(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malinaccier - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malinaccier

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Malinaccier

Malinaccier (talk · contribs)

Ended date: January 12

Result: Promoted (24 support / 0 oppose) --Creol(talk) 06:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I present to the community Malinaccier for adminship. Malinaccier has been editing simple for 11 months, and has over 950 edits, over 1,000 counting deleted contribs. He has three DYKs and one good article, hot chocolate. Malinaccier has also been an administrator on the English wikipedia for nearly a year, and is a trusted, friendly user in both places. I think having Malinaccier as an admin would be a great help to the project. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and would like to thank Shapiros10 for the nomination. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Nom. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support I think this user would be EXCEPTIONALLY good at being an admin. TurboGolf 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I have not really came across Malinaccier much... Not that I know of. That could be a good thing though. Not noticed any arguments or complaints about him, so cannot oppose. Would like to see him more involved in the discussions on WP though... Unless I just haven't noticed? Anyway, after a brief look at his contribs, and the nom from Shappy, I will support unless something tells me otherwise :) Kennedy (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per ChristianMan16's excellent analysis. Majorly talk 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support Never heard of him, but I trust Sam's judgement. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WP:DUH support.Wait, that doesn't exist?! PeterSymonds (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. American Eagle (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per American Eagle. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, what kind of reason is that per AE! (he hasn't given a reason himself!) Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -.- Gwib -(talk)- 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great minds just think alike ;) American Eagle (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Per, wait what are we doing here? Do you have any candy? I need sugar! *walks off* HELLOOOOOOOOOO?? Anyone here??? ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I have scanned the contributions, and looked at a random 10% or so. I did not see anything that brings me pause. I also do not see any pattern of errors in discussions regarding blocking, protecting, or the QD's. I have confidence that the tools will not be abused here, and I will support. I'm fairly new to this particular project, however, I feel confident in the project's policy/guidelines that I can be an accurate judge and make a qualified vote, recommendation here. Support . Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - After the discussion and evidence provided by Malinaccier, I feel I can trust this user. One thing though, why did you pick this name?-- CM16 MLB  04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just random gibberish that I just used once for a handle online and it just became something easy that I could use that I knew nobody else would have. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you would pronounce it how?-- CM16 MLB  07:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – Sure, should do fine as an administrator here. Has already done quite a bit of work such as reporting to WP:VIP, participating in WP:RFDs, tagging articles that needed to be deleted for quick deletion, etc. Could do more around Simple English Wikipedia with a few extra buttons. — RyanCross (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - per Gwib.--Chenzw  Talk  05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support nothing that worries me. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - An excellent addition to the admins. MathCool10 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, of course. Juliancolton (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support Yes, this user would be an excellent addition to the administration team, however, I would prefer to see you become a bit more active if you were to become an administrator. I will not hold that against you, though, as I have seen first-hand the good that you have done for our site :). Cheers, Razorflame 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weakly support - I do think you'd make a good admin, but I really think you need to be more active here. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Out of good faith:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Give him a shovel and let him collect the garbage. BaenreEntreri (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) This account was created after the RFA started, and is therefore ineligible to vote. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While this should be struck, I think your rationale is wrong. I don't think when the account is registered is a factor so much as how few edits a user has (this was the user's second edit). Either way (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically one follows the other (i.e. if the account was created just now, there would be no way they would have acquired the amount needed to vote, that is to say we actually have a minimum standard) and his rationale is taken from here. Synergy 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Suppose a new user comes in from en.wiki or somewhere else. They're eager to help out here and start dozens of stubs and other articles. After a few days here he finds RFA and sees a user he knows well from en.wiki, or someone who has helped him out in the first few days here on Simple, is up for nomination. Or, someone who they've had negative experiences with the short time here because they feel that this user was "biting the newbies." Does he not get to !vote here just because he wasn't around before the RFA started even though he has maybe a hundred edits in a few days (a perfectly achievable number)? Either way (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Obviously this is a devil's advocate type scenario here and isn't highly likely to occur with great frequency. I just wanted to point out to Shapiros10 that it doesn't mentioned "time served" in the standards, just "few edits"). Either way (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also, mildly, covered in the same section (Votes made by users with very few edits may or may not be counted.). Really its left up to us to decide. In this case, I'd say no (looks trollish). But there have indeed been other times where we've allowed editors from en to vote I believe. Synergy 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I'm not arguing that this user's vote should not be struck. All I'm saying is that we don't disqualify users automatically for registering after an RFA open like Shapiros10 stated (yes, a majority of the time that user wouldn't meet the "few edits" threshold, but there will be some who do). Either way (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship#Who can vote] for more information.-- CM16 MLB  02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I already linked that above, but thanks. Synergy 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I already read that. Don't worry; I do my homework before pointing things out generally, Either way (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to double check your homework then. The fourth item on the list: "Named editors cannot vote in requests that were running when they created their account." --Creol(talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How in the hell did I miss that FIVE TIMES? WTF? I apologize, geez...I read that section at least five times and never once did that one jump out at me? Either way (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, It happens to us all. Just as well you noticed it before you really embarrassed yourself ;) Kennedy (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote struck (2x) - new account1 of a cross-wiki banned user2. --Creol(talk) 06:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support Excellent help in RFDs. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 05:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: - This is true, but it's not all about RFDs. Is there anything else this user has done to earn your "Strong Support"?-- CM16 MLB  07:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter? Æåm Fætsøn strong supports because of his RfD work, and that's his opinion. — RyanCross (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, I'm just curious.-- CM16 MLB  20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Maxim(talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support We need more experienced admins. I have no reason to doubt that Malinaccier will be an excellent addition. Synergy 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support of course. I've seen great interactions from this person. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose - Everything I could find about you is good. 78.5% of your 1004 edits are in mainspace. Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to support you. Sorry. Call it a trust problem call it have not had much contact with you. I just can't do it....sorry.-- CM16 MLB  18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sound torn. Is there any way I can get you to explain what you mean a little better? How I am understanding it, you are basically saying that since you have not talked with him, you don't trust him and you have to oppose? Please tell me if this is incorrect. Synergy 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know his work or him well enough to feel safe supporting.-- CM16 MLB  18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look and search through his contributions? This is how RfA works. You judge a person by their past edits. Synergy 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, BUT you also have to have trust in the person, which I don't in this case and it's nothing against him, I just don't know him like I know the other admins.-- CM16 MLB  20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can help me understand why you don't trust him? I should have asked you this first. Synergy 20:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I just don't-- CM16 MLB  20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you actively oppose instead of writing a neutral comment in the discussion section? If you don't know, you don't know, but to not know, then oppose on such basis? I don't get it. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your attacking me why?-- CM16 MLB  04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, I intended that in no way to be a personal attack. I will note that I did, however, address the edits and not the editor. Now... if I had called you some nasty names, I can understand, but other than that, I have not personally attacked you. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChristianMan. It is understandable that you do not know enough about me to support me, but perhaps you could take a look at some of my work and get to know me better. Besides work in the mainspace (I have a good article (now at voting at WP:PVGA and three DYKS), I'm very active at requests for deletion. Here are a few diffs of my work there: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. I've also taken it upon myself to simplify a few policy pages here on the SeWP such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Blocks and bans, Wikipedia:Rules, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WP:PGA and WP:PVGA are also areas where I am active, and I will occasionally comment at WP:ST and on other WP:RFAs. I've done work in the quick deletion area, and if you have admin tools you can view what tags I have made. Vandal patrol has been another area where I try to lend a helping hand, and I've done work at WP:VIP. I'm pretty well rounded as an editor and I try to help out wherever possible. If you would still like to know more about me, you can look at my contributions at the English Wikipedia available here, and my successful Request for Adminship available here. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hate seeing en contributions effect RFA's here....if you're an admin here it should be because of what you've done here....changing to support.-- CM16 MLB  04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one was attacking you Cman. You opposed someone from getting adminship because you didn't know anything about them. Guilty until proven innocent? I didn't know anything about him (and neither did FastReverter) but we both supported on that basis. You don't have to vote in every RfA. Especially if you do not know the user. Kennedy (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know but I am cause I like to feel like I've said my opinon on who should be admin/'crat.-- CM16 MLB  18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really did not want to be the only one to mention the Blade Brown RfD. I was waiting for you to change your mind (there's still approx. two days) which is why I am assuming you may have forgotten about it. Synergy 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with his keep, I don't really think this is an issue myself. An admin doesn't have to agree with consensus in order to close Afd's. He just has to be non-biased and make decisions based on what the consensus and policy is. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but it does show how he thinks in our community. I knew this was going to look like "an issue", which is why I'm here, and not in the oppose section (note I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt; maybe I should have pipelinked AGF in "assuming"? :) ). My main issue, is that the article would be deleted on en (where he is an admin), and since we have very similar notability guidelines, I can't see how it is suitable for simple. Synergy 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think basically what I was getting at is "substantial coverage" is a subjective thing to most people. What I think is substantial another person might not. -Djsasso (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also one that voted keep as I thought it was notable, you don't get on multiple newspapers by not being notable.-- CM16 MLB  21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Creol summed it up better at the time. At at a glance it appears notable, but hes doesn't have enough coverage. Synergy 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment and changed to delete. I will admit that I did not look for sources to back up the claims made in the article. Sorry I have not been more active recently (I'm unusually busy in real life at the moment) or I perhaps would have been able to check up on my comment sooner. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Malinaccier&oldid=8871498"