Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malber: Difference between revisions

Malber

Voice your opinion. (6/15/1) Ending 20:51, 12 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

• See Malber's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

---

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)
• Also, could you talk more about what you meant here ? Dina 21:35, 6 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)

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 REX_speak 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)

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)