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

Happy-melon[edit]

Final (74/2/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-melon (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to nominate Happy-melon, the user responsible for the restructure of Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests. His efforts over the past few months have transformed the page from a cumbersome mess into an efficient automated system, maintained by himself and his bot User:MelonBot. This is likely to have a major impact on the improvement of articles across Wikipedia. Other achievements during his two years at Wikipedia include helping to get Emma Watson and Wicked (musical) to Good Article status, and List of poker hands to Featured List status. He is very active at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and has participated in numerous notability guideline discussions. Happy-melon is a civil and devoted editor, who would be a great asset as an administrator. Epbr123 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Happy‑melon 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: The mop and bucket doesn't just comprise of deleting pages and blocking vandals. Maintaining the templates and infrastructure that supports the articlespace is an inevitably messy business - I'm sure my deletedcontributions includes scores of leftover testpages and redirects created from structural changes, and hundreds of edits that were overwritten or self-reverted. I know which editor will be the most regular target of the rollback link - myself!! The ability to clean up after myself when working on Wikipedia's infrastructure will be invaluable; as will the ability to edit protected templates. Reorganisations like this would be much more straightforward if I didn't have to keep asking admins for the necessary changes.
That said, you can't really justify the admin bit without intending to take part in some of the more conventional administrative chores. I am already an active contributor to TfD, and so I will certainly take up the task of closing discussions there. I have developed a good knowledge of the Speedy deletion criteria, so I will probably also work on the speedy categories on a regular basis. If that doesn't occupy all my admin time, I think I'd probably get involved in some of the less headline areas - WP:RFP, WP:UAA, WP:MFD or the like. Over all, though, the same mantra I have on my userpage applies - if I'm on any page for any reason and see an obvious problem, I do my best to fix it. Having the sysop bit would simply allow me to fix more problems, more thoroughly. Happy‑melon 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a very tricky question to answer - trying to compare some of my work is a bit like chalk and cheese. I'm extremely proud of my work on the requests system now used by the League of Copyeditors, and the work that MelonBot does in maintaining it. But I'm also proud of my collection of good and featured articles, including Wicked (musical), Saxophone and particularly Emma Watson, which is involved in a fairly epic FAC at the moment with every chance of being promoted. But I would say the action I'm most proud of is not an edit, but a user: my adoptee SkyllaLaFey. I certainly couldn't claim that she wouldn't have made it on Wikipedia without me, or even that I've really done that much more to help than other editors; but trying to be there for a new editor, to answer questions and solve problems but without preventing them from learning the tricks themselves, is both extremely humbling and incredibly rewarding. Wikipedia as an institution is no more than the sum of its editors - the content will outlive all of us, but without the "anyone" to edit and expand it, it is nothing more than a dusty maze of pages and discussions. I'm proud to be able to think that, maybe, I've made a net contribution to that group of regular editors. Happy‑melon 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 first got into editing Wikipedia seriously just after the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, working with the Harry Potter WikiProject. Although I'm reluctant to use the word now, it appeared at the time that the project's scope was being 'attacked' by a handful of editors, who were nominating scores of our articles on the grounds of fictional notability, lack of reliable sources and original research. I became involved in several heated AfD discussions with these users, particularly Guest9999; along with other editors on both sides I made some ([1] [2] [3]) personal comments of which I am not proud and for which I was quite rightly burnt (for [4]). Reviewing my edits in this period, it appears that while my grasp of policy was generally good, "hot-headed" would be a good way of describing my means of presenting them. I like to think I've learnt a lot since then. Thanks largely to Guest9999's coolheadedness, I'm glad to say he and the Harry Potter WikiProject were able to work together on a restructuring drive, which I was involved with and which successfully consolidated a large number of dubious fictional Harry Potter articles without any such hard feelings or conflict.
As I said, I like to think I've learnt a lot in the edits I've made and discussions I've had since that period. I now simply avoid being drawn in to obviously pointless arguments, and try and stay cool when participating in potentially contentious discussions. This is a good example of an argument which simply isn't worth getting drawn into, and there are enough examples in my FACs to write an essay on the latter. Rule number one, and the rule I clearly hadn't learnt back then, is to always assume the best. Happy‑melon 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Why do you think that self-nominations shouldn't be allowed?[5] Wouldn't you agree that there is very little difference between asking someone to nominate you and nominating yourself? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:My views on RfA nominations are roughly the opposite of the general opinion on canvassing for them. No one denies that each RfA absolutely has to have comments and discussion, and the involvement of many editors. No one denies that Wikipedia needs administrators. But these needs must be balanced with the need to ensure that those gathered are the 'best' for the job. For voters, 'best' means those with no personal interest in the candidate's promotion, only a desire to promote the best and reject the worst. For nominations, 'best' means the exact opposite - a group that has been preselected to remove those who would not make suitable sysops. It's no big problem if some votes are cast that are not impartial; but promoting one bad admin could be catastrophic - one edit to ((!)) is one too many! Given the polar opposite requirements for these two groups, it's not surprising that our policy is also diametrically different. We strongly encourage voters to 'select' themselves, either by watchlisting WP:RFA, or by responding to ((rfa-notice)); but we very strongly discourage anyone searching for voters themselves. With nominations it's the opposite - there are editors (it looks like I was found by one of them) who spend most of their time on Wikipedia looking for good admin candidates, and their contribution to the project is as invaluable as the top FA author. But we fairly strongly (and increasingly so) discourage users from selecting themselves for RfA, as expecting them to be impartial in such a decision is of course impossible. I guess I just feel that sentiment more strongly than some. Happy‑melon 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

You could always add a couple of Ô or Ő, or maybe an ň? User:WaltÔn Őňe?  :-/. Maybe not. Keeper | 76 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joke: How do you make a "happy melon" sad? Answer: Introduce him to this guy. Ok, I'm done. I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitress (over). Keeper | 76 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Yes! --Niyant (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehehe - I think it's traditional to wait until the vote has actually started :D! But thanks for the support. Happy‑melon 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Good editor. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support. When closing difficult TfDs, Happy-melon's opinion is one I always look for. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A Very good wikipedian. A good admin she would be.--Pookeo9 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehehe again - I guess you had a 50-50 chance :D. Thanks for the support. Happy‑melon 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    50-50?
    Happy melon isn't exactly masculine...  :) --Niyant (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. looks okay. Dlohcierekim 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: All of my interactions with Happy-melon can be described as positive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SUPPORT, ready to mop. - PeaceNT (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definatly Supporting!, from what I have seen...he is great for Wikipedia! --User:AP_Shinobi | AP Shinobi (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support - Strong knowledge of WP:DEL and WP:CSD and an active and knowledgeable participant in WP:XFDs.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Absolutely! This guy helped me out when I was but a wee newbie, and definitely knows his stuff. GlassCobra 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nice username - sad melons would look ugly. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - will not abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Although I think you are dead wrong about self-noms, I can agree that you are well versed in the way things are done here. I appreciate your answer to Q1 which shows a broad view of the work of an admin. You are also quite transparent about previous "issues" you've been involved with. All things considered and given proper weight, I can easily support this nominee. Good luck! -JodyB talk 12:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support. I am completely amazed by Happy-melons work with the WP:LOCE project. I stumbled into it and haven't yet done much with their huge backlog (cheap plug). But my first stab at it was met with a welcome mat, a pat on the back, and a warm cup of coffee for my efforts. I was having trouble with a template, and if you just read the comments from the LOCE talkpage, noting in particular the tone (civil and not condescending), the length (indicating a real desire to be helpful and specific) and the breadth (indicating a core understanding of the technical intricacies of this place - something I'll never get) An outstanding, dedicated editor that is willing to take the time and effort to make this place shine. Keeper | 76 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, and I completely agree with the comment from User:RyanGerbil10 above. JPG-GR (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good editor. SpencerT♦C 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Is not including tally boxes the new way of getting me to review a RfA? - nb. I don't really believe that anyone thinks my vote essential, or that most have a clue who I am!. Everything looks fine, and no evidence they will abuse the buttons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - will make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. You have my full Support. Timmeh! 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. We do really need more. Iloveengland2much (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. This had my head running round in circles for over a minute, congratulations :D - Zeibura ( talk ) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, you sly dog. That was funny. --Sharkface217 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, because we need more admins,</joke> and this user is trustworthy. · AndonicO Hail! 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support - despite the well-thought out oppose rationales, which provoked a long period of thought in my mind about how the issues raised would make this user abuse the tools. EJF (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, good answers and great article work. - Zeibura ( talk ) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- Good editor, experienced, and other reasons per above. Earthbendingmaster 02:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. The candidate is well-qualified and a good contributor. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support If only because of the ridiculous oppose "arguments" (if you can call them that) below. Seriously, I see Happy Melon all the time, good editor, no reason to suspect misuse of tools. faithless (speak) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. User:Dorftrottel 05:16, January 26, 2008
  33. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Helpful editor with valuable technical skills. All interactions positive. Would make a very useful admin. Geometry guy 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) PS. I would say more, but I'm just off to edit ((!)) - nice suggestion by the way :)[reply]
    Yes I was waiting for someone to say that :D!! Fortunately that particular bean is too big to fit in most people's noses... :D Happy‑melon 13:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems like a great editor to give the tools to. Outstanding answers to the questions, good contributions. And one of the least likely guys to garner the opposes below, but I guess you never can tell what will happen next. Darkspots (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Editor will use the admin tools well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Need more content-editors as admins. Yes please.--Docg 20:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, good editor. --Tone 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Suppport, all looks good, give 'em the tools. RMHED (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good answers to questions, thoughtful comments and questions in deletion debates. No problems.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks to be an excellent, hardworking editor who knows policy. Already working in areas that could benefit from another editor with the extra buttons. I cannot deny. Pigman☿ 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I took a positive impression about you from our recent interaction at WT:CSD. Getting an article to FA status is enough evidence of interpersonal skills to convince me that the oppose because of lack of dispute resolution isn't strong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Judging from edits, user is a constructive editor. --Funper (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Copy editing should be good background for encyclopedic administration. Callmederek (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support Happy-melon exemplifies the Wikipedia admin, persistently amazing me with his commitment to the project. His perseverance for improving articles and fighting on behalf of the WP:WPHP for articles he believes in always make him a pleasure to work with. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support He would be a good admin. Good luck. Burner0718(Jibba Jabba!) 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support One of those times I thought, "Wait, aren't they already an admin?" Soxred93 | talk count bot 07:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support Diligent editor who significantly contributed to Wikipedia and understands Wikipedia policies. миражinred (speak, my child...) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Impressed by this editor's comments on my talk page- showed procedural understanding. GDonato (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support While a large number of contribs are related to Harry Potter and related subjects, the answers to the 4 questions seems to be sufficient enough that he will handle well the tools. --JForget 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I was extremely impressed with how well Happy-melon handled Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson, an epic discussion that would have caused many editors to tear their hair out. If he's always as cool, collected and patient as this he'll be a great admin. --JayHenry (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Unreservedly An excellent Wikipedian with whom it is always a joy to work. Commitment and knowledge that should be the envy of many! — Dafyd (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Nothing I could say hasn't already been said, a fine user. Gran2 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Acknowledging the point in the oppose section, lack of experience in dispute resolution is not necessarily grounds for thinking a person disqualified in general, and I have every reason to believe that the editor in question will be more than effective in the other areas of "admin life". John Carter (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - A committed, knowledgeable, level-headed Wikipedian. --Melty girl (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - This editor has been helpful at the WP:LOCE WikiProject, and has impressed some fairly-well-known editors who I see above in the Support column. I see nothing in the Oppose comment that makes me worry. Happy-melon has made some votes at WP:TFD that appear sensible, so he must have mastered some of the dusty corners of policy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Looks good to me! Gromlakh (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Great admin material, keeps his cool, mature... κaτaʟavenoTC 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I was thinking as I was browsing TfD... "Hey, I should nominate Happy-mellon for adminship". I go to his userpage and I see someone has already beat me to the punch. :-P IronGargoyle (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Great editor, will make a fine admin. Also, has a catchy name. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. User:Krator (t c) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Great job in the template area & other areas as well. SkierRMH (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - yep. - Philippe | Talk 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Good user. What type of melon though? Cantaloupe or watermelon? Acalamari 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cantaloupe, naturally. How can you be happy if you're red in the face all the time? Happy‑melon 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent point. :) Acalamari 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally prefer the much underappreciated honeydew, not that anyone was asking. :-) Keeper | 76 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Good article writer, will do well with the tools. I like watermelons btw... --Hdt83 Chat 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - for all the experience he doesn't yet have, and is destined to acquire. The Transhumanist 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support A committed editor... I'd have to go with Galia :) Sabrage (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got number 69? Booyah! (I'm pretty immature sometimes). --Sharkface217 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. --Kbdank71 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - meets my standards, especially with so many edits in the past 5 months, with perfect edit summary usage. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Answered the questions well. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Suport - good editor, will make a good admin. --BelovedFreak 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Comment - Do we really need more what? ScarianCall me Pat 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Iloveamerica2much is questioning whether we need more admins. A reasonable enough question I'd have thought. I'm not certain that I'd oppose any individual on that basis though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do(Need more admins). Dlohcierekim 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite his rather strange oppose, the user has only made 15 edits at time of writing this. ScarianCall me Pat 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the fact that Iloveamerica2much has now !voted support, I'm indenting this comment. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted as it wasn't Iloveamerica2much who voted support. Epbr123 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Good point. Long names confuse me. Now I understand the comment above. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need more admins. Kingturtle (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose No substantial dispute resolution experience. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious, the latest point voter has arrived. 172.209.7.43 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we talk about this?? <<joke>> Dlohcierekim 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <sarcasm> It's a pity this ain't a self-nom, or else I'm sure it would have been a good idea to canvass Kurt to join the madness. </sarcasm> 172.209.7.43 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just accept he has a legitimate reason to oppose it. You people constantly throw about Wiki policies around the place. Get a life. Jeesh. Iloveamerica2much (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NO U (and America sucks btw) Iloveengland2much (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern but respectfully disagree. This is not a nom for WP:MEDCOM it's a nom for admin, this is a technical position that requires knowledge of the rules and consenus, and an ability to apply these things fairly so we don't get arbitrary or capricious page deletions or WP:XfD closings. In the relatively short time I have interacted with this user I have become confident that User: Happy-melon can do all of these quite well. WP:DR is very important to the project, but it really isn't connected with being an admin (I participate in a wide range of WP:DR and I'm not an admin and don't see the need for being one) - the two are different facets of the mechanics of the projects, maybe you could say, admins use a wrench and WP:DR uses grease - I know that's imperfect but I just don't think we can make WP:DR a prereq.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, the username trick was funny for five seconds. Now, you're just provoking Iloveamerica2much. Drop it, please. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you tell me 7 hours later... sheesh, it's a stupid troll, let me have a bit of fun. Majorly (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I am reluctant to oppose the nomination of anyone for the difficult job of admin. However, I do not think that this editor has the experience or temperament to be an administrator yet. For example, in the recent FA review for Wicked (musical), he has shown impatience with other editors who have helped to improve the article and has been dismissive of the comments of experienced editors, contributing to the failure of the article in its FA review. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Lawrence § t/e 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]
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.
Category