakers. I have worked at lot on the correct categorisation of film articles making sure that the category tree of Category:Films is easily navigable and that films share appropriate categories. Obviously this isn't without controversy though I listen to opposing viewpoints and I'm not too proud to back down if I'm wrong or if there's a better way to do something. I have created a lot of stub articles for filmmakers [2] while I haven't completed this task yet, it is my intention to go back through them (hence I keep a list) and expand on any that I can. Despite appearances, I don't create stubs at random, I do have my own criteria for who I create one for and I revisit those I decide not to create occasionally to see if they are more notable than I initially thought. Mallanox 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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'm not really a person who gets stressed, at least not online. Early on in my time on Wikipedia the following exchange occured [3]. I felt at the time and still do that the users who responded to me were unreasonable. My judgement then was that it wasn't worth a fight, so I walked away. If the same incident occured today I wouldn't back down so easily and allow what is essentially an opinion to go unchallenged. As we all know, opinion is the bane of Wikipedia and the root of most problems. I know now that there are other avenues that can be taken such as third opinion and if necessary mediation or arbitration.
An incident that did stress me somewhat was the wholesale nomination for deletion of whole swathes of articles that a particular user had an issue with. This occured over the Christmas period and early part of this year. I firmly believe that Wikipedia should not be censored, censorship is the enemy of knowledge. An example article is Ass to mouth. While many would agree that its an unsavoury topic, it is admissable under Wikipedia policy. The deletion discussion shows that my opinion was attacked quite vociferously by the nominator. Despite having previously spoken to that user on his talk page, and here is the full conversation to its completion [4], I bear no grudges as evidenced here [5]. I asked an admin to give me a copy of the last version of Ass to mouth from before its deletion. It was then discussed here [6] and the article undeleted. Mallanox 09:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A. By it's nature, it must be in the most sparing of instances. If everyone tried to use it for everything there would be chaos. It is very difficult to pinpoint a circumstance where it should be used, it's easier to say when it shouldn't. Clearly it shouldn't be used as an "ultimate defence" against consensus. If there is a discussion and you're losing, don't use IAR, no-one will take you seriously. It's one of those instinctual things, it feels like the right thing to do at the time. Mallanox 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from coelacan
5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I can indeed, this is going back a way into the past but it has stuck in my head as being wrong. It is this: [7]. The lack of English-language sources was given as a reason for deletion though WP:V states that english-language sources are preferred i.e. not mandatory. Doubts were raised about the notability of the subject though she is a cartoonist whose work is published regularly in a national Swedish newspaper. An article on the subject existed then on the Swedish Wikipedia. The same article still exsists [8] today. The closing admin said to me on my talk page that he went to Google for all his sourcing needs. There were over 1700 Google hits for Minal Nygårds so it was clearly not unverifiable.
If I happened across a case like this, I would have added sources, no matter the language. There are plenty of Swedish speakers to translate on Wikipedia. I would then have left it to another admin to close and make a judgement about the notability issue. Further to this, and this is easier said than done, I would try to recognise when a newer user has a point but lacks the experience to do something with it. I didn't understand at the time the policy of verifiability wasn't just, as the name implies, showing the availability of sources but their citation in the article.
I should point out that my occupation involves a great deal of training so I am used to coaching those less experienced than myself. I work in a multi-lingual environment so I don't see language as much of a barrier, merely a challenge to available resource. I believe these are skills I can use to greater effect if my request for admin status is granted. Mallanox 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mallanox before commenting.

Discussion

  • I'd normally support this editor, but I'm not sure. The user page usage is worrying (user cats and userboxes, this isn't what Wikipedia is about). CVU has lost much of its previous paramilitary pomp, but it's also a bit of a worry. I'm neutral for now. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - A fine candidate, nothing worries me. Matthew 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support alles in Ordnung for me, good luck. The Rambling Man 09:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Good candidate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I like what I hear and what a see. Jmlk17 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Good answers, good candidate and good nominator..(All Good)..--Cometstyles 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I second Cometstyles' statements. All is good with this user. Captain panda 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Can't see why not... Majorly (hot!) 12:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per no big deal - plenty of warning vandals and gnoming edits. Addhoc 12:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Not someone I've come across before, but he looks like he would make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 15:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Let's go. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support substantially per nom. Newyorkbrad 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support as nom. Nishkid64 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Understands process and appears to be a trusted user. -- Jreferee 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Good answers, looks like an all-around solid candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Seems to have a good understanding of policy, participates in talk page discussions, and seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support: I don't see anything wrong with this user. Has the experience and knowledge. Also seems to have the ability to think through decisions before making them, so does not look likely to abuse the tools. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support John254 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Has Wikipedia's interests at heart: clearly very good at keeping a cool head, open-minded about "unsavoury" topics, and I like his take on rescuing speedied pages if they can be. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I like the nominee's humility and conscientiousness. YechielMan 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support No reason to believe candidate will abuse the tools. --Shirahadasha 04:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support An excellent editor and it is great to have his assistance in the WP:Film and new WP:Filmmakers and Actors. We could always use another administrator who has the tools to help with the projects. I'm sure he'll be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. --Nehrams2020 07:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - A good candidate who makes good contributions while been friendly as well. I can find no evidence to suggest future admin tools abuse. Camaron1 | Chris 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. WjBscribe 15:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support This one's a keeper. --Infrangible 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per Camaron, nom, Yechiel, Zeibura. JoshuaZ 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per the nominator. Acalamari 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Qualified. He's a solid user and will make a good admin. -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support appears to be a good user, I see no valid concerns raised yet. Users understanding of IAR is spot on.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per nom. --Myles Long 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per nom. Seems like a fine candidate, haven't seen any reasonable objections yet. Xihr 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support — reasonable level of experience, good contributions to the encyclopedia, good answers to the questions, and no reason to believe that the user would not be trustworthy with administrative tools. *** Crotalus *** 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I like the user's attitude and contribs. Good luck to you. El hombre de haha 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Great candidate, confirmed by Kelly Martin's opposition. -t h b 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet - David Gerard 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - yeah, he's ready. --Valley2city₪‽ 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support seems to have a fair understanding of the policies and is qualified enough for the tools. Yeah. —Anas talk? 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support (moved from neutral) PeaceNT 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Appears to be level-headed, helpful, and civil, and the answers to the questions show a good philosophy. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Will make a fine admin. -- Pastordavid 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support seems fine to me. Darthgriz98 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Seven thousand edits without substantial complaints. That's impressive. One might interpret the lack of talk page edits to be the lack of something, but on the other hand, if everything is being done right and nobody has a problem with it, there isn't much need for discussion. The Transhumanist 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, per above and below. Jonathunder 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support as a promising candidate. (The fact that his userpage gets vandalized proves that he is doing something right; the opposition vote cast for mentioning that in a userbox is misguided.) Bucketsofg 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per the reply to Q5, the insight by Bucketsofg, the excellent answer to Q5, the lack of any obvious problems and the presence of plenty of positive contributions, and ... did I mention the fantastic response to Q5? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. --Cspurrier 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support looks good to me. Nice answers to the questions. James086Talk | Email 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support A.Z. 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support A.Z. 06:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. I know from watching you interact with others fairly recently that you can admit when you've made a mistake, probably the most important attribute that any admin can have. Your answer to my question was sufficient (recommend you rework Minal Nygårds with new sources and then resubmit it to AFD for another try, by the way). So, yeah. ··coelacan 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Candidate's user page has a vandalism count userbox; having this userbox shows poor judgment and a lack of understanding of the importance of dissuading reputation. That plus the other questionable userboxes (how does revealing the fact that the candidate is a "cub" serve any encyclopedic purpose?) leads me to oppose this candidate for demonstrating poor judgment in deciding what content to put on his user page. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kelly, the userpage can contain material about the actual user. That's exactly what Mallanox did, and that's fully compliable with userpage policy. A personal question, what does a userbox saying you love Blue-footed Boobies have anything to do with the encyclopedia? Nishkid64 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have one of the most sparse user pages of all admins and I have to say I find this oppose troubling. Whether someone has a few userboxes on his or her page has nothing to do with whether or not the person will be an effective admin. The presence or absence of userboxes does not alter one's judgement at closing deletion discussions, or blocking problematic users, or protecting pages. JoshuaZ 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    See this message on my talk page; Kelly Martin said about her user page objections there. Acalamari 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to add myself to the chorus of editors who find that this kind of opposition rationale is poisoning the atmosphere of RfA. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    You can poison poison? Actually, that's one of the most substantial oppose reasons I've seen on RFA of late - David Gerard 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd rather have a candidate with a vandalism userbox than a candidate (or an admin) who creates a "secret" list in userspace (which can be found easily using Special:Prefindex) and who seems hostile and confrontational when questioned about it. (See also this discussion at WP:AN/I). Some errors in judgment are more disruptive than others. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I have been asked to remove and retract this comment on the grounds of disruption. Next time, maybe I should learn to keep my disruptive and bizarre opinions to myself. Be sure to ask the appropriate administrator for the block that's coming my way. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've crossed swords with Kelly before but I have to say that she was entirely reasonable in the discussion you mention here. It was the person trying to order her around in a very high handed manner who was being 'hostile and confrontational'. I don't agree with her wikiproject endorsement idea but if that's her position she's at liberty to state it. I don't see the point in attacking her in this way at all. Nick mallory 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose User has been involved in sockpuppetry: he created THE PEDOPHILE USERBOX under another nickname, see mikerosofts delete log for evidence. --Hopw-2 10:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet/vandal vote. WarpstarRider 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm concerned about his lack of interaction with others. PeaceNT 10:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what in particular are you concerned about? He has nearly 1,000 talkspace edits through the namespaces. Nishkid64 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to his user talk edits, less than 500 (rather low seeing as the candidate has 7000 edits), yet most of them are vandalism warning [9]. I have also looked through edits in article talk pages, he has 350 (as I write this), and from what I can see, nearly all of them are adding tags and moving pages. I'm afraid I find hardly any interaction with other editors. Sorry I wasn't clearer. PeaceNT 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that I want to sway your vote but Mallanox also has a few Wikipedia talk edits [10] which are mostly on talk pages of projects. That does show some interaction with other users (although perhaps not the kind you're looking for). Pascal.Tesson 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine. I didn't notice those edits. Thank you, Pascal. Moved to support PeaceNT 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have over 7700 edits and only about 800 user talk edits. I far prefer to conduct my discussions on article talk pages where everybody can read them and comment on them. I only use user talk pages when I have a specific message that I think only that one editor would be interested in.
This is also a kind of editcountitis. Too many user talk edits suggests too much socializing; too few user talk edits suggests lack of interaction with other edits. Can somebody please publish the "acceptable ranges" for each namespace so that future RFA candidates can make sure to get the requisite number in each namespace? Me, I'm working on getting my category talk edits up. NOT! ;^)
--Richard 18:09, 24 April 2007 (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.