Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moreschi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Moreschi

Final (72/17/6); Ended 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate User:Moreschi for adminship. He has been with us since late March 2006 and has a total of over 4,000 edits across all namespaces. Moreschi specializes in classical music related articles and has several GAs and Did you know? including Agrippina (opera), The Fairy-Queen and William Savage, has over 1,000 wikipedia namespace edits including involvement in the esperanza mfd where he tried his best to keep the calm there. I think Moreschi would make an good admin. Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Conomination by Blnguyen

In addition to the exploits noted by Jaranda, Moreschi also help to guide Pro Milone to GA status and helped extensively with List of major opera composers, which is a featured list. He has a demonstrated ability to work with others, as shown by his working through various issues in improving various opera articles collaboratively ( Talk:List of important operas, Talk:List of major opera composers, Talk:Agrippina (opera), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Opera). He has a record of reverting vandalism ([1]), enforcing BLP violations ([2]), thinly disguised advertising prose ([3]), spam ([4], [5]) and has a good understanding of NPOV, the fundamental pillar of the encyclopedia ([6]). This is a strong history which allows him to deal with all the possible issues which can arise in article space. Moreschi is also strong with policy and identifying sockpuppeteers, helping to deal with banned user Jacob Peters ( [7], [8], seeking appropriate action [9], Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacob_Peters, [10]). He has made many reports to WP:AIV and is active in Good article process. Moreschi's work at AfD (examples: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RGC-83_GM_Cannon_II, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penn_Singers, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_of_the_Goblinstone) shows a strong and detailed understanding of AfD process, and criteria for encyclopedic merit, such as WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, etc, which is required of an administrator, and also shows extensive debate rather than simple voting, a strong sign of an effective debate closer. his work at the Esperanza MfD is another prime example. I think that Moreschi would be a very good administrator, and he has proven good judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to my nominators, accept. Moreschi Deletion! 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Meh, whatever. This is a waste of my time on a spectacular scale. Articles need to be written, this is merely a distraction. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I've done chunks of RC and NP patrol from time to time, so I would anticipate in particular keeping on top of CAT:CSD. I live in the UK, and would be able to slay the backlogs while my comrades in America are asleep. I also would expect to keep on top of the expired WP:PROD nominations - where backlogs have a tendency to build up - and closing WP:AFDs, where I've done a fair amount of work, and I believe that I thoroughly understand the policies that apply to that particular area of deletion process. More specifically, none of us who have been monitoring the visitations of banned user Jacob Peters are sysops, which has proved just a little annoying at times. More generally, where backlogs build up, I will try to remove them: I am familiar with most aspects of Wikipedia policy and process and can pretty much help out wherever.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: On the articles side, the ones that particularly rock are The Fairy-Queen, Agrippina (opera), and Pro Milone, all GAs. Orfeo ed Euridice is coming along very nicely, and William Savage and Gaetano Berenstadt are good models for articles of that length. I put extensive work into List of major opera composers - including, as I remember, a reference on a blurb for a sound clip - which was rewarded when the list got WP:FL status: List of important operas is only about a weeek, in my opinion, off being put up for FL as well. In particular, I think that Agrippina is really not so far off FA for the future.
So much for articles - of contributions to Wikipedia I suppose that my co-nomination of Esperanza for deletion is worth mentioning - not something I'm either proud of or pleased with, but it certainly deserves mention, and recently I've been doing some work with trying to improve WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Notability (news). But really, the articles are far more important for the benefit of Wikipedia than the process, and this is true for admins as well: how can you possibly mediate and help out with article-based disputes if you don't know what a quality article should look like?
On the image side of things, I'm not hugely experienced, but I know my way around image issues on a basic level. I have an account at Commons, where I've uploaded aboout a dozen {{PD-Art}} images thus far, and will doubtless continue to do this.
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 biggie here was the mess at Talk:List of major opera composers and its archives that eventually led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau. The talk page archives can provide the full details more effectively than I possibly could. I believe that I handled this dispute fairly well and fairly civilly up to a late point in the dispute, but eventually Boisseau's behaviour became truly outrageous - allegations of female administrators having internalized sexism and, to a certain extent, soliciting harassment on external websites - and the case was put into arbitration.
More recently, there was the Gundam mess. Just to get this off my chest, but one thing that especially infuriated me is the constant assumption of bad faith that I utterly abhor Gundam and have a vendetta against all Gundam articles, when this is patently not the case. The only axe I have to grind is against articles that do not assert notability within a fictional universe, let alone the real world, and fail WP:V and WP:RS by a country mile. From that point of view I find MalikCarr's oppose somewhat unfair, but live and let live. But I do not have a vendetta against Gundam: judging by some comments at certain times one would think that my daughter had died of Gundam addiction, and that I am filled with an avenging fury.
However, it is certainly true that I nominated lots of these fictional weapons articles for deletion. So, it should be noted have others. Again, I did so not because I did not wish my so-called "opponents" to muster "opposition" - and what opposition? Are we all not trying to improve the encyclopedia? - but because these articles formed part of a colossal walled garden which had spiraled out of control. As far as the result of that business, Gundam articles which should have been deleted were deleted, and those which should have been kept were cleaned up and, in some cases, improved beyond all recognition. Now, who could not be proud of that?
In general terms, all of the dispute I have been involved in have led me to the conclusion that it is far more preferable to work with fellow editors, rather than war against. Wikipedia is itself a meta-assumption of good faith, because the very nature of wiki assumes that there will be more reverters than there are trolls and vandals: from that point of view, I often think that Wikipedia is a fine assertion of the excellence of the human race. AGF is far more important than people realize. It may not always be apparent, but it is necessary to assume that we all have the good of the encyclopedia at heart. From that premise, a lot of disputes resolve themselves.

Optional question from Chacor (talk · contribs):

4. Could you explain the sudden spike in your activity in the last few months since October (as shown on the talk page) after it drastically fell from July to August 2006? Just curious, especially about the sudden decrease over those two months last year. – Chacor 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A - sure, no problem. Quite simply, I went on holiday to the Welsh mountains - Snowdonia for three weeks in August. That meant no internet access whatsoever, wireless laptops just do not work in the valleys, and signals for mobile phones involve clambering up lots of hills. So, no computer and no Wikipedia. Ever since I got back, it's been back to usual. Breaks of this kind are not going to be common, but I'll probably be off for the same period of time this year. When I get back, it's business as usual. Before going away I try to leave "my" articles - obviously, I don't WP:OWN them but I mean the ones I'm working heavily on - in the hands of users who I trust and admire to babysit for me. Best, Moreschi Deletion! 10:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And of course, the more I see of Wikipedia the more I like, which is probably why my number of edits has gone up as of late. Moreschi Deletion! 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional blether from self:

5 - people seem to have this perception I'm an "extreme deletionist". That just really isn't true, though the perception, is, I suppose, quite forgivable. When I see a bad article, my thought process is not "Oooh! Bad article! How can I get this deleted?" My thought process is "Oooh! Bad article! How can I get this cleaned up/sourced?". There is a difference. Of course, there's a different aspect altogether to BLP violations: unsourced, libellous material means the article needs stubifying, not cleanup tags. But that's quite different to the ordinary run of things. And one does have to apply common sense to massive walled gardens of fiction-based material, where the material currently there is not worth salvaging from an encyclopedic standpoint. But otherwise any "extreme deletionism" regards self is more a joke than anything serious: when there's no danger of legal action attempting to source is far better than attempting to get deleted right away. Moreschi Deletion! 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you feel, in retrospect, about nominating RX-78 Gundam for deletion? I'm not asking about the entire Gundam issue, only this article.--SB | T 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

It seems to be that an outside forum has attempted to influence this RFA. Going a bit far, IMO, but never mind. Moreschi Deletion! 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support - excellent contributor, excellent judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong pre-acceptance support - calm, no-BS approach to his work around here. Thoroughly sound judgement. riana_dzasta 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. As nom Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Ral315 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: If I may so inquire, why is it that opposition to this nomination must provide a rationale to be scrutinized under the most polarized of lenses, while support need not even include anything other than a statement as such? MalikCarr 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Because supports are generally understood to mean "I support this user because of what's been said above". I agree with the nominators' statements. Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support Best of both worlds. A very hard-working creator/improver of articles with an excellent knowledge of policy.--Folantin 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Terence Ong 09:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. No-brainer support. Lots of hard work, even disposition—give him a mop. —Doug Bell talk 09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good editor, intelligent contributions to project space, no problems that I can see. And the oppose votes based on his cruft-fighting just work in his favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Delete per nom. Improves the encyclopedia both by adding stuff and by helping remove stuff that doesn't belong. Kusma (討論) 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - everyone is going to have to try very hard to beat this one for humour value. Thank you for the much-needed laugh. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Good contributor - I beleive he has enough sense not to go closing AFD debates where he is the original proposer (in all but the most clear cut cases). (double-edit conflict) David Underdown 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support- I can't see this user misusing the tools. He is level-headed and I often agree with him, even when my opinions are the opposite of his. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)10:31, Tuesday, 6 February '07
  13. Support I don't know this user and have never met him, but I believe he can be trusted completely with the tools. Also, great article work. - Anas Talk? 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Is an excellent user who has made valuble contributions in deletion fora. I do have some civility concerns per the diff cited below by Zleitzen and my own quick review of contribs where I found several comments more blunt than I think helpful. While I don't see any personal attacks (which helps keep this a support) I still think it's important to maintain civility at all times and not feed any trolls. Eluchil404 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support Indeed, I thought he was one... --Majorly (o rly?) 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Changing to oppose. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. I can safely say that I believe Moreschi to be awesome. Proto::► 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. No brainer. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Blnguyen nominee — Lost(talk) 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support ... but I SHOULD add, only if you answer this. Grin. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Would make a good admin - and I really enjoyed your article on The Fairy-Queen. Huzzah for Purcell! Coemgenus 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Editconflict Support per Blnguyen - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support per nom. Proto and Kusma sum things up neatly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support with yet another I thought you already were... The Rambling Man 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support God yes, would be a brilliant admin. Utterly capable, competent, writes very well thought out arguments in debates, and the day he gains the bit is not a moment too soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. I trust this user to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Seen nothing but good work.--Húsönd 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support solid AfD contributor with some quality article-writing experience as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support excellent to collaborate with on articles, smart, expresses opinions well, just needs to remember to keep any and all biting in check, since the bit tends to help sharpen the teeth. Mak (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support My first genuine cliche moment in a long-time: are we sure he isn't an admin already? Xoloz 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support a bit excitable at times, but a strong & thoughtfull editor Johnbod 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, so he can actually delete articles instead of just talking about deleting them. Just kidding about that last part, I was trying to match the humour of "Delete per nom" above. Seriously, I've found Moreschi a knowledgeable, dedicated user who is genuinely willing to collaborate with others. I would however caution him to avoid using the word cruft, as it does tend to rub people the wrong way. --Kyoko 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions asked, looks fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. I see the candidate all over the place doing good work. I was surprised to see this nomination, only because I had no idea this nominee wasn't yet an admin. Agent 86 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support solid user, committed to the project. Not likely to abuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support good answers, can be trusted. Cbrown1023 talk 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - Based on my own interactions with him, and my observations of his interactions with others. Would make a very good admin. Jeffpw 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support: This fellow seems to check out. I don't see much potential for tool abuse. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support a fine content editor.--Aldux 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. An excellent editor of worthwhile articles, and somebody who can use his head. -- Hoary 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. WjBscribe 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strong support. I was concerned by some of the "opppose" comments -- an overly quick-triggered admin deleting articles is not good. I looked at some of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam discussion -- especially the section cited below. Without knowing all the merits of the individual articles taken to AfD, it seemed as if others involved with that WikiProject also thought some pruning was desirable. I don't get the sense that Moreschi was acting in bad faith. In fact, he seemed to spend a lot of time trying to work with the Gundam community while still holding to Wikipedia's guidelines (which represent the broader community's thinking on what's encyclopedic.) --A. B. (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support my first thought-he-was-one RfA cliche. But can we give him some pruning shears instead of the proverbial mop? Opabinia regalis 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support A fine editor on Wikipedia -- I have no doubt that Moreschi will make a great admin. Nishkid64 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, I trust Moreschi. Mallanox 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per [11]. I really hate campaigning, especially negative, especially offwiki. Alex Bakharev 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Strong editor, Blnguyen nomination, plenty of experience in admin areas, and I really wish the opposition would provide some diffs of his alleged shortcomings. "Delete per so-and-so" should be used sparingly, but sometimes it's the best way to express one's feelings. I'm not finding evidence that his intention was to form a "lynch mob" like some editors are contending, or of any of the other fantastical claims down there. Grandmasterka 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, Moreschi would be an admirable addition to the RfA ranks. Daniel.Bryant 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, he already is an addition to the RfA ranks...but I think he will make a fine addition to the admin ranks as well. ;-) —Doug Bell talk 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. A creditable record, and no red flags for me. Sandstein 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Definitely. We need more administrators who understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a random list of articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per nom. Your great answers and 1000+ Wiki edits are proof enough that you deserve adminship. Ganfon 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support per nomination. Plenty of contributions, check. Head on straight, check. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  55. Strong Support - user gave me some helpful advice a couple of weeks ago. Lots of experience, particularly with relevant policy areas (AfDs etc). Can't see any reason to oppose. Walton monarchist89 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, after reading the "Optional blether from self". That alleviated many of the qualms I had about supporting; it's lovely to see both the consideration Moreschi puts into deleting most things and the fact that he was aware of this issue enough to address it. We might not agree on deleting, but I see him being a responsible administrator, and look forward to working with him. -- Natalya 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Resisted a strong urge for a knee-jerk oppose !vote for a deletionist... on closer look, seems to be a well-balanced candidate with a good grasp of process. --Dweller 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support an editor who is interested in applying Wikipedia's policies, rather than his own view of how Wikipedia should be. This is exactly what we want in an admin. if you don't like policies get them changed through consensus rather than punishing those who abide by them. Gwernol 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support per nom.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support, thought he already was one. the wub "?!" 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Has made a few mistakes, but nothing that makes me question his ability to serve as an admin. Have faith that he would use the tools well. Shimeru 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Excellent job all around. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't see anything wrong. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support. I like the new signature, which shows flexibility. I guess he's been a bit harsh, but I think that we over emphasize wikilove sometimes when strong direct communication an have its place. --Kevin Murray 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support as above Bwithh 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  66. The nominators put it well. --RobthTalk 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  67. We need more admins, and getting more schi is a good start. >Radiant< 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. Model candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support per all.--Wizardman 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support - no, he's not perfect - who is? He has worked hard here (without pay, like all of us), and is sufficiently self-reflective to learn from his mistakes, all of which seem minor to me. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Has a past history of shotgunning entire sets of articles in an attempt to get some deleted before anyone can comment or muster opposition. Jtrainor 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Proof of this please, WP:CITE Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    ...surely you must know that WP:CITE is meant for articles...? – Chacor 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)]
    Lighten up, Chacor. Of course, Jaranda knows that. The point is: if RFA is a discussion and not just a vote, then it is incumbent on those contributing to the discussion to provide supporting evidence for their assertions. If the assertion is substantiated, it can result in additional oppose votes, some of them even coming from people who had previously supported the candidate. Without such substantiating evidence, the comment becomes more like a vote that provides no basis for others to evaluate the charge. --Richard 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Heavy-handed tactics with regards to slews of articles with little or no regard for opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia needs cool-headed admins, not partisans with an axe to grind. See support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh and related incidents. MalikCarr 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Odd, I don't see anything wrong with his only edit to that AfD. Care to explain what offended you so much? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't mean to be presumptious, but if a party is in agreement with the deletion of the article and attached article(s), they would not. Support for this type of AfD is *not* a quality I would desire to see in a position of administrative firepower. MalikCarr 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    I misunderstood, I thought you were saying he was violating some policy. To each their own. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Disapproval - way way way to heavy handed, I do not trust this user at present, AfD participation is mediocre, at best. Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created. Also has a rude tone and is to dramatic, in short I believe this user will misuse the buttons. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "AfD participation is mediocre, at best". Moreschi has expressed an opinion at AfD virtually every day for the past four or five months. "Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created". Got any actual examples to back that statement?--Folantin 09:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to harass, or anything, but really, the bit about my arguments for deletion applying to the articles I have written is wrong. For starters I almost always reference anything I create to Grove Music Online - thus providing verification from a reliable source, and I actually do bother to assert notability. And yes, on occasion I have not created articles on opera singers of the past because in my opinion, they would be non-notable. But I do not think that any of my articles created thus far violate my own criteria for deletion. As to the rest, well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It is difficult to support a user for administrative positions when huge sections of Wiki projects are cited for deletion with a rationale that leaves us scratching our heads, especially when said user seems to have a small army of people whom will vote for said deletions without fail. Practically an "article lynching" when you get right down to it. As was said here, "Good faith is becoming harder to assume." MalikCarr 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
          • There was a pretty good rationale for deleting those articles: they made no attempt to conform to any Wikipedia policy. No assertion of real world notability, no sources, no references, no attempt at informing anyone who didn't spend their entire life on Planet Gundam what on earth they were about or why these pages should be in an encyclopaedia. In spite of this and the rampant incivility which ensued, Moreschi went on to collaborate with Project Gundam in a good faith attempt to salvage the articles that could be saved by bringing them up to Wikipedia standards. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered. --Folantin 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose. Wikipedia already has too heavy a deletionist bias as it is. The last thing we need is another ultra-deletionist admin. Oh, and Folantin? "Delete per nom" doesn't constitute good AFD participation. It's a pity that admins tend to treat AFDs like a vote (despite official policy saying they're not votes), instead of ignoring "delete per nom" posts. Redxiv 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Finally, someone gets what I've been trying to get across for months. Maybe there is some hope after all. MalikCarr 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oh I don't know. Seeing a lot of the stuff that goes through XfD, and also looking at some of the articles that survive, I can't say that we're deleting too much stuff. I think the opposite is true at this point—the stuff that should be deleted is growing faster than the current process can keep up. But to each his own. —Doug Bell talk 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    No offense intended, but it's easy to overlook a systematic bias when you're a part of it.
    Wikipedia tilts heavily toward deletion. And somehow I get the feeling that Moreschi would make it worse. In short, I don't trust him to evaluate consensus fairly. I think that, especially on articles he personally would want deleted, he'll tend to discount "keep" arguments while treating "delete per nom"s as solid argument. Redxiv 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Again, AGF. I can't think of a single article that I have ever personally wanted deleted: those which I want deleted, I want them to be so because they fail the relevant policies and guidelines. It's business, not personal. And I fully appreciate the importance of consensus, and have already stated that admins and crats are servants of the community, not masters over it: they do what the community tells us to, not vice versa. Moreschi Deletion! 09:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's not entirely what I meant. What I meant is, I'm afraid that you might give greater weight your own assessment of whether an article violates policy than you would to the consensus of the AfD participants. Hopefully I'm selling you short, though. Redxiv 19:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm not sure I trust this user to respect and judge consensus neutrally in AfD discussions. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose • I really like Moreschi as a person and as an editor, but RFA votes are about what's best for Wikipedia. Incivility, personal attacks, and systematic bias are NOT healthy things to the project and we shouldn't have admins promoting these. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    How is he promoting systematic bias? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    That "Deletion!" signature of his pretty clearly spells out how he approves of Wikipedia's deletionist bias. But then, I imagine that's exactly why he was nominated. Redxiv 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Systemic bias isn't about deletionism. It's about the demographics of the contributors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ah. Rather like how you discounted the dissenting voices in that AfD because they were members of a given Wikipedia Project? MalikCarr 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Both of you stop it. B1nguyen, I was referring to his extreme deletionist philosophy. Malik, you make the opposers look like idiots with your crazy conspiracy theory mongering. I have an obligation to !vote in the way that betters Wikipedia, and I do not feel that supporting Moreschi would be bettering Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I also have a right to my opinion, and I would ask that you respect it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Although I have nothing against Moreschi as an editor, I do not think he is ready for admin-ship. My main reason is the "FUCK OFF" edit summary to a vandal just one month ago. That alone, I believe, is enough to oppose this RFA. My second reason is the "Deletion!" link right after his username. Although admins are editors too, it undermines their trustworthiness when they explicitly associate with a particular philosophy (the same would be true of an "Inclusion!" signature). I think he would be a better candidate in a few months (assuming no incivility and no continued partisan affiliations). Black Falcon 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    That dif was a special case, many users would do it as Elaragirl was having personal problems with the death of her friend and the last thing she needed was trolling in her userpage. The IP who did it should have been blocked indef for fucking around in her personal problems. I agree it should have been better to revert via rollback though. Jaranda wat's sup 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have already stated that the edit summary thing won't happen again: and the signature thing is advertising, not campaigning. WP:SCISSORS is about cleanup, not deletionism. But, of course, you are quite entitled to your oppose. Don't know how many times I've had to say "Quit harassing this poor sod of an oppose voter, you lot!" at RFA. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your understanding and not taking my vote personally. I completely understand the situation with the troll and am not claiming that I might not have reacted in exactly the same way (or perhaps more strongly, depending on how well I knew the user (not the troll), my mood at the moment, etc.). In fact, in your subsequent warning to the troll one minute later, you only posted {{bv}}. However, as Redxiv notes below, WP:CIVIL should be applied even to those "who don't deserve a civil response" (rephrased: who are being complete asses). In regards the "Deletion!" signature, I realize that WP:SCISSORS is about cleanup per WP policies and guidelines. However, I think the second-most important quality for an admin is to be perceived as fair and balanced (the first being, of course, actually being fair and balanced). If nothing else, the "Deletion!" signature may lead editors to suspect your affiliations/motives, even if such suspicions are unfounded, and to resent your decisions as biased. If you were to be on RFA again in a month or two, I would seriously consider supporting your candidacy. I realize that the "FUCK OFF" comment was a singular, anomalous episode, but it was one that occured nonetheless. However, given that your comment was limited only to the edit summary (you did not post anything uncivil to the IP's talk page itself), I think some additional time to extend an otherwise good record could outweigh this. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it was a rather nasty troll that he made the "FUCK OFF" edit in response to. But as I said, WP:CIVIL applies even when dealing with people who don't deserve a civil response. WP:DFTT would also apply; while not actually a policy or a guideline, it's good advice. Redxiv 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I agree that I should most certainly not have fed the troll. By the way, it may be as well to note that my signature has been changed by self to something equally worthy of attention and a little less controversial. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, a couple of weeks ago I was thinking "must change sig to something less controversial before RFA, not right for an admin" - and then did a typical me and forgot all about it. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose changed from support, per MatthewFenton, Redxiv and Yuser31415. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I'm with Yuser31415. I really have trouble trusting this user to objectively close AfDs based on consensus, or even lack thereof. --Oakshade 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I've been using and editing on Wikipedia for quite some time now, and, honestly, I don't think I can find someone in the community so entirely not suited to not only not be administrator, but not even be allowed to edit. Not only do I think he should be denied administratorship, I believe he should have all editing rights removed. Regarding the whole Gundam scuffle, I believe that he has insulted Japanese culture and has opened up Wikipedia for possible litigation. I say nip this in the bud now, and kick him out. --User:Diablo-D3 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Would you care to provide some evidence that Moreschi himself has insulted the whole of Japanese culture, thus opening the way for Emperor of Japan v. Jimmy Wales et al.? This claim strikes me as a bit hyperbolic, not to mention WP:NPAish. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Many things I am, intellectual facist or racist bigot I am not. No one is going to sue WP in a million years as a result of my actions: anyone who thinks that needs to listen a tad harder in law class. Perhaps the principles contained in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF would be a helpful read. Meanwhile, I will leave it to the discretion of the closing bureaucrat as to how seriously they should take this opinion. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Has much going for him, but as some of the comments above suggest, he is not yet ready.--Newport 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose - would probably make a good candidate, but cannot support due to some of the above concerns. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I have serious concerns about his approach and attitude. Everyking 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Any examples? It would be nice to know. It's hard to bite down the response that this is a case of the kettle meeting the pot. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, really kettle meeting pot. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for expressing your opinion about my vote. Everyking 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose (changed from neutral) On the basis of sharp responses to legitimate opposes above and continued concerns about other responses (see below). Particularly unseemly is bringing up the off wiki-activities one user above, Everyking, who is perfectly within their rights to post an oppose vote here without harassment. The "pot calling kettle black" response to that oppose vote, and the various growing tit-for-tat threads here are not encouraging. --Zleitzen 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Zleitzen.--Holdenhurst 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I like the guy, he's one of the more rational deletionists I've encountered but RFA should not be a popularity contest. His responses to issues raised in this RFA are enough to make me vote oppose, but leaning more towards "not yet". Kyaa the Catlord 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Needs to get rid of a few rough edges.--Brownlee 13:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral Can you explain this edit where you appear to be telling a user to "F**k off" [12]?--Zleitzen 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - vandals are not users :) O.k, I'll try to respond coherently. To cut a long story short, Elaragirl's real life was in a complete mess at the time due to minor events such as the death of friends and relatives and loss of job, and we've worked together a fair chunk. That kind of malice, probably from some indefbanned Wikipedia Review troll, annoyed me just a little. But yes, I agree, that sort of edit summary is inappropriate from an admin, so if I am sysopped you won't see any more of that.<tongue-in-cheek alert> Having said that, it might not be a bad idea if once a month our admins were permitted to write foul edit summaries to the vandals to blow off wikistress and ensure that they remain civil the rest of the time. Might even prevent cases of adminitis, you never know. But probably not.</tongue-in-cheek> Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:CIVIL is not an optional guideline, it's policy. There is no "you can be uncivil to those who deserve it" exception. Nor, hopefully, will there ever be. It's bad enough that anonymous vandals troll up the place; the last thing we need is to have admins who troll right back. Redxiv 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Although I agree with most of this user's AfD judgements, I am still concerned if it will be dropped as a neutral admin upholdng consensus to the fullest. — Deckiller 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, leaning weak oppose. I'm not going to oppose someone who seems to be a trusted user - we need more admins - but I have several misgivings that keep me from supporting. (1) the diff provided by Zleitzen - profanities in edit summaries are unhelpful and civility at all times is important. (2) frequent use of the word "cruft" - this word is one that should be stricken from our vocabulary on Wikipedia. Sometimes, a topic is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia because it has little significance outside of the fictional universe in which it exists, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important to someone. Referring to things that are important to someone as "cruft" can be offensive. You are taking what is important to them and calling it "useless junk or excess materials". Nothing good can come from edit summaries like [13], for example. (3) The deletionism Wikiproject concerns me greatly. We don't need political parties on Wikipedia. --BigDT 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've actually been sparking a conversation on that WikiProject, and it's not as political as I thought. However, I am also concerned with the first point, but not so much the second ( I've been using the term 'cruft' a lot recently as well, and it's something I'm not proud of, but I can't hold a double standard). If we can see some sort of answer showing that the user will not use profanities in edit summaries, I might support. — Deckiller 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't suppose the context of the edit summary would be considered mitigating circumstances? Moreschi was responding to a rather inappropriate comment placed on a user's page at a time... well, let's say when they really shouldn't have. I certainly wouldn't oppose for an indiscretion like that with extenuating circumstance. However, I do believe it should be taken into consideration for future conduct. Just a little reminder that we are all human and sometimes we watch each others' backs. Bubba hotep 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I've responded to most of this with my response to Zleitzen above. As far as regards WP:SCISSORS, it is certainly not about campaigning: our main aim is to save articles from AfD, find sources, and only put forward at AfD those that simply cannot be sourced. If you read the project page in detail, hopefully all of this will become apparent. I've explained in more detail abovr what Bubba hotep meant by saying that that was really the wrong time. As regards use of the word "cruft" - perhaps it is a valid point that the word is inappropriate for a sysop. But just to clarify what I mean by cruft: I have created articles on most of the singers - though not all, some are non-notable - who sang at the first performance at Agrippina. However, I have not created articles on the opera's characters, and I will never do so: that would be operacruft, if you will. As regards that particular AfD, I notified the article creator and he then went on to vote delete at the AfD, so I believe I was sufficiently civil in other regards: and yes, admins cannot be saints:) Perhaps this answers some of the problems? Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You try to save articles from AfD and only nominate ones that can't be sourced for deletion? That certainly wasn't the case with those Gundam articles; I don't recall any attempt to get them fixed, they just got AfDed as soon as they were noticed. Redxiv 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • WP Deletion is staying out of the Gundam mess as a WP, since WP Gundam is the proper place to handle concerns. The focus of WP Deletion is different in any case. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And yet why is it that a fair number of people who swoop down on these luckless articles, doomed because they contain elements of the Gundam franchise, like "encyclopedic vultures" are sporting WP:SCISSORS tags in their user pages? Something foul is afoot. MalikCarr 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. On his merits, I would support, but the claims in the "oppose" section are hard to ignore. I worry about how Moreschi will deal with stress as an admin. YechielMan 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Well hey, look at that. The same admin who has most callously set aside the dissenting arguments in this demonstration of perfectly good faith and has deduced that voices of dissent in this "concensus" are "sock puppets" as well is also conominating Moreschi for administration. Coincidence? I don't mean to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts that think Jimbo W. is an alien/government agent/Zionist overlord, but that doesn't mean I'm also going to ignore that which is blatantly obvious. MalikCarr 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    You're indeed sounding like a conspiracy nut. I think it's fairly clear that your problem isn't deletionism, or you would have opposed MER-C, or some other deletion-tendency type admins. This is simply looking like a temper tantrum at this point. Either let your comments stand, or don't be suprised when people start questioning your motives. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    There's no point in opposing an admin who is already an admin; that's a lost cause before it begins. Here there is a slim but definately palpable chance to stop another deletionist from achieveing administrative firepower, and I believe that is a fight worth fighting. MalikCarr 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Not worthy of my opposition, but I am a bit concerned about alleged deletionism because I've heard about how it's caused many gaps in coverage (even in the "real" topics). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, leaning towards oppose - Moreschi is a good person. Deletionists and inclusionists are the yin and yang of Wikipedia; each one balances the other out. However, extreme deletionism bothers me. I'm not going to ramble on about philosophies here, though. PTO 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral I don't oppose, but I have trouble supporting an admin whose signature will contain the word "deletion." I support the principles at the linked site, but I think that there will be an implication of bias which I don't believe is truly present. I am confident that this will succeed and I wish Moreschi great success as an admin. --Kevin Murray 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Y'know, I'd feel a lot more confident that this will succeed if you'd voted support, but never mind. Anyway, thanks for the well-wishes, and is this any better? The whole reason why I advertised for WP:SCISSORS in my signature is because, somewhat implicitly, we can't put thousands of our templates on thousands of talk pages. Anyway, that particular project is now up and running, and new one in my signature is equally worthy and needs more attention. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. The oppose and neutral commentary are convincing enough that I can't support, but not enough to oppose. Argyriou (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
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.