Final (42/16/2) ended 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Luigi30 (
talk·contribs) – I have had much experience with Luigi30 in Wikipedia, and some interaction with him on IRC. He has been around since about March of 2004. He has proved himself to be worthy of adminship, with a plentiful supply of edits and a good attitude. I notice that he had an
earlier RfA that didn't succeed, possibly because it was a self-nomination, and a
second one that I'm not sure of how it failed. I'd be happy to nominate him. Here's to you, Luigi30! :-) --
WikiFanatic22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below this line:
Support Satisfied with the answer to my question. He's been around for a long time -- he's got a LAW, for goodness' sake. :)
Xoloz18:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Being relatively inactive is not a good reason against adminship. We most definitely do not demand that our admins put their lives on hold for Wikipedia; likewise, there is no required quota for admin actions: any help is a good help. We should look to the quality of the user and whether adminship can help them help Wikipedia in what they do manage to do on Wikipedia. -
Mark15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think that comment is completely uncalled for. Also, note that since this RfA began three days Luigi has made one edit outside of this RfA or his userspace.
Carbonite |
Talk16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Someone's who's as inactive as Luigi could have difficulty (due to time constraints) responding to questions about users they've (un)blocked, pages they've (un)protected or (un)deleted, or AfDs they've closed. I'm not looking for a lot here; just enough activity to know he wouldn't be a "hit-and-run" admin. Less than one edit a day isn't quite enough.
Carbonite |
Talk11:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support regrdless of
User:Durin's point below. Sorry not everyone is as wikipediholic as some of us. Please no more editcountitism. Even
User:Kate, the creator of the tool, finds it somewhat wrong as she was also denied adminship on the basis of not enough edits (correct me if I am wrong). Enough of the RfA cult. --
Cool CatTalk|
@15:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support to counteract remarkably stupid oppose votes noted below. There is no requirement that an admin candidate spend any particular amount of time editing, and rate of edits is certainly not a valid metric of appropriateness for an admin candidate.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support a trustworthy user. Hoping especially to counteract Everyking's blackmail attempt below. Offering to withdraw his Oppose vote for the price of an apology when the percentages are tight is ... [sorting through vocabulary ... no ... no ... not that word, this is not an RFC on Everyking ... no ... good heavens, not that one ... no ... no ... no... ] ... is wrong, IMO.
Bishonen |
talk04:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Activity level is, for me, just too low. 21 edits in the last 30 days, and overall less than 2 edits per day average since your last RfA, where there were a number of people concerned about participation level. Kate's tool is down right now, so I can't see if there's a bunch of deleted edits to your credit. Your use of edit summaries has improved since your last RfA (66% since last RfA), but it's lower than I like to see. --
Durin14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I've been too busy with school to edit in the past couple weeks. You shouldn't oppose me just because school is stressful and eats my time.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
15:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I would have no problem with that if that were in fact the case. School most definitely should take priority. However, in the same time period that you made 21 edits over 30 days, you made more than 1900 comments on IRC. If you had more interest in the Encyclopedia, I would have no problem supporting you as an admin. --
Durin14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please be more civil. Thank you. I stand by my vote. I've explained similar votes before. I see no reason to explain my vote to someone who is intentionally being antagonistic. --
Durin17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I agree with Durin, the activity level is way too low. Going back 100 edits takes us to 26 September 2005. Going back 500 edits takes us to 9 May 2005. This isn't about his total edit count (not even sure what it is), this is about his level of participation.
Carbonite |
Talk15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Also, needs more experience with policy. For example, he nominated several schools for deletion on the mistaken belief that it was policy to delete middle schools as non-notable.
[1].
Carbonite |
Talk13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think he's talking about
[2], where I reported he reverted Ashlee, and Arbcom unanimously agreed with me, so his reason is a blatant lie.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
It was a misrepresentation of the situation. Anyway, accusing me of lying seems rather poor conduct for an admin, so I also oppose for that reason.
Everyking05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That's not making it any better. How about an apology? I will withdraw my vote in exchange for an apology. An admin ought to be able to recognize his own mistakes.
Everyking06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
He knows what the reality is. He can apologize or not apologize, but he knows it was wrong and he knows his accusations here are wrong. Beyond that, I don't care very much. It was a small incident a while back. But it gives me a very poor opinion of him, and I have never seen him doing anything else to counterbalance that impression, so absent an apology there's no way I'd feel comfortable withdrawing my vote.
Everyking08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Everyking, do you have proof that Luigi's allegations were wrong? Saying "he knows what the reality is" is all well and good, but it's not a compelling arguement when Luigi has the Arbcom on his side.
Raven4x4x02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, a good portion of those are to this RfA or your mistaken AfDs. Look, make a few edits a day for a month or so and you'll pass without a problem. Take some that time you usually spend on IRC and work on the project a bit. It just seems to me that this RfA and
your candidacy for ArbCom are more for the perceived prestige of a title than a chance to do additional work. I have nothing against you, but we've both been here about the same length of time (over a year) and I can't recall ever seeing a edit of yours outside of your RfAs.
Carbonite |
Talk17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That's because you don't normally see newpages patrol edits. They're usually deleted along with the article, going into /dev/null. I've speedied 30 or 40 articles in the past 3 days, but you don't see that.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm not comfortable with the AFD work, a couple nominations that could have been avoided with a quick Google search
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoss (album),
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Niarchos_III. He just doesn't seem to have put much effort into them. Other nominations have very little in the way of reasoning/rational. The comment "Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit" above makes me wonder where his focus is. IRC isn't Wiki but we are a encyclopedia first and a community second, spending most of his time on IRC rather than working on Wikipedia makes me concerned about priorities.
Rx StrangeLove05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The articles looked like your standard garage band vanity and personal vanity, respectively, when I AFDed them. I don't google ones that look like blatant vanity and have no assertion of notability.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
12:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral as per Durin's remarks; 1,500 edits total, minimal activity since last RFA, and a fair use of edit summaries. Will support in the future if participation improves.
Hall Monitor18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
opppose Neutral the mass afd of 4 schools right in the middle of the most constructive discussions for a compromise in a long time seems a little counter productive and not a move that it likely to be good with regard to gaining a consensus. Not really an admin-like move. Lugio was this an honest mistake, have you not been following recent school AFD's?
David D.(Talk)01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
It was a mistake. I didn't see that schools were supposed to be merged instead of AFDed. It was an honest mistake which I probably shouldn't have made.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OK I'll switch to neutral. As an admin you need to have eyes in the back of your head, so be careful not to wade into a situation like schools before reading all sides of the argument. For your information there is no merge consensus, that is the compromise we are trying to broker. It is a slow process, that is why you got jumped on. Sorry if it was too blunt.
David D.(Talk)04:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A question for those who oppose on the basis of "low activity" (I've asked this before but not gotten an answer I understand): Given otherwise evidence of enough experience participating in Wikipedia, what is the value of a "particularly active" editor; or how does not having much activity reflect to the detriment of an editor?
DemiT/C19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I would like a candidate to have at least a moderate level of activity before supporting him. At the very least, I would like to see the activity level rising, not dropping to less than one edit a day over the last month. Adminship should be for those already active in the community, not as incentive to become more active. Just my opinion, though; other oppose voters may have quite different reasons.
Carbonite |
Talk20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued
WP:POINT violations. --
Orioane08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I would help with RC patrol, blocking repeated vandals, and using the good old Mop and Bucket(tm).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I made it my job for a month to comb Wikipedia:Requested Articles of blue links. I also have done quite a bit of stub categorization and a few spoken articles.
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. The worst conflict I've been in is Everyking accusing me of "digging" for edits about Ashlee Simpson by him. It ended in a clarification of his ArbCom case, where my position was fully supported.
4. You're a Wikipedia vet, and some Wikipedia vets are quick to use WP:IAR to justify actions some consider harmful. What is your view of WP:IAR as it relates to admin activity?
A. IAR applies when bureaucracy causes horrible delays in acting on problem users. It applies when convoluted rules must be ignored to continue proper operation and keep problems from getting out of hand. (Will expand when have more time)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Final (42/16/2) ended 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Luigi30 (
talk·contribs) – I have had much experience with Luigi30 in Wikipedia, and some interaction with him on IRC. He has been around since about March of 2004. He has proved himself to be worthy of adminship, with a plentiful supply of edits and a good attitude. I notice that he had an
earlier RfA that didn't succeed, possibly because it was a self-nomination, and a
second one that I'm not sure of how it failed. I'd be happy to nominate him. Here's to you, Luigi30! :-) --
WikiFanatic22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below this line:
Support Satisfied with the answer to my question. He's been around for a long time -- he's got a LAW, for goodness' sake. :)
Xoloz18:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Being relatively inactive is not a good reason against adminship. We most definitely do not demand that our admins put their lives on hold for Wikipedia; likewise, there is no required quota for admin actions: any help is a good help. We should look to the quality of the user and whether adminship can help them help Wikipedia in what they do manage to do on Wikipedia. -
Mark15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think that comment is completely uncalled for. Also, note that since this RfA began three days Luigi has made one edit outside of this RfA or his userspace.
Carbonite |
Talk16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Someone's who's as inactive as Luigi could have difficulty (due to time constraints) responding to questions about users they've (un)blocked, pages they've (un)protected or (un)deleted, or AfDs they've closed. I'm not looking for a lot here; just enough activity to know he wouldn't be a "hit-and-run" admin. Less than one edit a day isn't quite enough.
Carbonite |
Talk11:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support regrdless of
User:Durin's point below. Sorry not everyone is as wikipediholic as some of us. Please no more editcountitism. Even
User:Kate, the creator of the tool, finds it somewhat wrong as she was also denied adminship on the basis of not enough edits (correct me if I am wrong). Enough of the RfA cult. --
Cool CatTalk|
@15:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support to counteract remarkably stupid oppose votes noted below. There is no requirement that an admin candidate spend any particular amount of time editing, and rate of edits is certainly not a valid metric of appropriateness for an admin candidate.
Kelly Martin (
talk)
16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support a trustworthy user. Hoping especially to counteract Everyking's blackmail attempt below. Offering to withdraw his Oppose vote for the price of an apology when the percentages are tight is ... [sorting through vocabulary ... no ... no ... not that word, this is not an RFC on Everyking ... no ... good heavens, not that one ... no ... no ... no... ] ... is wrong, IMO.
Bishonen |
talk04:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Activity level is, for me, just too low. 21 edits in the last 30 days, and overall less than 2 edits per day average since your last RfA, where there were a number of people concerned about participation level. Kate's tool is down right now, so I can't see if there's a bunch of deleted edits to your credit. Your use of edit summaries has improved since your last RfA (66% since last RfA), but it's lower than I like to see. --
Durin14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I've been too busy with school to edit in the past couple weeks. You shouldn't oppose me just because school is stressful and eats my time.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
15:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I would have no problem with that if that were in fact the case. School most definitely should take priority. However, in the same time period that you made 21 edits over 30 days, you made more than 1900 comments on IRC. If you had more interest in the Encyclopedia, I would have no problem supporting you as an admin. --
Durin14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please be more civil. Thank you. I stand by my vote. I've explained similar votes before. I see no reason to explain my vote to someone who is intentionally being antagonistic. --
Durin17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I agree with Durin, the activity level is way too low. Going back 100 edits takes us to 26 September 2005. Going back 500 edits takes us to 9 May 2005. This isn't about his total edit count (not even sure what it is), this is about his level of participation.
Carbonite |
Talk15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Also, needs more experience with policy. For example, he nominated several schools for deletion on the mistaken belief that it was policy to delete middle schools as non-notable.
[1].
Carbonite |
Talk13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think he's talking about
[2], where I reported he reverted Ashlee, and Arbcom unanimously agreed with me, so his reason is a blatant lie.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
It was a misrepresentation of the situation. Anyway, accusing me of lying seems rather poor conduct for an admin, so I also oppose for that reason.
Everyking05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That's not making it any better. How about an apology? I will withdraw my vote in exchange for an apology. An admin ought to be able to recognize his own mistakes.
Everyking06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
He knows what the reality is. He can apologize or not apologize, but he knows it was wrong and he knows his accusations here are wrong. Beyond that, I don't care very much. It was a small incident a while back. But it gives me a very poor opinion of him, and I have never seen him doing anything else to counterbalance that impression, so absent an apology there's no way I'd feel comfortable withdrawing my vote.
Everyking08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Everyking, do you have proof that Luigi's allegations were wrong? Saying "he knows what the reality is" is all well and good, but it's not a compelling arguement when Luigi has the Arbcom on his side.
Raven4x4x02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, a good portion of those are to this RfA or your mistaken AfDs. Look, make a few edits a day for a month or so and you'll pass without a problem. Take some that time you usually spend on IRC and work on the project a bit. It just seems to me that this RfA and
your candidacy for ArbCom are more for the perceived prestige of a title than a chance to do additional work. I have nothing against you, but we've both been here about the same length of time (over a year) and I can't recall ever seeing a edit of yours outside of your RfAs.
Carbonite |
Talk17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That's because you don't normally see newpages patrol edits. They're usually deleted along with the article, going into /dev/null. I've speedied 30 or 40 articles in the past 3 days, but you don't see that.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm not comfortable with the AFD work, a couple nominations that could have been avoided with a quick Google search
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoss (album),
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Niarchos_III. He just doesn't seem to have put much effort into them. Other nominations have very little in the way of reasoning/rational. The comment "Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit" above makes me wonder where his focus is. IRC isn't Wiki but we are a encyclopedia first and a community second, spending most of his time on IRC rather than working on Wikipedia makes me concerned about priorities.
Rx StrangeLove05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The articles looked like your standard garage band vanity and personal vanity, respectively, when I AFDed them. I don't google ones that look like blatant vanity and have no assertion of notability.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
12:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral as per Durin's remarks; 1,500 edits total, minimal activity since last RFA, and a fair use of edit summaries. Will support in the future if participation improves.
Hall Monitor18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
opppose Neutral the mass afd of 4 schools right in the middle of the most constructive discussions for a compromise in a long time seems a little counter productive and not a move that it likely to be good with regard to gaining a consensus. Not really an admin-like move. Lugio was this an honest mistake, have you not been following recent school AFD's?
David D.(Talk)01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
It was a mistake. I didn't see that schools were supposed to be merged instead of AFDed. It was an honest mistake which I probably shouldn't have made.
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ)
04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OK I'll switch to neutral. As an admin you need to have eyes in the back of your head, so be careful not to wade into a situation like schools before reading all sides of the argument. For your information there is no merge consensus, that is the compromise we are trying to broker. It is a slow process, that is why you got jumped on. Sorry if it was too blunt.
David D.(Talk)04:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A question for those who oppose on the basis of "low activity" (I've asked this before but not gotten an answer I understand): Given otherwise evidence of enough experience participating in Wikipedia, what is the value of a "particularly active" editor; or how does not having much activity reflect to the detriment of an editor?
DemiT/C19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I would like a candidate to have at least a moderate level of activity before supporting him. At the very least, I would like to see the activity level rising, not dropping to less than one edit a day over the last month. Adminship should be for those already active in the community, not as incentive to become more active. Just my opinion, though; other oppose voters may have quite different reasons.
Carbonite |
Talk20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued
WP:POINT violations. --
Orioane08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I would help with RC patrol, blocking repeated vandals, and using the good old Mop and Bucket(tm).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I made it my job for a month to comb Wikipedia:Requested Articles of blue links. I also have done quite a bit of stub categorization and a few spoken articles.
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. The worst conflict I've been in is Everyking accusing me of "digging" for edits about Ashlee Simpson by him. It ended in a clarification of his ArbCom case, where my position was fully supported.
4. You're a Wikipedia vet, and some Wikipedia vets are quick to use WP:IAR to justify actions some consider harmful. What is your view of WP:IAR as it relates to admin activity?
A. IAR applies when bureaucracy causes horrible delays in acting on problem users. It applies when convoluted rules must be ignored to continue proper operation and keep problems from getting out of hand. (Will expand when have more time)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.