Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malevious

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

Malevious

Voice your opinion (0/8/3); Ended 22:04,

Malevious (talk · contribs) - I'm Malevious, I've been editing since August 06 and I have just over 4000 edits. I'm active at the Disney Channel and Charmed articles mostly. I have a lot of vandlism reverts. I actively participate in XfD discussions. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, if any, do you intend to take part in?

A: I would help out at

WP:AIV

often. I would also help with Speedy Deletions and other admin backlog.

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

A: One of my best would be Reaching Everyone By Exposing Lies, I created and expanded the article myself. I'm currently working on adding sources for all the info. Other than that I would have to say my contributions to the Suite Life and Charmed articles.

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: The most recent would be the conflict over deleting the suite life episodes. Another editor went and just redirected them all to the list with out discussing it with any of the editors. I tried my best to remain

civil

and solve it. If any editor causes me stress I try and remain civil and if I find I can't anymore I call in another editor or an admin to help mediate.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose, see [1], and I quote: "The edit was made by an admin who has more authority on the matter than you do. End of story." - Not ready, has a misconception about what an admin is.
   Matthew 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Oppose per Matthew. If it was a while ago I might have supported, but that's far too recent a misconception. Majorly (hot!) 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Matthew. I don't want an admin who thinks he can make any edit unopposed (that is how I interpret the comment that Malevious made in the diff). Such behavior would most likely lead to innocent users being blocked. Funpika 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   May I say in my defense, Matthew seems it disagree with anything User:Mel Etitis adds. Mel was the one who changed the policy and he apparently didn't agree. I wasn't implying that admins can do whatever they want merely that the change wasn't made by some rouge IP editor or even a random editor. Yes the edit was a bit snippy, I'm not perfect and I will work on being more civil. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Switched to strong oppose per the shift-the-blame-tactic, my self and another editor having a disagreement is not a valid reason for you to imply "

   Matthew 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'm not going to argue about it. If you wish to oppose fine, I merely added an explanation for my actions. It doesn't excuse me but I already said I will try harded to remain civil. As well, any user who is active on

   WP:ANI will know the conflict between you two --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Oppose per above. Suggest looking at other admins' work regarding appropriate tone and demeanor, possibly admin coaching. This isn't the last word, but not now. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Per
   User Matthew. -Mschel 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Per [2]
   Naconkantari 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. This editor is supposedly on a break. It seems inappropriate for someone to run for admin while on a break. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - per Matthew.
   Real96 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Oppose, per Matthew. It seems he is the type of person who, if will become admin, will consider he is right in an editing dispute only because he is an admin.--MariusM 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral your contributions are good and there are many of them, but concerns above are worrying. If you concentrate more effort on displaying an understanding of WP policies by, for example, increasing your Wikispace edits, having a higher presence at XFD, then the community would be able to better gauge your understanding of adminship. All the best The Rambling Man 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Switch to Neutral I still cannot support this, but I trust you will work on improving, and may likely support when you re-apply in the future. Good luck.--U.S.A. cubed 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Same reason as
   James, La gloria è a dio 20:12, 29 April 2007 (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.