Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moreschi 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Moreschi

Final (111/4/2); Ended 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi (talk · contribs) - Hello, all, again. It's been 3 months since my my last RfA - please read my prior RfA, I think it's both interesting and relevant - so I'd like to have another go. I've been at Wikipedia since March 2006, and, apparently, have just over 8000 edits.

The things that matter most at Wikipedia are the articles one writes, so here's a brief description: I've written a coupleGAs - good articles - Agrippina, Orfeo ed Euridice, The Fairy-Queen and Pro Milone. All of these were highly successful collaborations with other interested editors. I've also done a number of articles for Wikipedia:Did you know?: William Savage, Anna Maria Strada, and a couple others. I believe I can collaborate well with others: I've worked with other Opera Project members in compiling List of major opera composers and List of important operas, both of which are featured: more recently, we all got together to do List of opera librettists, which I helped out with somewhat.

I can do process: I've made over 2000 edits to Wikipedia space: 205 to ANI and 147 to AIV. The latter won't all be vandal-whacking: often help out with AIV maintenance, removing the ones who weren't warned and the usernames that are maybe only "obvious violations" to Einstein. Quite a few of those were/are later allowed as perfectly permissible at RFCN/elsewhere. One of my pet gripes.

My last RfA raised a number of concerns, so I'd like to talk about those for a bit. First, incivility. Fair enough, at the time. I behaved quite poorly in that RfA, and I apologise for that. Some criticisms were made because I had, memorably, told a vandal to FUCK OFF in an edit summary. I have not done anything similar since my last RfA. I've also refrained from labelling articles as "cruft" at AfD, with I think only one lapse of decorum in this regard. Moreover, I've tried, in more recent conflicts, to look past what people do to the reasons why they do it. If someone makes a personal attack, that's wrong, and they shouldn't, but they usually did it for a reason. Maybe they should be blocked, maybe not: but blocking for personal attacks, say, only seems to cause more personal attacks: to solve the root problem one has to work out the reason why they've lost their cool in the first place. We should not feed persecution complexes: just, simply ask people what they want. Then work for a compromise. This can work rather well. I have learnt that snarling back never works - particularly at those acting in good faith - tempting though it may be sometimes.

On other other hand, on occasion it is necessary to call a spade a spade. When I see someone doing something wrong out of malice, someone who should know better, I will tell them so, not uncivilly but forthrightly. There are only a few things that gnaw at me like this: one is logging out to make personal attacks, or sockpuppeting to do the same, or resorting to off-wiki abuse. It's unproductive and never works. I'm a great believer in sorting problems out out in the open, not sniping from the sidelines. One particularly bad example was when someone logged out to aim a particularly nasty personal attack in the direction of User:Matthew, at WP:ANI. I thought that this was wrong, and said so.

One other concern seemed to be that people could not trust me to judge consensus at XfD properly. I found this slightly confusing. Perhaps I have something of a reputation as a "deletionist" - and how I hate that polarizing word - but my XfD norms are not especially outside the general: I would guess that maybe 80/90 percent of the stuff I express an opinion on deletion-wise winds up in accordance with my requested outcome. Regardless, this is not a request for limited adminship: I trust my judgment, and I trust myself to interpret consensus appropriately, and with due regard to the opinions of others. Every sysop action can be undone: if I find my XfD closures being continually overturned at DRV I will stay away from XfD or resign my adminship. I doubt, however, that this will be necessary.

Can I be trusted with the sysop tools? RfA is not a beauty parade, and I make no boasts of being perfect. I think I have the experience, and can work with people well enough. In my opinion, that's what's needed. Shall we begin? Moreschi Talk 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:Slay backlogs? I've worked at both Recent Changes and New Pages, so I'll help out at CAT:CSD and WP:AIV - I thought once we couldn't possibly need more admins at AIV: then I watchlisted it and saw how often it gets backlogged. I'll protect the wrong version at WP:RFPP, work on the expired WP:PRODs - relying on my own judgment, not just on that of the nominator for deletion, human admins should not act like bots - and generally help out wherever. I know my way around most of the nooks and crannys of Wikipedia by now.
Oh, and keeping tabs on that perpetual nuisance User:Jacob Peters. I once called him something bad after he got banned, but he causes lots of trouble. Someone needs to revert and block him. He's been back three times in the last 2 days.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've listed my favorite articles above, and they obviously take pride of place. Apart from them, Gaetano Berenstadt is quite nice, so I think, as is Giuseppe Millico.
Apart from these, however, one other thing I'd like to mention is newbie helping. Most people who create an account never edit. Plenty of those who do edit troll or vandalize. When good-faith newbies, however confused they are, arrive, they must be treated like gold dust. If they show any sort of willingness to work on the encyclopedia, that's good enough. For that reason, I'm particularly pleased to have had a minor role in pushing Wikipedia:Editor assistance, to assist editors generally and to help newbies in particular get their heads around our labyrinthine policies and guidelines. I didn't realize just how important WP:BITE was until I went back and fixed up a bit my first article that I'd worked on, A Midsummer Night's Dream (opera). I saw just how many mistakes I'd made and resolved never to shout at a newbie who made those same errors. For the same reason, I've submitted a few third opinions in my time here.
From my last RFA: "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."
I've uploaded some more Commons images since then, all along the same lines.
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: From my last RfA: "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."
Nothing to add to that.
I've talked at length about the Gundam business in my last RfA, and I won't repeat that here. Yes, probably mass-nominating a whole series of articles separately is not very tactful, no matter their quality, but, on the other hand, those which I did nominate for deletion were almost all deleted, and the ones that weren't/I didn't nominate have markedly improved. Not a bad outcome. In retrospect I should have tackled this more slowly and with more care, but the end result should not have been different.
More recently, I was involved in a fairly minor row over infoboxes being applied in a somewhat scattergun fashion to composer articles, and consensus for their removal where they are presenting over-generalized and inaccurate information. I'm not sure how relevant this is: I stayed civil and assumed decent whacks of good faith, and we all have a right to remove inaccurate information, do we not?
From my last RfA: "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. "
Nothing to add to that, either.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
I ignore the rules every day when writing articles. So do we all, every one of us. If we spent all our lives looking up the little mentions in the darkest depths of Naming Conventions or the Manual of Style, nothing would ever get written. You just have to use common sense. If someone point out to you that you're doing something "wrong", incorporate that into your writing style. But to actually write in the first place is the most important thing.
Ignoring administrative rules is somewhat different. Perhaps WP:BLP is relevant to IAR is a few cases, but not most. Every adminstrative action can be undone, so ignoring the rules is not a huge deal, but you must be willing to explain yourself and take the rap, if there is rap to be taken. Process does have its place on Wikipedia, and should be taken lightly. Nor should process be followed purely for the sake of process. The safety of Wikipedia comes first, always, but that safety will only rarely be under threat.
5 "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already do so, anyway. I'm not a great believer in {{fact}} tags when it comes to BLP: if there's a BLP problem, I tend to remove the information in question. Wikipedia has considerable clout and we should use that wisely and with sympathy to the subjects of articles. George Bush has plenty of eyes on it, but problems occur when low-notability biographies slip under the radar. I sometimes wish RC patrollers would look out for BLP violations a bit more: something can still be damaging even if it doesn't contain the word "Penis". Moreschi Talk 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information?--Docg 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now this is interesting. In many ways I've been here before: check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bojan Pavlovic. The subject tried to blank the article in question - thinking he could delete it that way - he got reverted, and someone kindly filled out a procedural nomination for him. My comments there - and Daniel Bryant's closure - rather sum up my view of this sort of thing: the subject's wishes are certainly an added factor to be considered.
In cases where there's a good reason and/or consensus for keeping, you just have to make sure that the article gets enough eyes, so that vandalism/BLP violations get whacked instantly. Hence, I'd go to the Cabal people I know, and ensure that at least 5 or 6 who are online regularly watchlist the thing, and thoroughly explain my reasoning to the article's subject. Moreschi Talk 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Amarkov
7. I remember a statement that you didn't really want to be an admin anymore after your last RfA. Unless I'm remembering some other statement that I thought was yours, what circumstances have changed that made you decide to seek adminship again? -Amarkov moo! 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be referring to the statement with which I closed my other RFA? If so, I was referring to that RfA being a waste of time, not adminship itself. I shouldn't think I said anything else that would have given a misleading impression along those lines. I wasn't annoyed, especially, at would probably would have been the failure of the RfA: I've always thought that if adminship is not a big deal, a request for adminship is really no big deal. In the meantime, I went and wrote some more articles and worked on some of the criticisms raised during the RfA. I always thought that I could have another go, and here we are. Sorry about any confusion I may have caused. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:

8. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: Formed by plenty more than 8 characters, not by words in the dictionary, and not on that list. And it's alphanumeric. So, if I delete the main page or block Jimbo, you can assume it's for a good reason. Touch wood... Moreschi Talk 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Moreschi before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support - This is one of the best editors on Wikipedia who will be an asset if he is made Admin..He is very experienced and has been one of the best contributors by far..----Cometstyles 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Splendid common sense, as seen in his frequent posts on the noticeboards; a long and excellent history of mainspace contributions; considerable experience on the project along with a sophisticated understanding of policy. It's rare to find a more qualified admin candidate. Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, for the same reasons as last time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, looks good and has addressed concerns that users raised at prior RFA. --After Midnight 0001 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Edit Conflict Support - I trust this user's judgment. Sean William 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Very experienced, hardworking editor with a thorough knowledge of policy and plenty of common sense. --Folantin 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support I supported last time despite some misgivings about civility and the user has only improved in that regard. Also great answers to questions. As good a candidate as we are likely to see. Eluchil404 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Troppus I think the "deletionist" concerns are no longer as strong this time round, and this editor is a good hard worker so it would be well worth giving the admin tools to him. Best of luck Moreschi! Majorly (hot!) 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -I've been waiting for this. There's been so many times that I've checkd his logs to see if he actually was an admin, and then remember that I've done it before :) --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Without a doubt Khukri 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - excellent answers, great editor and trustworthy, I feel. No problems here - Alison ☺ 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support even stronger than last time. —Anas talk? 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I always thought you were an admin, I've seen you around at WP:ANI and well although I've never seen you at WP:AIV you have made several reports there, an excellent contributor, you'd make an asset to Wikipedia! Best of luck to you. The Sunshine Man 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support for another tireless contributor. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - You're not an admin yet?-_$UIT 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Excellent candidate -- one ill-typed word shouldn't doom anyone. Xoloz 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per everything, strong per wonderful answer to Q4 re:IAR. —AldeBaer 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Of course. Kusma (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A good editor with all-round skills who, I believe from his recent work has addressed the problem of incivility mentioned in his last RfA. The problem was, in any case, I would stipulate, minor.--Anthony.bradbury 18:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Excellent editor. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I supported last time and will be glad to do so again. Coemgenus 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I see no problems with this editor being granted the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, with pleasure. Phaedriel - 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yep, just like last time. Can always use more admin eyes on Jacob Peters. Heimstern Läufer 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, He was very nice to me during the recent unpleasantness concerning userboxes for composers. Very helpful as well. Gretab 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Impressive optional statement and has shown good experience. After looking through many of this users diffs I can say I am confident on giving him the admin tools. Camaron1 | Chris 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Cliché "I thought he was already one" Support. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Can't see any reason why not. Satisfactory answers on BLP, interested in trying to prevent collateral damage to subjects/--Docg 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support John254 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks good all-around; user had greatly improved since last Rfa. Jmlk17 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - experienced and capable editor. Addhoc 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per above. Toss this guy a mop! --Phoenix (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Oh, sure RFA is a beauty parade. And you're looking good! Bishonen | talk 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  37. Support, not one already? -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: User has touched on the concerns raised in previous RfA. Also has an excellent amount of experience. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Wants to help clear our backlogs. Seems to have adequate experience, judgement, and free time to do so. No credible reason to think he'll go berserk. —Cryptic 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Should do a fine job. Sign him up!JodyB talk 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support six of one and twice the fun --Infrangible 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --U.S.A. cubed 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per aboveOo7565 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, despite the edit summary mentioned in the nomination. I understand why he did it, as this was regarding blatant vandalism to the page of a user who had undergone a number of tragedies in the space of a few weeks. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an exceptional circumstance, and that he will refrain from doing that again. Aside from that incident, Moreschi is a very knowledgeable user who works well with other people. I don't personally see any reason for me to withhold my support. --Kyoko 02:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Trusting Support I think I trust this user to do what he said. Assasin Joe 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. "I thought he's already admin" cliché support! MaxSem 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I'm not sure why you withdrew the last one... It probably would have passed. Would be a greater asset with sysop tools. Grandmasterka 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I can't believe we've been talking via e-mail for the past 2 days and you didn't even mention this. Oppose for forgetfulness, or support for obeying WP:CANVASS to the letter? :) Very Strong Support, of course. Sensible, excellent contributor, not afraid to call a spade a spade, and has a heart of gold lurking beneath those pesky edit summaries ;) – Rianaऋ 06:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. This is one of the best self-noms I've seen lately. Sandstein 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 08:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Positive contributor, helpful to others --Kleinzach 10:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - probably not insane, very unlikely to do bad things with the tools - David Gerard 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Seems to be the right sort of person to gain adminship. Captain panda 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. -- Y not? 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. It looks like things have improved a lot in the right places since your last RfA. --Shirahadasha 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support per Antandrus. With all he was doing, I (to use a cliché) already thought he was one. Go for it. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong, strong support Moreschi is a tremendous asset to the project every time I've seen him around, and I most certainly trust him with a few extra buttons. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support (edit conflicted). Has good judgment and can definitely be trusted with the tools. IronGargoyle 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I was thinking of nominating him myself, once I saw he wasn't already an admin. Walton Need some help? 17:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per the candidate's overall record and experience, and with the caveat I throw in sometimes that supporting someone's adminship doesn't mean endorsing every word they ever wrote (about deletion or anything else). Newyorkbrad 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Moreschi's been doing great work on Wikipedia for a long time. His last RfA was unfortunate, but I'm glad to see the community has great confidence in Moreschi in this RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support, what... you're... not... already...? Good luck! The Rambling Man 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support I value Moreschi's honesty; as well as the quality of this self-nomination, which, in my opinion, is excellent. Acalamari 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Dedication and knowledge have been sufficiently demonstrated. No other problems. Daniel Bryant 00:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong support I actually thought that he was an admin (doesn't happen very often). His already excellent work will certainly continue with the help of the admin tools.--Húsönd 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support - For many reasons; most recently for the great job he's done tracking down Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) socks. This will give him the tools to block those on sight instead of having to come to ANI every time. :) - Merzbow 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. We need more people like schi. >Radiant< 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm... s[h]chi... MastCell Talk 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support - Moreschi obviously has a real passion for the encyclopedia. Whenever I encounter him in admin areas I have to ask myself "how the hell isn't he an administrator" - he certainly should be. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support with regret that I opposed in the previous RfA. Also, while it's true that Moreschi mostly recommends deleting articles at AfD, I can't help but note that most of those discussions ended in "delete" (and rightly so, in my view). The existence of a record of always recommending deletion is irrelevant to adminship unless one or more of those recommendations was inappropriate. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support as I thought he was already an admin. Highly deserving of the tools. Besides, he's done a great job keeping tabs on a certain revisionist whose spectre continues to haunt Wikipedia from time to time... MastCell Talk 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. --Spike Wilbury 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Moreschi is a good fellow who appears to have done a terrific job of implementing the advice he received in his previous RfA to become a terrific volunteer! Good luck! gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. I often see this editor being helpful and trust him to be a responsible admin. -Will Beback · † · 23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Experienced editor who'll make good use of tools. utcursch | talk 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--MONGO 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support #include thought-he-already-was.cliché Guy (Help!) 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support good contributor, and seems to have overcome the previous issues. David Underdown 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong support: What? You mean to tell me that Moreschi isn't one?! :-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - should do well as admin - enough said... --SunStar Net talk 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. SupportSpartaz Humbug! 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support EliminatorJR Talk 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. UNBRIDLED Support - a HUGE asset to the project, and a much needed worker in the Classical music department. Moreschi has my full endorsement. ALTON .ıl 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Terence 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support, I've had really good experiences working on content with Moreschi. He's got a good head on his shoulders, and I'm really pleased to see how he's curbed his sharp tongue. Someone who can learn from their mistakes and from constructive criticism will be a great administrator, as does someone who has a good understanding of our mission, which is to build a free encyclopedia. Mak (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Just make sure you don't press the delete button too easily. Abeg92contribs 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't. Trust me. If I find my decisions being continually reversed by community consensus, I'll hand in my bit. Moreschi Talk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support – B.hotep u/t• 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support per nom. --Rabbeinu 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I've had the pleasure of working with this editor several times, and running across him elsewhere. He's human like everyone else, subject to imperfections, but I think he will make a fine Administrator. I firmly believe that Moreschi will do what is right, and from my experiences it seems that if he does something wrong he is willing to take responsibility for it, which in my book is number one requirement. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Cliché. Michaelas10 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support As nom of last RFA Jaranda wat's sup 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support from my personal observations, I believe he is trustworthy. Good candidate.--cj | talk 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per personal experience at WikiProject Opera. Fireplace 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Also as the result of personal observations. A good editor.--VS talk 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, of the overkill, needless, pile-on variety. A top man, who should have got mopped a while back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - a great writer; deserves extra equipment in forms of mop and bucket. --Deryck C. 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support another step closer to WP:100. Great, intelligent contributor. --Dweller 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Seriously thought you already were an admin, what I have seen of this user is very good and would fully trust them (congrats on the 100, btw. GDonato (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Excellent contributor, knows policy, can use the tools without abuse, and I am really not concerned about the civility side of things. I trust his better judgement and think he will do fine as an administrator. — Editor at Large(speak) 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. PeaceNT 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, and thanks for the kind words about me at ANI. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. I think the previous hundred speak for me.--Wizardman 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support A well respected user. · AndonicO Talk 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. I agree with WJBscribe but on balance it isn't enough for me to withhold support. Sarah 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support great candidate. Civility is no longer an issue. Deletionist != bad admin. Moreschi clearly understands that consensus is not his opinion, it's that of many. James086Talk | Email 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Moreschi and I have disagreed but I've always found the interactions civil and fair. --Kevin Murray 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support, with same feelings as Sarah. ElinorD (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support -- Cat chi? 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, major civility problems, and very deletionist. I don't believe these things have seriously changed since last time. Everyking 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular diffs? —AldeBaer 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, check through this and you'll find a lot of deletes, though I've just today agreed with Jeff - someone I have great respect for - at DRV, which is something of a first. I don't think that's really relevant: I have great interest in building a high-quality encyclopedia, and in respecting the consensus of others, at XfD and elsewhere. Either way I can't think that I've said anything nasty to anyone, really, over the last couple months, and before then. I've certainly tried hard to avoid doing so. It doesn't add to the atmosphere around here. Moreschi Talk 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather meant diffs illustrating "major civility problems". —AldeBaer 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've observed this quite a bit from him. What stands out in particular is the way he replied to my oppose vote in his last RfA with an insult. Everyking 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That one instance was poor behaviour on my part which I cannot and will not attempt to defend. I have tried to refrain from doing that sort of thing and will continue to do so in future. That, incidentally, was part of the reason I withdrew my last RfA: I needed to better cultivate grace under pressure, something I have worked on. No one is perfect, at any rate. Moreschi Talk 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, um, any examples of major civility problems that don't themselves involve asking for examples of major civility problems? —Cryptic 11:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose re this edit and re Alde, SqueakBox 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)In light of statement below relating to admin decision and DB I withdraw my vote and wont vote, SqueakBox 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a particular problem with that edit? Is there anything especially wrong with it? It's not uncivil, and as far as I can see I haven't assumed bad faith. It's just a comment on content. Moreschi Talk 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it was made in good faith but I do feel it shows an attitude that makes me think you shouldnt be an admin at this point, esp as it is your 2nd Rfa, but as an editor it was fine to put that in. I have my doubts re your approach to the whole Daniel Brandt issue. We demand higher standards from admins than users and for me this has led me to conclude oppose, SqueakBox 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. All I've said in that edit is that Wikipedia should be high-quality, and we shouldn't compromise on that. I'm sure Mr Brandt would agree. Then I've said Mr Brandt deserves not to have unreferenced allegations of misconduct flung at him in his article - BLP, and so on. I'm sure he'd agree, and so would the vast majority of people here. Since I'm sure, should this RfA pass, I'll never make an administrative decision related to Daniel Brandt anyway, what's the problem? I'm still confused. Moreschi Talk 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose It's clear you're going to pass at this point, so no reason to take this personally. I'd describe myself as a bit concerned with your record at AFD. I just went through several hundred of your AFD edits and you appear to never once have voted Keep. Now, it's obvious that you're very active at AFD, and I'm sure you probably have voted keep, but I just couldn't find any examples. That suggests to me an unhealthy level of partisanship in the deletionist vs. inclusionist wars. Do you honestly never see articles that you think should be kept at AFD? And if you do see those articles, why do you so rarely vote for them? Once you become an admin I'd really encourage you to make a little more effort to see the other side. --JayHenry 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair advice, and I'll bear that in mind. Possibly you'll find some more "overturns" in my DRV contribs, by the way. In all honesty, I don't think you're making fair allowance for the quality of what actually does turn up at AfD. Go to your typical log, and I'd reckon that 80 percent of what's there is outright junk, 10 percent is not junk but needs to be deleted anyway, 5 percent is borderline, and 5 percent are pretty definite "keeps". Randomly going through the log, it's unlikely that you'll be saying keep so often. Moreover, I used to/perhaps still have this paranoia that if I didn't say "delete", no one else would.
    Regardless, as I pointed out in this discussion, my private views as an editor must be different from my duty as an admin to judge consesus fairly: as example, I'm rather wary of these television episode articles that pop up at AfD now and again, but projectwide consensus is to keep the things. If that's consensus, that's fine; I have to respect that. Whatever I may think about them privately. At any rate, thanks for the feedback. Best, Moreschi Talk 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With the way things work right now, admins are really given a lot of freedom to delete articles even if consensus is to keep, although thankfully most admins are responsible enough to implement community decisions. There was a recent case where a lot of episode articles were nominated, and even though a large majority of participants were voting keep, there were some people saying that the keep votes should be disregarded because they supposedly did not reflect policy. In the end, the closing admin made the right decision and the majority view was upheld, but under this system an admin with a contrary view could have come along and deleted the articles and quite possibly gotten away with it. So, in a system like we have now, where we allow so much discretion to admins, the personal views of an admin really are critical, and a pledge to uphold consensus can be evaded by claiming that one side was contradicting policy. What I'm wondering is: in a case like the one I described, how would you close? A large majority votes keep, but you personally believe that the keep votes are incompatible with policy and the delete votes are compatible? Everyking 08:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some distinctions to be drawn here, I think. It must be noted that policy represents a greater consensus, in my view, than the AfD cabal of the day.
    Now, if those saying "delete" are saying "It's not verified to reliable sources, no assertion of encyclopedic relevance", and those saying keep are saying "We know, but we do think it's verifiable to reliable sources, just not verified": then under those circumstances you describe I would close as keep, or no consensus - basically under promise of cleanup. I have seen AfD compel some truly miraculous cleanups, after which I have joyfully changed from "Delete" to "keep". If no cleanup is done in six months, I'd renominate the article myself. Here, my duty as an admin to judge consensus fairly overrides my own scepticism, because usually these cleanups don't happen, lamentably. So, close as keep or no consensus.
    In cases where there are conflicting arguments of policy - not everything is straightforward at XfD, it's a frequent mistake people make to think that everything devolves down to straightforward right-or-wrong answers - then under those circumstances I would close as no consensus or keep in the case that you describe, though in BLP cases I would be more inclined to deletion than not: in a BLP AfD any serious BLP concerns raised by those saying "Delete" would have to be answered/cleaned up by those saying "Keep". Wikipedia has a great deal of clout, it's important we use that wisely. Generally, though, in this scenario I would close as keep/no consensus.
    In cases where those saying "delete" have provided strong arguments, and those saying "Keep" have got nothing better than "It's useful" or "It's funny" or "I like it", then I would override the numerical majority, which is clearly not consensus, and delete the article in question, especially if there were BLP concerns. Hopefully this is an adequate reply. Best, Moreschi Talk 09:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose As noted, it's very obvious this RFA is going to pass so congratulations. I wasn't even going to participate in this, but this diff really bugs me. I understand we all lose our tempers sometimes and make remarks, and the guy probably did resemble your remark. I don't understand why you declined the banned request if you were not an admin, but I haven't been here long so maybe non-admins can do that. The usage of the word twerp bugs me more than if you would have used the words "asshole" or "dickhead". Words like twerp, idiot, goof, retard, all seem to have a level of a level of personal vindictiveness to them that make me cringe, more so than "dirty words". For example, the FUCK OFF diff doesn't concern me as much, as I see it as a very generic comment. In a nutshell, I am not asking for a saint but it is the general tone of the comment that concerns me. Sorry for the personal commentary, just trying to make my thoughts clear, and don't take it personal. Good luck. daveh4h 08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, fair commentary. In mitigation, that was on April 1, and I didn't mean it badly. I spent pretty much the whole day sitting on the computer: I made maybe 200 reverts in one day. "Twerp" for me - and I think for most of the UK - is not an especially pejorative remark, more like gentle badinage than anything else. I meant it more in exasperation than bile. The user in then went on to absolutely insist he was autoblocked when he wasn't, as far as anyone could make out, which was little annoying. Even bothered to email everyone about it. Moreschi Talk 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and on that same day I think I dealt OK with this. Entertaining, this April Fools business... Moreschi Talk 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. The diffs brought up above prevent me from supporting. While this RFA is obviously going to pass, I believe that admins should try to be more civil, as we're held up to a different standard. I know this opposition will not affect the outcome of the RFA at all, but I hope you will take into account this in the future. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Thanks for the feedback, though this RfA is not a certainty as of yet, no reason to think it is ;) Moreschi Talk 08:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. For the record, I think that otherwise you're a solid candidate. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I noticed all of his images have been to commons, and although some of them have been deleted, it was only because they were duplicate images, except for one case where he apparently acknowledged his own mistake regarding the license status of a certain image. This shows responsibility on his part, so I have no reason to question his understanding of image policy. I'm not terribly concerned about the "civility problems" either, but his self-proclaimed deletionism worries me. I will have to examine his edits more closely before considering to support him. — CharlotteWebb 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. On Commons, I actually asked myself for the duplicates to be deleted: as a commons newbie, I uploaded some of them under bad names a while back, and then later re-uploaded them under better names, and requested that the duplicates be deleted. On the one where I thought I'd messed up: the image came from a PD work of art, but the image I uploaded was the original work of art sliced up into a third of the original (I later re-uploaded the full original, which was definitely PD). At the time I didn't know whether this "third-of-an-image" counted as a "faithful reproduction" or not, so I decided that it was better to be cautious. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and am I a self-proclaimed deletionist? I've tried to avoid that word as of late: it doesn't help, people just assume you're evil. Calling yourself an inclusionist doesn't help either: people assume you're a troll. These terms cause more harm than good and need to be avoided. Moreschi Talk 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant "self-acknowledged". — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ish. This is an interesting discussion: I'll say that my deletion norms are more "deletionist" (for want of a better word) than the majority (probably, and not drastically so, given the amount of 3rd grade homework that gets posted to Wikipedia and winds up at AfD because it isn't technically speediable, ditto for hoaxes, so a lot of my AfD participation boils down to "Delete 3rd grade homework/obvious hoax). Does that make me a deletionist? Either way, I certainly acknowledge that the consensus of others is vastly more important than my own opinion, such as when it comes to TV episodes, which I'm usually just a little dubious about: projectwide consensus, on the other hand, is to keep. That's a consensus that I know I must respect, and do. Moreschi Talk 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I supported last time and expected to do so again. But this worries me. I've never been keen on non-admins turning down unblock requests- I kinda feel that users are asking for administator attention with those messages and that they have a right to wait for an admin to get to them. If a non-admin does decide to turn down unblock requests they need to get it right and, as I see it, are showing the community how they would behave were they an administrator. "Being a twerp is not acceptable whatever the time of year" is not how I expect to see unblock requests denied. It certainly isn't how someone wishing to convince me they'd make a cool and responsible admin should go about doing so. WjBscribe 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, declining unblocked requests is something I've done very rarely, I think only with obvious vandals, and maybe once or twice Jacob Peters. As I've said above, I didn't mean it badly or in any malice, and it was April 1, so with quintuple vandalism levels I wasn't in the mood for that sort of thing, and he'd been warned to stop, and wouldn't. Then he carried on with the disruption even after he got blocked, which proved even more exasperating, so I think that was somewhat more than just an April Fools. But fair enough, that wasn't clever wording on my behalf, though it was not meant maliciously. Moreschi Talk 11:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Moreschi_2&oldid=1147979986"