Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luigi30 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Luigi30

Vote here (9/8/6) ending 21:14 10 September 2005 (UTC) Luigi30 (talk • contribs) Luigi made a failed application for adminship in March, which failed due to an edit count under 1000. He now has 1333, and has been here effectively since last September. He is not the most active of users, but seems cool, rational, and interacts well by my experience on IRC. He is the kind of user I can see doing significant amounts of RC patrol once he has the tools that adminship gives (in my own mould). My own formula for deciding whether to support an adminship is to take away the potential costs of promotion from the potential gain. Luigi30 easily passes that test. [[smoddy]] 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Accepted! User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Me, of course. [[smoddy]] 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
2. See comments to Jobe's oppose. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
3. I asked him a question about deletionism on IRC. He replied, "I've purposely avoided the inclusionist/deletionist thing; I don't like partisan politics." Strong support. Andre (talk) 00:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Luigi has demonstrated intellegence and tact, which are traits we really need from administrators. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
5. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Super Mario! Having over 10,000 and not being an admin I dont believe in edit counts mattering. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Excellent candidate. Committed to unglamorous work that is however essential. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Sweet yams! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support this candidate, oppose editcountitis. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
10. Been around a bit, clueful, not insane - David Gerard 14:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Yes, please - as per David Gerard. Lupin|talk|popups 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 1333 edits in a year, thats not much activity, lack of edit summaries and spends too much time on Chess. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 21:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

   Atleast he has a hobby ;) (referring to the chess). Adminship should be no big deal, he's been around enough that we know he's not an idiot, which is all that adminship really requires. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose — I agree with Jobe6, needs more edits (only 500 edits in article namespace). We need to know he is 'not an idiot', but we also need someone who is 'involved'.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

3. Will support at 1K article edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. I'm pretty sure this guy insulted me at some point in the past. Everyking 11:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

   ...?! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

   News to me. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 16:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell from Googling for Luigi30 and Everyking on Wikipedia (search results: [1]), their only interaction was a report posted by Luigi30 about Everyking possibly violating his revert parole on Ashlee Simpson articles: [2]. There could be something Google hasn't indexed or that wasn't signed, of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

   Ah, yes, I knew there was something. That's actually even worse than what I thought because he was trying to get me blocked when I had done nothing wrong. So make that a strongly oppose. What would he do if he had admin powers himself? Everyking 14:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   He pointed out what he saw as a violation of the terms of an arbitration decision - that strikes me as a helpful act. The linked discussion does not support your claim that you had done 'nothing wrong'. Worldtraveller 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   Er, the edits that Luigi30 pointed out as a possible violation of Everyking's revert parole ultimately led to this clarification of Everyking's first ArbCom case where the ArbCom unanimously endorsed Luigi's position. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose. Luigi30 doesn't seem to have enough experience to be an admin. — JIP | Talk 18:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. There's nothing wrong with encouraging would-be admins to get a little more experience first. Please keep editing, start using edit summaries consistently, and in due course you will be a shoo-in. Jonathunder 23:55, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
7. Oppose not enough experience. freestylefrappe 02:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose more time and will support, Derktar 23:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC).
9. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Almost never uses edit summeries, and mostly does extremely minor things like changing stub types. OTOH I'm not going to oppose because smoddy's judgement is quite good and I don't see any reason that the candidate wouldn't be a BAD admin. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Edit countitis is bad. Still I require some minimal number of edits before I consider the 'soft' criteria. 1300 edits is borderline: It would certainly have been enough a year ago or so, but with the growth of WP, and the admin pool, I think it is reasonable to ask for a little more activity. I have no objections to the user as such though and will not vote oppose. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
3. I agree with the other neutral votes. There's nothing that makes me think he'd be a bad admin, but there's also very little to make me trust him. In addition, it makes it really difficult to judge a candidate when they interact more on IRC or the mailing list than on Wikipedia itself. There's nothing wrong with interaction outside WP, but I think adminship should be based solely on contributions that everyone can view. Finally, I strongly encourage Luigi to use edit summaries on a more consistent basis. Carbonite | Talk 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Not enough edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:35
5. I don't oppose, as Luigi30 is a longtime contributor and probably wouldn't be harmful. It wouldn't hurt to come back in a month or two after his activity picks up, though. I'd also like to see more edit summaries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose Only about 300 edits since the last RFA makes it hard to judge how this user has improved. And it makes it even harder when there are not enough edit summaries. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   I change my vote to Neutral for now after carefully studying the quality of the edits. However, the lack of edit summaries... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a reason for the inactivity? There's only been about 100 edits in the last three months, a fair amount of which were to a chess game. I'm also disappointed by the lack of edit summaries. This seems to be one of those cases where IRC users may have had a good deal of interaction with the candidate, while non-IRC users have not. Carbonite | Talk 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

School started up recently, so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia-related tasks. It's calming down though, so I think I'll have some more time soon. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

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.

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. I find that I haven't been in many conflicts that haven't been against pure vandals or trolls. I've never had an RFC or RFAr against me, so I think I don't have much experience in edit wars or editor conflicts.