Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melchoir


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

Melchoir
Final (73/0/1) Ended 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

– Melchoir has a deep and thorough knowledge of the systems and subsystems contained within Wikipedia. He has made a large number of edits within the encyclopedia, and has many more scattered around on the talk pages of users who have asked and received useful and constructive help and advice. He is an efficient and skilful newpage patroller, and an extremely helpful welcomer of new users (including, earlier this year, myself). His contribution record singles him out as a totally dedicated and committed member of the Wiki community, and will make a superb admin. I cannot praise him too highly. Vandals, beware!--Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Conomination by Blnguyen

I would also like to nominate Melchoir. I offered him a nomination back in August, but fell a bit out of the loop since I tried to go on wikibreak and got pre-empted, so this is a bit late. Melchoir has been around for almost a year and is active primarily in editing the mathematics and physics branch of Wikipedia. He has created some 16 articles and around 20 more stubs, in the areas of flora, fauna, pure mathematics, theoretical physics and music. Aside from this he has grealty expanded and improved Maraschino cherry, Center of mass, Three cards problem, Addition, Equation, Dirac adjoint, Gamma matrices and Algebraic structure. All of which show a good understanding of referencing and NPOV, as demonstrated amply in three DYK selections. He has also worked on 0.999... for bring it pass FA, and also did a clean-up and maintenance of to FAs Medal of Honor and Able Archer 83 to prevent them from being delisted from FA. What stands out most in these articles beyond the sheer number and amount of text is that many were pure mathematics technical articles which require an extremely high level of precision of choice in the words and terminology. Not only the standard POV, but every word needs to be carefully chosen so that a completely wrong meaning does not come from it as a result. Thus his contributions are even more skillful and of higher magnitude than at first glance.

In terms of procedural knowledge, Melchoir has a good understanding of DYK process, and is particularly excellent in AfD process. He has an extremely high rate of discussion in AfD, with detailed commentary and frequently returns to a given AfD to respond to alternative opinions and to convince and reach a conclusion over the article ( See Articles for deletion/Max kubiak, Articles_for_deletion/Three_cards_and_a_top_hat, Articles_for_deletion/World_Wide_Web_War_I, Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation). He is one of the foremost adherents to the maxim that AfD should be a discussion with respect to policy, NPOV, etc, and would be one of the most wise people to make a judgment on sticky AfDs where sheer counting is not sufficient, but rather weighing up the arguments. As can be seen from his work on articles, discussing content, and FARs and FACs and on various Project forums, he is particularly good at this.

Melchoir is very skillful at discussing content and style issues, weighing up the pros/cons logically to get the best and fairest outcome in templates, and in policy naming , big , , creating Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools) conventions. This extends to policy proposals also ,

In terms of content, he frequently discusses content well with others - for maths (,, Talk:0.999... - , ) and in particular for FAR Featured_article_review/Medal_of_Honor, and FA Featured_article_candidates/0.999.... These are the most illustrative examples. He has over 2000 article talk edits and none of these are taggings - they are all discussions. He is always patient objective, calm, polite and rational. This is important as admins need to be cool and remain rational under fire, even when others do not.

His work at the Reference desk (, Reference_desk_archive/Science/February_22-28_2006), shows that he is never unwilling to explain things to others and help them out. This is important as administrators need to clearly and at times patiently and extensive explain their actions. (He has at least 20 more topics in the archives which he explained thoroughly in maths, science and miscellaneous, but I didn't include all of them).

In a more technical sense, he is one of the very small minority who understand image policy well. This is important as most image deletions are due to 10-20 admins, a very uneven workload distribution. He reverts vandalism and warns vandals, and has a thorough understanding of the pillars of encyclopedic integrity - POV , OR , sources , ad-spam , and copyvio.

His email, userpage and edit summaries are all in order. All in all, we have a great candidate, and it is an honour to nominate Melchoir for adminship. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Of course! Melchoir 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...oh wow, Blnguyen makes me sound even better than I think! Melchoir 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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: The one thing I know I'll be doing is speedying articles on newpage patrol; I'll probably also make runs through the speedy candidates. I don't run into blockable vandals too frequently -- I've had to use AIV less than a dozen times -- but that'll be a useful ability on occasion. I will probably become more active around the Main Page and its protected constituents, especially DYK. I'm sure I'll find other activities to involve myself in; just don't expect me to perform any chores with any kind of regularity!


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Obviously there's 0.999..., my new, first FA. It's the best resource on the topic anywhere, and I am already seeing it being held up as an example for mathematics editors to follow. I like Mixed nuts because you wouldn't expect a Wikipedia article there, but I made one anyway; and it's got the priceless line "testimony of men engaged in the business of handling nuts". I'm proud of Water landing because I see it linked to elsewhere on the Internet as a kind of myth-buster. Whenever you get people saying "check out this Wikipedia article" and no one rebuts with "but you can't trust it", we must be doing something right.


 * 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: In the past I've been tangled in some deletion/renaming arguments that got too personal, but I think I've grown past the point where I think of those issues as important. One more non-notable topic or awkward article title isn't worth too much effort, and I've learned to start an AfD (or move request) and just walk away. What's important is article quality and verification. My most notable struggle in that arena was at 0.999... itself, where I learned that you have to lead by example. It's not enough to cry WP:V or WP:NOR; if the audience doesn't accept the argument I have to show them why it's important.

Question from 
 * 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: Well, I'm not sure if WP:IAR is something you apply, exactly. I've never had to resort to it to justify an action as an ordinary editor, and I don't really plan to start as an admin. As for WP:SNOW, I don't think it's important to be so aggressive in closing discussions early. As an editor, I do occasionally perform obvious page moves, mergers, and redirects without discussion on the basis that any process would uphold my decision. But as an admin, if someone else felt it necessary to begin a process, I wouldn't necessarily shortcut the process for SNOW. I hope that's what the question is asking. Melchoir 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Radiant
 * 5. You are said to have a "thorough knowledge of the systems"; I would like to know which systems in particular, since the only thing I'm aware of (so far) is the reference desk. Please enlighten me.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Sorry, I've been asleep! Well, I'm familiar with most of the guts of the Main Page (especially DYK), CSD, AfD, CfD, MfD, and... I've commented on a couple of user RfCs, I've watched users get blocked on the Noticeboard as well as by Arbitration... oh, and page moves. Basically all the "nominate, vote, act" processes are the same. I'm familiar with GA, Peer Review, and FA, image, template, and category management, and the Village Pump. I've commented on several proposed guidelines and policies, and I enter straw polls if they catch my interest. I'm probably leaving something out. Melchoir 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 6. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I've been aware of wikitruth for a while, but this is the first I've heard of wikipediareview. I've just browsed through them both a bit, and personally I find their monocultures of fanaticism disgusting. I've often seen new users become frustrated with their pet articles and leave, and I've seen a few experienced editors on self-destructive paths due to POV issues. We can probably do more to avoid alienating these groups, and I think it's crucial to Wikipedia's survival that we maintain interest in the project. But some people just don't know how to not be assholes on the Internet, and I get the feeling that it's the sociopaths who populate those websites. I can't blame Wikipedia for that. Melchoir 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * General comments

Melchoir's editcount stats summary as of 04:49, October 13 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 04:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Melchoir's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)


 * I've a couple of thoughts about your answer to question A1 which perhaps you could expand on? First, assuming you become an admin, when would you tag a speediable article for deletion rather than just delete it, or would you always just go ahead and delete it yourself under the appropriate criteria? Second, many editors have expressed a desire to see RfA candidates commit to a certain level of activity once they get the tools. Otherwise, why give the tools to people who will rarely use them? Could you expand on what exactly you mean by your comment "don't expect me to perform any chores with any kind of regularity!"? What can we expect you to do with the tools? Thanks, Gwernol 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, yes, if I gain the ability to delete articles, I'll never apply a speedy tag again. I already don't apply the tag unless I'm sure that the article should be deleted; if there's a question in my mind, I prod the article instead. So any article that I would apply a tag to is an article that I would just as soon delete myself.
 * Second, I'm referring to my own streakiness concerning Wikipedia tasks. Let's take, for example, WP:RfP. I'd be happy to pitch in there every now and then, just to bring down the average wait time; but I wouldn't want to commit to a schedule, so if it has to be turned over every X hours then I'm not your man. In the past, there are periods when I've been active on AfD, and given the opportunity I'll probably help close some discussions... just not on a regular basis. What you can expect of me is that my activity on Newpages is more or less constant, so I'll apply the delete tool frequently rather than rarely. You can also expect me to help out in unexpected places; I simply make no promises about where or when. Is that a little clearer? Melchoir 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support per nom. John254 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Great candidate. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. As a great nominee, I predict a pile-on. Themindset 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Michael 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Great admin-to-be. User has article-building and communication skills. User also has a good level of mathematical understanding, which I will take advantage of by making him re-do all the proofs for finding derivative rules. Fyi, I will get quite a laugh with the Chain rule. Nish kid  64  00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Great canidate, I'm supporting. Hello32020 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom. Rama's arrow  01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - we need more hands at CAT:CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Super Strong Support. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- Lost (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I'm very impressed with Melchoir's skill to write great articles, like addition. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, was he an admin? --Ter e nce Ong (T 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good stuff by Blnguyen, but I'd support the candidate if the RfA was blank (tongue in cheek there, people). Teke ( talk ) 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Sounds almost too good to be true *rubs eyes in wonder* Nah, seen him around, does a great job. Should be a good one. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 03:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I saw only lots of good work by Melchoir. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Excellent candidate.  Ans e ll  04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Adding 0.99999999... of a support to the tally - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Seen him around, fully deserves adminship. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support A fine editor, should do well with the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support A tireless worker in all namespaces, and able to keep a cool head even when fighting vandals and just plain ignorant folk. Confusing Manifestation 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Nguyen nominations are about as automatic a support as it gets. Grand  master  ka  05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - I could almost do this kind of support by bot it's that strong -- Tawker 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support One of the best editors of this project. It is time to give him the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong Support Multi-faceted editor. Hardworking and dedicated. Blnguyen's nomination says the rest although it could use one very interesting link in the copyright infringement warnings section - ;-) --Srik e it (Talk 06:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, an experienced and excellent contributor. Shyam  ( T / C ) 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Per Blnguyen's terrific co-nomination. Max S em 07:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Per nom. Charlie MacKenzie 08:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Great user, great nomination.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Despite being disappointed with his response to Q4 which includes WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, my favourite Rule and Essay respectively, he eaisly passes my criteria, I love the 0.999... article and I believe he will be an great admin †he Bread  08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Zaxem 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Certainly. Kusma (討論) 09:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Strong Support. Blnguyen has a habit of making candidates sound better than they thought, but in this case I don't need his nomination to convince me! JPD (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support 0.999... per nom. EyeMD 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support This, is what I call an all-arounded editor. Would love to see his continued editorial work even after getting his mop and bucket. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Strong Support. I thought he was already an admin. utcursch | talk 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. From your answer to question 1, I'm not that convinced you really need the tools, but I see zero potential for abuse here.  Welcome!  Mango juice talk 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Without reservation. Eusebeus 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Great editor.-- danntm T C 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) While I would still like to have my question answered, I see no reason not to trust this user.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. --Interiot 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. I'd add a witty comment, but someone already used "0.9999999... Support". --Core des at 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) *You could have said "1.0000000...1 support" ... :P  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support - Not that it's really needed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support - Didn't realise Melchoir wasn't already an admin, as the cliché goes. Grutness...wha?  22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Merovingian ※ Talk 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support for a qualified, experienced user per excellent nom statement, responses, no troublesome issues. Newyorkbrad 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support - without the use of a bad math joke, per nom --T-rex 00:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support   Doctor Bruno    01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Not really much to add that hasn't been said above. — TKD::Talk 02:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Outstanding editor, and extra points for being so civil and friendly.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count ) 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Note that I think the particular kind of not committing to a particular schedule or set of tasks expressed above is a good thing for Wikipedia. Here-there-everywhere admins are valuable as a "glue", filling in the gaps as needed. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support&mdash;We can use FA oriented mathematician who understands the tools. Williamborg (Bill) 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Back from vacation support --W.marsh 05:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. I'm most familiar with his work on the reference desks, but from looking things over he seems a great contributor in all sorts of ways. --Allen 05:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support, it is high time Melchoir was made an admin. Conscious 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support. I have seen Melchoir around many times and it's all ok. - Darwinek 13:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-16 13:02Z 
 * 61) Support. An excellent candidate. Marskell 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support happily. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support what reason is there to oppose? Wikipediarul e s2221 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Support ~ trialsanderrors 09:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Support. Don't see any issues. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Support. Good and dedicated user. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Support He deserves the masamune... err Admin mop :P TehKewl1 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Support good editor! Anger22 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support per excellent nominations -- Samir धर्म 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support Good editor. Besides, I haven't been on a bandwagon in awhile. -MrFizyx 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Support, nice candidate, nice nomination. Good job. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Support Great candidate. Vandal fighter too? Forget the "mop", I’ll get you a baseball bat. JungleCat    talk / contrib  17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Support Definately a good editor. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 18:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Support, an easy one. Guy 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral/leaning to support Answered my question thoughtfully, but reacted too emotionally. I consider admin decisions require a cool head.  Anomo 17:05, 17 October 2006 (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.