Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malcolmxl5: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (19/2/0); Scheduled to end 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) - Malcolmxl5 is a user who I began to see a lot of as I have been closing AFDs more and more frequently. His discussion in each AFD was thoughtful and wasn't just spitting out policies, he explained well why something should be kept or deleted. As a result, I began looking through his contributions further, and liked what I saw. While I don't know exactly how many articles he's contributed to (the lack of a count of them to me shows he's editing here for the right reasons), he has made some good articles. Lomana LuaLua is a really well-written article he's made that maybe should be put up at WP:GA, and Celtic F.C. season 2000-01 is another nice article that he pretty much did himself. He also helps in matters of discussion, such as at Talk:Freddy Eastwood, another article he's contributed a lot to.

He of course contributes a lot to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and I do see him contribute a lot in that area. I don't know much about association football, but with 150+ edits to its talk page, I would believe that he is really dedicated to the project. While his contributions outside the project may not be vast, his 16,000 edits strewn where they are show that he would do well with the tools. Closing AFDs woudn't be a problem for him, and I have no reason to think anything else would, either. Wizardman 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank Wizardman for his nomination, which I accept. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Should my candidacy be successful, I would continue with what I have been doing as an editor, such as dealing with vandals that crop up on my watchlist or on new pages patrol or who I otherwise spot, warning and blocking as needed. I also keep a eye on pages that have been blanked, which are listed by SQLBot. Often these pages are blanked by the author, sometimes in response to a speedy tag placed on the page, and I would deal with these directly rather than tagging them to be dealt with by another admin. From time to time, I close non-controversial Afds as a non-admin, where the article has been speedy deleted or the nomination withdrawn, and I would take this a bit further and look to close some where the consensus is to delete. Afd is an area that sometimes gets backlogged so I would add my efforts to the workload. From time to time, backlogs in other areas are reported on WP:AN or WP:ANI and I anticipate helping out with these and also keep an eye on WP:AIV, WP:RM, WP:RPP, requests for speedy deletion and proposed deletions. As a newbie admin, I would pace myself and deal with non-controversial administrative tasks until I gain more experience and confidence as an admin. I plan to continue to be an editor, writing and improving articles.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As Wizardman says, I work mostly on improving footballing biographies, including lower league footballers such as Sacha Opinel, which I improved from this to this; subsequently Friejose has added a rather good picture to make it what it is now. I also work on articles about more notable footballers, Wizardman mentions Lomana LuaLua and most recently I have done much work on Scott Carson, taking it to B class and hopefully to peer review soon and then onto GA class. Although my main interest has been in footballing biographies, I also dabble in other areas and have created articles, for example, on Harry Campion, a British statistician, Bill McLennan, an Australian statistician, Helen Ghosh, a British civil servant, James Leasor, a British author, Sigrid Rausing, a Swedish philanthropist, D. J. Finney, a former President of the Royal Statistical Society, and improved articles such as Din Din Aviv, an Israeli pop singer, William Lawrence Balls, a British botanist, Wöbbelin, a municipality in Germany and Marché ouvert, a medieval English legal concept. I am pleased with all of these as my aim is to improve the encyclopedia and I hope that these are examples of how I work to do so.

I also keep an eye open for vandalism, dealing with these when I see them, and consider these to be important contributions too, for example, recently I stubbed an attack page about a school in Georgia, USA[1].

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 do not think I have been involved in any major controversy either in mainspace or Wikipedia space. My user page has been vandalised a few times but that seems to be par for the course when dealing with vandals and is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.

I remember an Afd discussion for a non-notable musician, Neal Century, to which the author (and probably the subject) took exception and was disrupting the discussion. I politely asked him to stop[2]. However, he continued to disrupt the discussion and when I saw that he faked a post as if it was from other user, I warned him and suggested that he took a break[3]. While I was doing that, he faked a second post so I warned him again[4] and made a report on WP:ANI[5]. The user was subsequently blocked. Although there were a few more comments from SPAs, this action and a cleanup of the discussion by Iridescent seemed to take the sting out of the disruption and the article was duly deleted.

How will I deal with conflicts or stress in the future? I anticipate dealing with conflicts calmly, level-headedly, thoughtfully, politely. As far as stress is concerned, I'm a fairly laid back person (I have mellowed as I have got older!) but if I felt that I was getting stressed on Wikipedia, my answer would be to take a wikibreak, step away from the keyboard for a little while, do something else that I enjoy doing and come back relaxed.

Optional question from Skomorokh

4. How would you close an AfD in which 40% of the responses were to delete, 30% to merge and 30% to keep, where you felt each outcome was equally well-argued for but personally favoured deletion?

A:

4a How would it effect your decision if the article in question concerned living people, fictional entities, or very recent events?

A:'

Standard questions from NuclearWarfare

5. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ or User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A:

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A.

7. Please define notability in your own words

A.

• See Malcolmxl5's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Malcolmxl5: Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Malcolmxl5 before commenting.

• Strictly my opinion: I do not feel the candidate has to answer question 4. Synergy 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's why it's optional. Skomorokh 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they're optional, but what, may I ask, is wrong with them? The questions are perfectly valid and uncontroversial. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You feel that this question is uncontroversial? I must disagree. I'll wait to see how it plays out. Synergy 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It'd only be controversial if you have already decided in your mind the "right" and "wrong" answers to Q4. I guess we'll find out based on the answer and how you respond to it. Wizardman 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was precisely why I spoke out, yet opt to say no more until the question is answered. Synergy 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Synergy. You can't make an informed judgement based on this kind of executive summary, simply because there isn't anything to judge. In matters like this the devil is always in the detail. It would be rare for arguments to be exactly balanced in the manner suggested - usually if it is too close to call on your usual criteria you could apply alternative criteria. What is the basis of the candidate's own preference? If the candidate has an expert knowledge of the area in question then his or her own preference may be a legitimate consideration when reaching a decision. If it is a simply a perception than the article is 'low-brow' or otherwise 'unworthy' of inclusion then this may not be as satisfactory a basis for reaching a decision. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps that is right answer the question is looking for? --T-rex 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Aye. There is no right answer to question 4 except something along the lines of "It depends". Black Kite 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nom. Wizardman 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Experienced and good answers. Axl (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support Good project work, experienced, and excellent, articulate answers. PerfectProposal 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. naerii 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. switch to Strong Support per nom. Dlohcierekim 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, Le Roi, you're dif's have persuaded me to strengthen my support. Guess, we'll have to agreeably agree to disagree as agreeably as possible. :). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. No problems spotted. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Experienced user, good admin candidate, voted Keep on an AFD for my article. Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Good answer to Q1, and I doubt Malcolmx15 will abuse the tools. America69 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Good article work, experienced, looks good to me. Useight (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Will be just fine. nancy ^talk 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Would be a good admin. Soxπed93^(blag) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support--LAAFan 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - clearly a good candidate. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Yanksox (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supports don't need to be justified, it is assumed they go along with the nomination. Yanksox (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I justify my supports as Wikipedia works by consensus reaching discussions and not votes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, I am not allowed to state my support of the candidate. I'm merely just echoing the main statement and my agreement with it. By showing up I'm helping build consensus. I'm not wasting my time and I'm not baiting you anymore. Yanksox (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it is okay to challenge opposes, then it is okay to challenge supports. Being an admin is reportedly "no big deal" and admins will have to put up with far worse than a simple oppose when people challenge his or her blocks and closes. A sign of an admin's character is when they can respond calmly and civily or put simply not be perturbed by RfA opposes. That the candidate has not reacted as you have to the oppose below actually has augmented my opinion of the candidate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is ok to challenge your oppose because there where many issues, all you included why links to AFD's that the candidate has disagreed with you. It is to be assumed that, as pointed out above, he goes along with what the nom said. America69 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Protonk (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - no reason found to oppose. Also not the deletionist that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes him out to be [6] --T-rex 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reasons have been presented below. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Other than gently pointing out that admins participating at AfD might reasonably be expected to also close cases where the consensus is keep I see no reason not to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Would be a good admin. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak support considering you said you'd like to work in AIV but I see little activity there. Just take it slow for a few weeks before pressing 'block' :) —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Carrea. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • Surely an admin candidate who !votes Delete in AfDs for obviously non-encyclopedic articles should be a reason to support, not oppose? Or am I missing something? All those articles were obvious deletes apart from the two that ended up merge/no consensus. If we opposed everyone who !voted Delete on an AfD that was eventually kept, we'd have no admins at all. Also, some of those AfDs are over a year old.... bizarre. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • From what I know, Le Grand Roi opposes the candidate if they have opposing viewpoints on any RfAs - CL — 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • This is one of the the most idiotic and personal opposes I've seen. Yanksox (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • Immature responses are not how to convince people to support. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • I am opposing because those were encyclopedic articles that were unjustifiably deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • This is a personal vendetta against the deleting admin, not the candidate at large. Furthermore, I'm sick of people that act almost like mere pond scum and just pounce on this like a soapbox. I remember one character in particular that did it to my RfA and others and was blocked sometime after for being a sockmaster. I'm not saying anything in particular, but just putting it out there. Yanksox (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • What?! I am opposing because I disagree with the candidate's interpretation of inclusion criteria and how they would likely close AfDs. Those discussions I cite above were closed by several different admins. Which one do I allegedly have a vendetta against? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • This is not a vendetta against the deleting admin, but against all admins who have ever deleted anything. --T-rex 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • If that were so, then I would not have would have to oppose those who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams equation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagot Beast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian's identity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy-cook rice (joke), etc. I don't oppose people because they argue to delete as I myself have argued and nominated to delete more articles than I good number of editors I have seen have argued to keep. I oppose based on what and why editors argued to delete. Someone can actually be a deletionist of sorts and every thing they argued to delete I might not disagree with. Look through those whom I have supported and I am sure they have argued to delete here and there. It has nothing to do with simply arguing to delete, again, it is what I believe to be misinterpretations of inclusion criteria or incorrect arguments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Le Grand Roi, I understand your opinion, but can you at least provide diffs from, well, 2008 next time? Wizardman 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I shall keep that in mind. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. For two reasons. First, he has not been in a significant conflict, so I don't know how the user would react in dramaful situations. We've had incidents in the past where we've had terrible sysops who quietly passed RFA. Second, there's a lack of experience in normal administration areas (the highest count is eight on AIV). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]