Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melsaran


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

Melsaran
'''Final (25/21/2); Ended 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

- Fellow Wikipedians, I present to you Melsaran. While Melsaran has only been here editing this marvelous project for approximately 7 months, he is also active at the Dutch Wikipedia, and he has become a diligent and prolific editor, with almost 2,800 edits already this month. With over 3,500 mainspace contributions, Melsaran also has tens of reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA, showing good understanding of policy, which is essential in an administrator. He also participates regularly at forums such as WP:RFC/N, and partakes in a range of XFDs. For all of these merits and more, I hope that you will all consider Melsaran's great potential as a Wikipedia administrator. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.  Mel sa  ran  10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw.  Mel sa  ran  23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to help with cleaning up the various backlogs, including CAT:PER, WP:RFPP, CAT:PROD, WP:UAA and WP:AIV. I have done quite a lot of vandal fighting, and I believe it would aid me if I could block them briefly after sufficient warnings have been given (paying attention to WP:BITE). I am also a frequent new page patroller, and am familiar with the speedy deletion criteria and its workings. I have made a number of page protection requests, and I think that I could help out there. Of course, page protection is anti-wiki, so we should only protect pages with great caution and for a limited duration, but it can be a great tool at times to force productive discussion instead of revert warring.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Unfortunately, I am not a very good article writer, but I am pleased with my contributions in debates about various policies, including WT:CSD and WT:FLR, my help to new users at the help desk, and my assistance in cleaning up citations in articles (which are often bugged). I also do my best to clean up articles I see, by copy-editing, adding hatnotes, moving pages to fulfil the naming conventions, and removing uncited rumours.


 * 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 haven't been involved in a major conflict, but I certainly had some minor frictions with other users, most recently this RfC. I believe I generally handled them reasonably well, although I could do with improvement. I do always try to assume good faith and remain civil even when "the editing gets hot", to ensure a pretty environment for all. While I may have made some mistakes in the past, I do my best to avoid edit wars and discuss on the talk page or leave it alone, because nobody will win a thing by edit warring, and it goes against the principles of Wikipedia.

Optional Question from User:KamrynMatika2

 * 4. What article have you improved most? Kamryn · Talk 11:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A: Well, I tend to do some minor "gnomish" edits on various pages that I happen to read, but if you want to see an article that I seriously contributed to, the first that would spring to mind is Pseudo-anglicism, which I expanded and cleaned up. See these edits:  Mel  sa  ran  12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Dreftymac

 * 5. Consider the discussion between Kamryn and Majorly that is included in this very RfA regarding your candidacy: I want to know your opinion on the way that it is being (or has been) conducted. 1) Do you believe the discussion is productive?; 2) What are the favorable aspects of the discussion [if any]; 3) What are the unfavorable aspects of the discussion [if any]. dr.ef.tymac 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: KamrynMatika is entitled to his opinion, as is Majorly. I don't know whether this discussion is productive, apparently it has been discussed many times, but to me, it's fine. Personally, I'd say that not everyone is a gifted article writer and we all have our specialities, in my case maintenance work, and that adminship doesn't necessarily require good writing skills, but that's just my opinion, and I respect it when someone opposes me for this reason.  Mel sa  ran  16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Trusilver

 * 6. Under what circumstances do you feel it's appropriate to block a user for vadalism who has not yet reached a "final warning"?
 * A: The thing is, many "vandals" are actually genuine newbies who are just testing and are a bit reckless. That's why it is especially important that we hand out a proper set of warnings before blocking them. However, when someone is obviously acting in bad-faith (for example, someone mass-spamming the same inflammatory message across dozens of articles), we can give them an only warning or block them immediately. This should be done very carefully, but can sometimes be necessary.  Mel sa  ran  16:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from [[User:Until(1
2)]]=====


 * 7. Is there ever a circumstance where an admin should take an action contrary to consensus? If so, what type of circumstances would justify this? (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A: Generally, administrators should take community consensus into account with every action. However, they can do something against consensus for legal reasons, for example when copyright issues are involved, or when it is a direct order from the office. This can be a legitimate use of WP:IAR, to protect the encyclopaedia.  Mel sa  ran  18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from myself

 * 8. What are your views on this edit war?
 * A: That was something from nearly three months ago, which I sincerely regret. I was wrong about moving the page repeatedly without discussing it, and apologise for it. As far as I recall, I haven't been involved in any edit wars since, and improved myself.  Mel sa  ran  22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Melsaran:

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

Discussion

 * I'd be interested in some details of this user's work at the Dutch Wikipedia. Moreschi Talk 16:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about what exactly you want to see, but here is a list of the articles I created, here's my edit count, and here are my contribs.  Mel sa  ran  17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Support Yup. T Rex  | talk  10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - despite saying he's 'not a great article writer', there are plenty of mainspace edits which will be useful to new users looking for help. Plenty of experience in Wikipedia space (1,000+ edits) which is of even more value. Gained enough experience now, and seems to know what he's talking about.  Lra drama 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Beat the nom... Well actually, eat the nom... -- Dark Falls   talk 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't eat the nom until he has supported -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support But I have to ask, why the hell do you have so many edits? I'm on Wiki 4-6+ hours a day, and I hover around 800-1400 a month --L ucid 11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * *GASP* He's a bot! -- Dark Falls   talk 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Good article work, and lots of username reports. I'm sure the block button will come in handy.  Majorly  (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I disagree with the opposers. Although admins should have a substantial number of mainspace contributions, extensive article-writing is not a pre-requisite for adminship. Adminship is mainly about maintenance, and those with extensive experience in maintenance tasks (as this candidate has) are ideally qualified for adminship. Incidentally, he also has 2000 more mainspace edits than I did when I passed RfA. WaltonOne 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose WaltonOne 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the lengthy discussion that originally followed here, see the talk page. To see the discussion as it originally appeared, see this diff.
 * 1) Support A good participant at XFD; I'm not bothered by whatever he may have said about BJAODN - let's leave current disputes out of this because we're trying to evaluate a candidate who's spent months here already. Shalom Hello 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Melsaran is a dedicated, civil and experienced user, he's without a doubt prepared for adminship. Current opposers do not convince me otherwise. Hús  ö  nd  15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I came come across this user many times at WP:AFD, and have no doubt that they would have any trouble making decisions as an administrator. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I predict the net effect of sysopping this user will be a positive one for Wikipedia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. User's answer to Q6 was satisfactory. Edit history is good as well, I see no reason not to support. Trusilver 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) weak Support: Melsaran provided a reasonably tactful response to a potentially thorny question. My only caveat would be this: . The candidate could easily have resolved the issue with a quick search against "Google Scholar" or "Google News". I don't hold it against him, though, because: 1) he showed independence and grit by potentially "going against the grain" (but with a good-faith belief in the validity of his views, I like that); and 2) it seems lots of others failed to do Google Scholar search before chiming in on the AfD as well, so Melsaran shouldn't be singled out. Melsaran is probably someone who can express contrary and contentious viewpoints while still maintaining integrity and respect. In light of this, It seems fair to relax the emphasis on editing skills. The "warring" is a slight issue as well. dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support Solid edit count, and I don't think he will abuse the tools! Politics rule 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per above. A real vandal fighter and very helpful, see . Bearian 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as Walton One said, adminship is about maintenance. Melsaran has plenty of mainspace contributions; WikiGnoming is article work. No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I like his maintenance work and participation in XfD's; that experience comes in handy when using the admin tools.  Singu larity  18:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. VoltronForce 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Jmlk  1  7  19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Plenty of experience there for an admin candidate,; some good things too. Will forgive the edit warring. GDonato (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Slightly guarded support &mdash; generally impressed with Melsaran's judgement when we've crossed paths, and if it's the gnomish admin tasks he wants to do, then please, let him at it, he'll be great. I understand the views that there's not enough evidence of experience relevant to all admin tasks, but I trust that Melsaran won't attempt those until he feels that he does have the relevant experience, and I trust his judgement towards that. SamBC(talk) 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I think there is plenty of good reasons that this user should be an admin. Captain panda  00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Two and a half months since the edit war, a clear statement that s/he was wrong and understands why, no further issues. On the plus side, an editor who has done a good job and will continue to do so. --JodyByak, yak, yak 01:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I feel that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support as per JodyB. Harlowraman 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Onnaghar tl 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per question 4, sorry, but if your best contribution is to an article covered in reference-needed and cleanup tags then I'm afraid you haven't been editing the encyclopedia enough. It's a question of trust, and I don't trust people who want to become admins without having helped improve the encyclopedia in any direct way first. Kamryn . Talk 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Kamryn. --Fljm 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Until. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Edit warring over the location of an article is not something I want to see in an admin candidate. Another example of the same behavior. --- RockMFR 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not attempting to justify anything, but that was nearly three months ago, and like I said above, I made some mistakes in the past with regard to edit warring.  Mel sa  ran  16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per lack of article writing. You can't deal with content-based disputes if you don't know what good content is. Moreschi Talk 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Something just feels wrong for me here. I realise I got a neutral comment like this in my own RfA and that turned out to be a sockpuppet :) But there's something I can't put my finger on. Apologies for my vagueness, I'll be hunting diffs down. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I might sit this one out. ~ Riana ⁂  19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is unacceptable, and too recent. --Aude (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose without prejudice for future attempts. Your work has generally been great Mel, but the log Aude links to gives me serious concerns. I hope you try again in six months again once incidents like that have ceased (which I'm sure they will, given your speedy improvement as an editor, far quicker than mine). VanTucky  (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but that was nearly three months ago, and (as far as I recall) I haven't been involved in any edit wars since.  Mel sa  ran  19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A simple revert war is one thing, but a war over moving an article to a clearly POV name is more serious. This is the type of incident where sysop tools could be abused quite easily. I just feel it's too soon. VanTucky  (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Melsaran has amply demonstrated a vast improvement in judgement since then. SamBC(talk) 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per the edit-warring over the genocide tag. It's one case where article writing experience would come in handy, I think. Xiner (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Changing the title of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide (as you did twice on Jun 4 ) is just one reason to oppose...no consensus to do this was apparent.--MONGO 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose this is basically POV edit warring, moving a page to the same title 3 times in a single day so recently is just too much too soon. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : ('Go ')) 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per cited examples of edit warring and POV pushing. NeoFreak 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose- per the POV pushing. --Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  00:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The editing-warring issue is still too recent and too troubling. Giving an editor the mop too soon does him no good, as the tensions resulting from any mistakes will likely make him as unhappy as everyone else. Xoloz 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Very Strong Oppose - per this diff and answer to number two - lack of encyclopaedic edits.--Bryson 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the answer to question 2? Acalamari 16:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ?I said why in my oppose comment.--Bryson 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking that; wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry. Acalamari 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Given our respective histories, it's weird that I should be agreeing with MONGO on anything, but he makes a very good point above; renaming an article on the WWII atomic bombings to such a provocative POV title, and edit-warring about it, isn't the kind of level-headed actions I'd like to see in an admin candidate.  Kamryn (with whom I have a much friendlier history than with MONGO) makes some good points as well. *Dan T.* 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The repeated page moves of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing article to a POV-pushing title was wrong. Cla68 12:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was, and I admitted it, and apologised for it. I haven't been involved in any edit war or serious dispute since.  Mel sa  ran  12:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators who use and abuse their authority to assist them in pushing their personal POV(s) are, in my opinion, one of the greatest threats that Wikipedia faces. The page moves in question happened only a couple of months ago.  If you are nominated again for admin in a few more months, and you haven't pushed anymore POV, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Furthermore, if you help take an article or two to Featured Article status in the meantime, so much the better.  Cla68 12:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What indicates that I would abuse my authority as an admin? Aside from that particular incident, I can't recall a single event of "POV pushing". Please look through my contribution history and decide for yourself :)  Mel sa  ran  12:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We all have our causes, but, as administrators we have to keep them "under our hats." If you continue to be as dedicated to the project as you are currently, and dont't push POV, which you seem to be committed to do, you'll be an administrator on the next nomination, and I'll be one of the ones who support you.  Please don't think of my nonsupport as degrading your contributions to the project.  I just need to see that your're dedicated to neutrality.   And a few more months of edits will show that.  As you can see from my userpage, my gauge for dedication is FA nominations.  Take one or more articles through the FA process and you'll have my support. Cla68 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. My only interaction with this editor was in this recent discussion of his proposal to delete the wp:an/i redirect, which I had created precisely because typing the lower case in the search did not work and I was tired of hitting a search page. Seeing how he hounded every comment in disagreement to his proposed deletion, over such a trivial thing, does not give me confidence he will handle bigger things as an admin should. Jonathunder 12:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Changed to Weak Oppose due to cited attempts to move Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide". I don't usually like opposing an otherwise good candidate based on one incident, but this was too recent (June 4) and seems to me like a fairly serious violation and/or misunderstanding of NPOV, which is basically our most important policy. I will probably support if the candidate runs again in a couple of months, but this is too soon. WaltonOne 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) On account of the above, and also due to a review of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, I do not have confidence in the candidate's understanding of NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarity, what do you feel is the problem with the recent talk discussion you refer to (in terms of Melsaran's behaviour)? SamBC(talk) 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, an inability to distinguish significant minority views from insignificant ones. Hope this helps. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, as per the concerns cited by Kamryn and (especially) Mongo. Yes, it was three months ago, but the poor judgement in the renaming, compounded by the edit-warring over the title, lead me to believe that you are not a good candidate for the tools at this time. Perhaps later. Horologium t-c 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The grossly pov renaming of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and edit warring are a big concern. Dman727 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral When I pointed out that the foundation requires a copyleft license for content, you responded in a fashion that indicates you think the community can come to a consensus to violate copyright, and that unless the foundation comes and stops us that is okay. The fact is that admins need to know to ignore consensus when it is a violation of Florida law(where our servers are held) or Foundation issues. (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that it is unknown whether BJAODN is a violation of copyright. That is something still under discussion by the community. You said that it is a "foundation issue" that BJAODN needs to be deleted; if that is true, then the Foundation would have to state that directly. I did not dispute the fact that we need to delete clear copyvios even when the community doesn't want to. I am sorry if I gave you that impression.  Mel sa  ran  14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is just that both sides of the argument acknowledge the GFDL problems, it is an extreme minority that says there is not GFDL problems, and it can be clearly demonstrated that the text is not attributed. The dispute is not about if it is a copyright violation, the people that want to keep it want to keep it despite the GFDL problems. It is the job of the community to enforce Foundation issues, we don't wait for them to show up for every little thing to explain to us that yes, this rule needs to be applied here too. Do you think it is a copyright violation? (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Melsaran is quite right about this. Although there are accidental GFDL attribution issues with some parts of BJAODN, it is not a blatant copyvio, nor is the Foundation remotely likely to get sued for it. While it's quite true that clear copyvios (such as copy-pasting masses of content from an external site) have to be deleted straight away, we have WP:CSD G12 for that, a criterion which enjoys community consensus. Melsaran was quite right to point out that BJAODN is not an m:foundation issue; the Foundation has made no official comment on it, and there's no real threat of lawsuit. (Is a vandal going to sue us for not correctly attributing his/her vandalism?) WaltonOne 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Just note that I am not experienced at all with copyright issues, and I personally don't have strong feelings on the matter. I may have misread your comment, but I thought you were basically saying "the foundation wants BJAODN to be deleted", so that's why I said that. I'm sorry if it was not entirely accurate. I will remove the comment if you wish :)  Mel sa  ran  14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the foundation wants our content to be copyleft compatible, which means we cannot use content unless the authors are attributed. Enforcement of Foundation issues does not require office action, it is our job to enforce. It says at the bottom of each page "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License", but that page is not GFDL, it is lacking in the requirements to be GFDL. I will move this to the neutral section. By knowing that it is not GFDL, and declaring it as so, we are basically lying, both illegally and immorally. I find Waltons idea that it is okay to violate our own content license because it is unlikely we will be sued to be repugnant. (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed to neutral because it seems my oppose was at least partially based on a misunderstanding of meaning. I will take a closer look at your contribution history later this evening. (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. Melsaran is thoughtful and civil in her discussions, but I'm a bit concerned about her understanding of policy., No reason to oppose, I just feel a little more time and work with policy would be helpful. Shell babelfish 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second link: that was a mistake on my part, eventually we had a productive discussion on RFCN (see here). I'm a him, by the way ;)  Mel sa  ran  16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - God knows, I'm the last person who should be opposing based upon the use of automated tools - my own RFA had that as a major issue. However, I think that if a candidate uses some automation, I expect to see a very high caliber of other work: I'd like to see major foundation involvement, or significant involvement in policy evolution, or something similar to that as a means of evaluation for their critical thinking and judgement skills.  In this case, unfortunately, I don't see any way to really evaluate critical thinking.  However, I also don't have enough to push me to oppose.  So, regretfully, I remain neutral on this RfA.  All that said, however, I'd like to state clearly to those who debate about Janitor or Judge... having been an admin for a little over a month now... janitor.  WAYYYYYYY janitor.  I think I've closed, maybe, 2 AfDs - and those were clear cut, and frankly involved no judgment.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to see some critical thinking, then read my contributions here, here and here and decide for yourself :)  Mel sa  ran  18:41, 17 August 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.