Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luigi30 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Luigi30

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! :-) --WikiFanatic 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below this line:

Extreme Lesbian Accept Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator, if he accepts, that is. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 16:48, 1 December 2005 (CST)
  2. Suh-port Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mild Support responces were a bit short but a good user, third time the charm --Jaranda(watz sup) 02:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support voting thing is fandangled, needs to be fixed, since its just a redirect. But whatever, good user, so I support. Quentin Pierce 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, been here long enough and done enough to know how to use admin tools. BD2412 T 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, mop will be in good hands, I think. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. *Blink* *Blink* you mean he's not already an admin?!?!?!?! Support of course  ALKIVAR™ 08:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sure! --Merovingian 12:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Absolutely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support seems good to me. Izehar 13:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:47
  13. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. A good editor, a reasonable fellow, an asset to Wikipedia, a deserving mop-wielder. Also, editcountitis is evil. Lord Bob 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Satisfied with the answer to my question. He's been around for a long time -- he's got a LAW, for goodness' sake. :) Xoloz 18:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Not just any law, a law quoted in an RFAr! Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Yes, please - low activity level or not, good, long-term editors shouldn't be shackled if they want to do sysoppy things. Lupin|talk|popups 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Users should not be shackled to their edit count nor to their activity level, he'd use the admin powers well. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support as per all of the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support He will be a good admin --Rogerd 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support no reason not to. MONGO 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. 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. - Mark 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. I like his edits.--YHoshua 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 21:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. "'''Support'''. $user is not already an admin?!" – ABCDe✉ 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support on the basis of some of the oppose votes being among the most stupid yet seen. Ambi 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    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 | Talk 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    And this would have what to do with his ability to use the mop and bucket effectively? Ambi 07:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    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 | Talk 11:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support I quote his law alot lately. Luigi's a guy worth trusting with the mop, IMO. karmafist 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support It's no big deal, right? Plus, the Everyking situation below seems silly. We need admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, it's time he finally became an admin. — JIP | Talk 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
  31. Extreme heterosexual man support --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Infrequent editors can be admins too. TacoDeposit 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support The important thing is that he will use his power well not often.--Sean|Black 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support--block some vandals for me. Matt Yeager 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. I'll support. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. 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 | talk 04:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support So what if he didnt have many edits in the past month. Cobra 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support, of course - David Gerard 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  39. Strong support. Will not abuse the tools; nay, will make Wikipedia better. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support - thoughtful and conscientious in my experience. FreplySpang (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Edit count not indicative of abilities to be an admin. He seems to know what he is doing--Shanel 03:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. Would make a good admin, IMHO --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 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. --Durin 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    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)
    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. --Durin 14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    Durin, you're crazy. What the fuck does IRC activity have to do with the wiki? --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 17:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    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. --Durin 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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 | Talk 15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    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 | Talk 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Not even 150 edits since his last nomination. —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as above Astrotrain 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Low activity level Olorin28 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely not. Made a false accusation against me and tried to get me sanctioned for it. Everyking 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    Could you provide a link to this accusation? Raven4x4x 07:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    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)
    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. Everyking 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    But you were lying. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    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. Everyking 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    His position was supported by the Arbcom, so there was no mistake, and no apology should be necessary. Raven4x4x 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    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. Everyking 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    My accusations are not wrong. If you say my accusations are wrong, you're saying the Arbcom is also wrong. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    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. Raven4x4x 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as per Durin's point. Dmn 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Cryptic, and short answers to the questions below. Turnstep 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Durin AKMask 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per Carbonite and Durin. Silensor 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Luigi30 has just nominated four school stubs for deletion, with the only deletion rationale given being "Not Notable". It is hard to think why he should have done this unless he is either lazy, inexperienced, or given to acting in bad faith. Whatever the reason - and there may well be one, though I can't imagine what - I really don't think he's ready for adminship. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lux Middle School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickle Middle School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lefler Middle School, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irving Middle School.) — Haeleth Talk 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. opppose because of what haeleth says Yuckfoo 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, user has been mildly disruptive as of late.Gateman1997 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Committment is not a just a word. Show me you are serious by participating actively. Then, I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    Uh... how is hundred edits in 3 days not participating actively? (Ταλκ) 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    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 | Talk 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    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)
  15. Oppose. Short answers, coupled with less edit activity do not give me confidence; better-safe-than-sorry vote. --Gurubrahma 10:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. 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 StrangeLove 05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    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)

Neutral

  1. 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 Monitor 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    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)
    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)

Comments

  • More edit summaries please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • New question posted below. Xoloz 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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? Demi T/C 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 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 | Talk 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't need more admins. 202.58.85.8 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 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. --Orioane 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The above comments have been moved from the Oppose section to the Comments section so as not to screw up the numbering of the legitimate votes. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 1659 edits as of this comment. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:37, 8 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and 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 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Luigi30_3_6c93.html"