Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vianello 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.

Vianello

Final (54/3/2); ended 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC) - closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Vianello (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination - second time's a charm? I feel the basic summary on my previous RfA sums up my position fairly well, in addition to the information presented in this one. - Vianello (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I like to think of myself as primarily part of the "janitorial staff". I'm not rabid about mediation. I don't really like to unravel drama or embroil in controversy (aside from commenting on or nominating the occasional AfD). Mainly, I just notice times when vandalism sprees or inappropriate pages are allowed to run longer than they should. I'd like to be a patch for some of those gaps. I do enjoy and participate in article editing and creation, but it's not an area where I'm as interested in employing administrative tools. I'm not looking for a judge's gavel here, just a mop and bucket.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've recently passed the 10,000 edit mark, which it's hard not to preen just a little over. The bulk of that is simply in recent changes/new page patrols. Of my editing work, I'm proudest of what I've done with parasitology related pages. The article on genus Glyptapanteles is sort of "my baby" (don't worry, I'm familiar with WP:OWN), and currently rated as a B class article. I've also helped spruce up other arthropoda-related pages by providing taxoboxes, extra research data, etc. I did a little recent collaboration with User:Bugboy52.40 on mites that had very pleasing results. I also semi-recently got a nice object lesson in edit dispute resolution, but I don't want to sound like I'm trying to call anyone a troublemaker or elevate myself above them somehow, so I would prefer to leave that situation anonymous unless specifically asked otherwise. Lastly, I've created an essay page aimed at new editors with articles nominated for deletion, WP:DELNOM.
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: Heavens yes. The aforementioned edit dispute is probably the chief example. Also, in the course of patrolling, I've said some things I've come to regret in response to perceived impropriety before. I have "fed the trolls" here and there. Assuming good faith has proven to be a real asset in overcoming that tendency though. After all, even if I assume it wrongly, there's no real harm in treating someone like a decent human being, is there? Even if they're acting in bad faith, in a best case scenario they might feel guilty for it. In the worst case, well... it doesn't really change anything.
Additional questions from Fastily
4. Could you elaborate further on what administrative work you plan to partake in?
A: Certainly. My focus is principally still on "maintaining order". To that end, my major focus would be on WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:UAA, WP:AfD, and CAT:CSD. If someone specifically comes to me wanting a third party for a dispute or somesuch, I'm unlikely to say no, but that's not as much the kind of administration I feel best suited for.
5. I know it is a bit repetitive but, in your own words, describe the difference between a block and a ban.
A: Not repetitive at all. As I understand it, a 'block' is a temporary or indefinite barring of an IP or user from editing pages. Blocks are hard-coded in. A ban, on the other hand, is more of a ruling, barring a user from editing an article or topic. Then there's a total ban, the most extreme version, wherein an individual person is barred from editing any pages/articles with any account, by default indefinitely (though ArbCom can be used for appeals). That's generally going to come with indefinite blocks of the user's account(s), naturally.


6. What steps would you take to resolve edit wars in which users are violating the three-revert rule?
A: The first step is naturally to let them know about said rule, to help moisten the brush against the fire, so to speak. Now, assuming hypothetically this is my first time doing so, I'd want to first make sure a short block is the right protocol for a first-time offense on this, as I'm not dead certain at present that it is. I'm also assuming this is a clear-cut violation, not a wiggle area like reversion of vandalism. Beyond that, I'd make the users in question aware of the dispute resolution process or, if they're clearly already aware of it, advise them to adhere to it. Although I'd be willing to mention I'm available as a mediator if they so desire, while I'm about it, just because I happen to be on hand. I realize anyone can mediate, not just administrators, but I figure I'm a little more "honor-bound" to try my hand at it when asked, even if it's not my favorite activity. Continued violation of 3RR or closely related offenses, like flagrant BLP violations and the like, if any, would subsequently be met with longer blocks.
Answering this has made me aware this is an area where my knowledge of administrator procedure is a bit lacking, so my answer in the next little while as I read up on the topic may shift. This is just my "on the spot" answer.


7. (Last question - Really!!!) Looking at your contribs on the discussion page, I notice that you have 3,199 deleted edits out of your 10,099 total edits. Could you please explain that?
A: Lots and lots of CSD nominations from Special:NewPages patrols. Any given one of those will equal at least one deleted edit, quite possibly more in the many cases I've communicated with the authors on the (later deleted) talk pages for the articles. So far as I can imagine, that and posts on later deleted talk pages (such as warnings) are the entire composition of that figure.


Additional questions from Hobit
8. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to IfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why?
A: That's a very exact and detailed question. I like that! Anyway, not an easy call. As far as "replaceable" goes, while there's possibly legitimate concern that posting a sub-optimal image might discourage the inclusion of a better one, the rarity of suitable images of this actress makes replacement unlikely. An image that provides a clear look at the article subject is more important than having one that is fully "in context" for their topic of notability, as long as it's reasonably professional. Anyway, if the image is viewed as "replaceable" by two people, and the characteristics issue as valid by the remaining three, it seems most logical to close in favor of keeping it. It's not the final word, of course, but simply a question of having an acceptable, if imperfect, issue, and to my eye it addresses the concerns of those speaking - it can still be replaced when a better one is available, and addresses, for now, the difficulty in obtaining images of this actress. However, five people does strike me as a bit slim, as the 80% trend is a bit weak with that number, so I'd probably extend the ifd a bit first to see if I can hook anything further.
Something tells me this was based on true events.
Update: I just backed up on this and realized I was overlooking a small but rather crucial facet: The magazine as the source. There's a very good chance that wouldn't be a free/fair use image. WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, images number 8, also specifies magazine covers as inappropriate images for depicting the subject if it's not the cover/magazine itself. I'm not as dead sure how this would apply to the magazine itself, but obviously whether or not it's public domain is a big issue to look at first. If not, it needs to be tossed, "characteristics" and "replaceability" aside. Sorry about that; IfD is an area I don't have a lot of experience in, aside from a couple non-free images I mistakenly uploaded (which were cleared off without controversy).
Additional Question from User:Next-Genn-Gamer
9.Your whole nomination for yourself is basically read my first nom but that was over a year ago. Give me a reason in your own words why you should be an admin.Kingrock 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: If I'm to put it in terms of "why should I be an admin", I'd sum it up this way: There are constructive things I'd like to do to benefit the project. I have the knowledge and experience to execute them, the willingness and openness to learn how to execute others, the trustworthiness and good intentions to use the administrative toolset to do so, and the track record to demonstrate it (much moreso now than a year ago!). In even shorter terms: I will make the project my tiny bit cleaner.
Question from Stifle
10. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia?
A. Relatively few; generally only when taking a new free image wouldn't be encyclopedic, as specified at WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use under Images point 12.
Additional questions from SoWhy
11. Could you please elaborate on question 1? Which areas are you interested in working in specifically and have you experience in those areas already?
A: More of a followup question than an answer, and please don't read this as snarky/confrontational, but did you see question 4? I think that asked the same thing more or less. If you're in fact asking something different or need more information than I provided in response to that one, please say so and I'll very happily follow up.
I did actually, but I might have phrased it incorrectly. You wrote you want to work in areas like CAT:CSD and WP:RFPP, yet I have never seen you active in those areas (which are my main administrative areas). So I was wondering what experience you have with those areas. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it. Well, my experience with the CSD process in general from the editor side is relatively extensive. Simply put, I've run through a LOT of CSD nominations, my own and others'. By this point I've developed a pretty good idea of the process in that regard. RFPP is a bit less extensive, but again, it's a page I've dropped by a number of times to, well, request page protection, naturally. I've seen what works, what gets shot down (for example, it's not general practice to pre-emptively protect articles, I've heard), and what the general practice and procedure is. Obviously things are a little different from the administrative side of the fence, but my experience from the editorial side is fairly strong. The lack of noted activity on CSD is because my work with that tends to be on the CSD-nominated articles and their talk pages themselves, not the category page. If I'm not showing up on RFPP, you just need to dig a little deeper. But to wit, as far as what I want to do in those areas, I want to do the very things I've been using them to this point to request that others do.
Additional questions from I'm Spartacus!
12. I just read your essay on deletions. Over all not bad, but let me ask you a question that I derived from reading it. You've deleted my article. I come to you asking for a copy of it. What would you do?
A. That's a very apropos question. Pretty simply, though, I'd furnish it, by whatever means you find most expedient (e-mail, perhaps tucking it in a subpage of your userpage or talk page, whatever works best for you). This would just require me to go back to the deleted article and retrieve it from its history, assuming it's still on file (since that's temporary). This is unless the page was deleted for legal reasons, such as being libelous, or because it was directly harmful, such as publicizing sensitive personal information. I'd be a bit leery of furnishing a page that was just plain vandalism, but if you just want your dirty Wikipedia limericks back, that's probably harmless enough. At worst, if it goes back up, I'll have my eye on the ball and be ready to bat it back down, and if it's not actually harmful, that's no worse than whatever else you might do. (This is assuming "you" isn't actually YOU, Spartacus, because I kinda doubt you, specifically, would be submitting vandalism pages.)
Follow-up1 any other examples that come to mind of what you would not provide?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Well, one that comes to mind follows in the next section because it applies primarily to userfied articles. Anyway, what mainly comes to mind is still mainly legally risky content (libelous BLP content, copyright violations) or harmful content (content that infringes users' rights, like personal information, attack pages, etc.) I'd probably decline to restore and present vandalism more often than not. But like I said, if someone came up with some silly limericks that are totally unsuitable as articles but that they have no other copies of, no objection to returning that. But that's mostly just elaborating on my prior points. The only new thing that pops to mind is when it seems suspect whether the individual requesting the material is in fact the same one who presented it in the first place. Banned users can also expect to be ignored on principle.
Follow-up2 you mentioned emailing this, what about userfication? What are your thoughts on Userfication and how would your answer difer if we are talking about userfying as compared to emailing?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: A major sticking point that pops up for me on this is spam/advertising/promotion. I admit I'm prickly on this subject - it's definitely one of the areas where I have to really focus myself to assume good faith. But it seems to me like userfying a really blatant promotional article is more or less just an excuse to hawk it on the user's personal page instead of in its own article. I guess in a way it goes without saying, since you shouldn't do it with material that doesn't belong in user pages anyway, but this is one of the examples thereof that pops out for me. That kind of thing doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Obviously, the stuff that wouldn't get restored in any form anyway also falls into this category.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: Generally, except in the most flagrant cases, a blatant offense after the issuing of a level 4 or 4im warning is a justified reason. This can be foregone in cases when a user is blatantly on a destructive rampage or is actively attacking or endangering others. In a nutshell though, blocking exists to stymie (and discourage) disruptive activity, as well as to protect the rights of other editors when needed. As it's been explained to me, however, this does NOT include "giving someone time to cool down".
  • A: A spate of frequent vandalism (such as an IP hopping vandal or group vandalism) is a good reason to give a page temporary semi-protection, since individual blocks won't address the issue as well. Staunching a sizable edit war is another reason, so long as the current revision doesn't sport any blatant policy violations, though I personally wouldn't use it as a first resort. Longer term semi-protection is justified for pages that are frequently "under siege" from vandalism, particularly articles about people. Some frequently recreated inappropriate pages are also protected against being re-created, just to save people a headache (salting the earth!). Also, blocked users' talk pages are often protected to prevent them from editing them, if there's evidence they're just going to use them to continue behaving disruptively.
  • A: If the page meets any of the numerous criteria for speedy deletion, and ideally has been nominated based upon them, though administrators can utilize their own judgment too. Although preferably, as my fellow editors have pointed out here, not in the first minute of the article's life, unless its survival is a blazingly obvious WP:SNOW situation.
  • A: Forgive me for sounding a little parrot-ish here, but the gist of the IAR summary is too perfectly descriptive for me not to use: Any time a rule prevents making real, legitimate good-faith improvements to the encyclopedia, it should be ignored.
  • 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus seems a little bit mystical to me at times, I admit, as it's more than just a head count. But the basic idea is getting the idea of what a solid majority of the target group thinks/wants, within the allowances of policy and common sense. A big distinction between those is simply who's involved. Consensus in a talk page might primarily aim for the opinions of people who frequently edit the related article, while on an XfD, it's more or less the opinions of whoever decides to chime in. Not to say people wouldn't on a talk discussion as well, but you're looking for a more "targeted" body of input there. Since XfD and DRV depend more on an admin's final call though, it's necessary for the person making that call to sort the "wheat from the chaff" to an extent, filtering through blatantly unreasonable or untenable rationales to get down to the core logical arguments and which way they lean. - Vianello (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First off, there's a not unreasonable chance both John and Jane are going to be looking at a 3RR warning or block. That aside, though, I'd take a little time to inform them both that the very concept of edit warring is self-defeating (since it demonstrates you can be met one for one every move you make) in addition to being explicitly against policy, and encourage seeking consensus on the talk page or, failing that, seeking WP:Dispute resolution processes. It would probably also be appropriate to offer my input if they like, but only to whichever one(s) decide they want it. I'm not going to stomp in trying to "make a ruling" myself, but if asked, I'll offer my opinion. If the warring continues, it's probably time to put a kibosh on things with further blocks if called for. Now, even as an admin, I'd still also be an editor, and entitled to edit in favor of a version if I saw fit, but I might wanna avoid that because it would make it difficult to be fair - it would be kind of abusive to switch it to my preferred version and THEN hand out blocks.
  • 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I've spent a lot of time hanging around, batting abusers and vandals around with the revert stick while watching AIV reports sit unnoticed like a burned-out Batsignal. Though it's not nearly important, the same goes for watching CSD, UAA, and RPP back up like a toilet. This ISN'T at all to disparage any admins - nobody's here 24/7, after all! But during those times, I've wished an admin were on hand to take care of things. But if I could just do that myself, it'd be much easier, and I'd feel less guilty about having to constantly tug the admins' coattails to point problems out to them, though that's an awfully tertiary benefit. In short, why can't I be that admin I wished was around?
Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46
17a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I do try to honor that template, though I recognize it's not a "get out of responsibility free" card. I think a deciding factor would be the response I get from the user who created the article. In an admin position, I'd probably stop by to say hi and take a second to visit notability criteria and such, see if the user's inclined to just offhandedly explain the subject's notability or what they plan to do. For someone with concrete plans, I'd be okay with letting it hang on a bit, though I'd strongly suggest they provide a basic summary, since an article that's nothing but external links can be A3'd. I'd be willing to provide a day or two if the user is unresponsive, maybe up to four or five if they express solid plans. Aside from that though, I think it's important to have some basic information and sources on hand before starting up an article, and if someone isn't prepared to do that, they're probably not prepared to submit it. Besides, speedily deleting an external link isn't exactly destroying a great deal of hard work.
17b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: I'd axe the bit about cautioning them to remove the link, but ideally, no. In more practical terms I'd feel a lot friendlier to them without the link, but that's just an annoyed bias I shouldn't let interfere with the process.
17c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".
A: "XXX" is gay is right out. That's definitely controversial/contentious. "Attended but did not graduate" isn't to the same level, but the negative connotations there incline me to toss that as well. Accused of incest, also needs the Old Yeller treatment. Now, the religion issue is where it gets a little weird. My perspective as an American is no doubt different from that of people in most other countries. But there is a lot of negative stigma connected to Islam in my country (not that it's alone in this). I realize not everyone is going to view that as a contentious fact (then again, not everyone is apt to care if XXX is gay, either). But I think, the subject being what it is, that there's enough general vitriol on that issue to make it qualify as contentious. I want to go ahead and just label Presbyterianism under the same umbrella just to err on the side of caution and fairness, but it's really not such a charged term as Muslim. Still, I MIGHT gravitate more toward removal. The remaining stuff all honestly wouldn't be a crime to just axe either, but unlike the previously named clauses, they aren't things that immediately must be removed.
17d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD#A7, would it be proper to speedy delete it?
A: No, just the assertion of notability is sufficient. Unless it's flagrant vandalism, a halfway credible claim to notability is enough to salvage an article from A7 deletion. Presumably, if it hasn't already been A7'ed, it means that the deleted content did provide an assertion of notability. I think it would be more appropriate to call an AfD on it.
17e. What frustrates you most about Wikipedia and how would you want to change it (note: admins can have wishes in these regards but don't have the power usually)?
A: For the most part I'm pretty content with it actually. I'm a bureaucracy-oriented person. I like order, structure, objectivity, etc. Just out of personal preference, if I had the authority, I'd love to see things more rigidly codified and defined, with a reduce in fluffy subjectivity. I'd rewrite policies to be more firmly and elaborately defined, firm up what constitutes 'consensus', and gradually hack away at ambiguity. Of course, not everyone wants that and it'd be unfair to force that on everyone even if I had that ability. It's just a nice little selfish fantasy.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
18a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I know that "No problems! Keep up the good work!" is sort of a cop-out, but I haven't witnessed any events that struck me as failures of BLP management. My one ongoing paranoia on the subject is hoaxes. I know I have a tendency to skim by things that appear cleanly sourced, but there've been a lot of occasions (none so far on BLP) where a second glance has revealed otherwise. On a BLP, letting that slide could be pretty disastrous. So not that I've yet seen a problem with it, I do want to encourage people to scrutinize sources on these.
18b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
A very interesting idea. The question of establishing "trusted" users for using it does occur to me, as I'm not intimately familiar with how the process has been worked in previously. The problem I see is ANY version of a remotely controversial figure's page is going to be seen as POV by at least one camp. There's potential for demands for consensus to spring up at more or less every turn if someone feels an article leans too far in one tone or the other. However, I can "what if" clear into next Thursday. The question is, has experimental use established a positive or negative track record? If it's unclear or debatable, run more experiments, and make a decision based on such 'trial by fire'. I'm not familiar enough with the tests so far to express an opinion either way on that, I'm afraid.
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
I admit it could become a little confusing sorting through flagged revisions, but I really like this idea. The patrol idea would be a lot simpler to implement, and much more "fluid", however. Less stop and go, but it's not a LOT more protective to my eyes than regular recent changes patrols (though it does help "focus" those a bit more). Although I do like flagged protection, I'm concerned how (or if) it would work on heavy-traffic BLPs.
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I'm not dead sure what you mean here. By "protection for all", do you mean a hypothetical auto-application of semi-protection to all articles? It's not a turn of phrase I've heard on this before. If that IS what you mean, I do not at all favor that idea. I've seen plenty of very knowledgeable and articulate people come join up just to make immediate edits to things that pique their interest as experts. Preventing that would be criminal. But I may be wildly misinterpreting the question.
18c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: I'm inclined to say "default to keep". For one thing, consensus is required for an action. Deleting an article is taking action, whereas passively retaining it is not. Retaining it permits future AfDs to come up and perhaps attain consensus, whereas deleting it does not permit that as easily. Perhaps more importantly, though, the policy page on deletion discussion also asserts article retention if rough consensus is not available, so regardless of what I personally think, that appears to be protocol.
18d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A: About as much as I would any editor. There's an obvious bias, that's blazingly apparent. A thin-skinned individual might complain about an immaculately sourced BLP on themselves. The problem is, bias exists everywhere. This editor has made their bias (and conflict of interest) apparent, but it doesn't invalidate factual points they raise, nor does it mean others chiming in don't necessarily have agendas of their own. The principle difference is thus that their claims will be subject to a bit more scrutiny, as far as my part goes. Aside from that, as long as the information is reliably and verifiably sourced, pertains to the individual's source of notability only, and otherwise legitimately meets BLP criteria, I'm afraid that unless there's a protocol for this that I'm unaware of, the best I can do is direct this person to contact the WikiMedia foundation.
Additional questions from Preceding unsigned comment
19.You are obviously here to help and have shown great progress in fighting off vandals and writing about critters. Sooner or later content disputes will arise, and you have had your fair share. With what you have learned to date, what if anything would you do differently in dealing with new users that have become frustrated trying to edit such as [1]this? There is no suggestion that anything went wrong. I'm just asking if your gain in experience would have you act any differently.
A: Phew! That was not one of my favorite times, as you can well guess. Any time an editor in good faith leaves the discussion upset, I do consider it a variable degree of failure on my part. Although I don't think the policies I (or the other user cooperating with me) cited were at all incorrect, I really needed to do a better job explaining why the rules are that way. I think if I'd done a better job with explaining the spirit, not just letter, of the law, and how policies against original research and POV better the encyclopedia and more clearly how these edits relate to those, I think this user would possibly have been more open to seeing the problem the other editor and I saw. I've had far more luck in subsequent cases where I've paid more attention to why things are as they are, instead of what things are. It also teaches new users the spirit of the policies, which is more important than the letter.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vianello before commenting.

Discussion

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I promised myself I wouldn't thrash around trying to address every oppose, and I still don't plan to, but I'd like to respond to User:DougsTech's with my sentiments on the issue. Everyone's free to take or leave them. That said, point 1: The way some incidents I've witnessed have dragged out without inverention, to my eye, provides a live demonstration of an insufficient administrative presence. Point 2: Too many administrators... to/for what? Is there a finite resource that they're depleting? This isn't just meant as a rhetorical point; I'd be pleased to be enlightened as to the issue there. - Vianello (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the chief concerns so far have been invalid CSD nominations. No argument there, I've made some unambiguous mistakes. Generally happens when something starts off meeting the CSD criteria, I jump the gun, and then the criteria evaporate with subsequent edits. I can easily understand how this would concern people a little, so I'd like to take the time to specify that I consider the actual deletion act much more consequential than the nomination, and you can expect that particular ability, if I acquire it, to be used more cautiously. On a mooshier note, wow. You people are extremely nice! Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, this positive feedback has really put me in good spirits. - Vianello (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the CSD articles being improved, I know that when I and SoWhy review CSD noms, we review the version where the user tagged the article... you can't be held responsible for changes after they were tagged. But if you REALLY want us to, we could do a full in depth review... and be nasty about it ;-)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my only defense in that case is "mea culpa". XD Your caution will be taken to heart though. - Vianello (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuchs raises fair points. Now, on the AfD topics, we could argue back and forth for a while, me clarifying and expanding on my thoughts until it chokes this whole RfA. So let's not. But the promotional page blank is a legitimate concern. He's right, I shouldn't have done that. I did mention it's a topic that makes me prickle, which can lead to inappropriate decisions. I can't just out and take it back, but I want to say I agree I was in error. I do not plan to take such overreaching action in the future just because such things annoy me. Since there's no way to "prove" such change will be affected, factor it into your decision as you will. - Vianello (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this RfA is slated to close in a few hours, I wanna go ahead and take this moment to say thank thank THANK you to everyone here; not for the support of my nomination, but for their kindness, encouragement and friendliness. Even those more lukewarm about the prospect have raised points for me to heed, which in the long run can only benefit me. In that sense, everyone who's commented here has helped me, and with civility and good cheer that really brighten my day. So for that above everything else, thanks. - Vianello (Talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Good work, well-qualified. -download | sign! 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I've seen Vianello around before, and I'm pretty sure that I remember him as someone who has a Clue. Having a clue is generally my main criteria for adminship, so I am happy with this user. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I'm glad to see you've written some good content since the last RfA. Looks good, good editing and countervandal work (and I'm impressed that you're upfront about having IP vandalized once upon a time). Cool3 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You seem interesting, and I like your take on admining as janitors. It would make sense, as Wikiversity calls them custodians. :) I might change things later, but you seem promising. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support-See no reason not to. Strong anti-vandal which is something I love. Has a passion for it too. Knows exactly what he's talking about and from what I've looked at certainly improved since his last RFA and shows that he is also a god article writer. Exactly the type of admin the wiki needs.Kingrock 05:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support For excellent answers to questions. User has a willingness to learn and will definitly be very helpful in clearing backlogs at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. Best of Luck - Fastily (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Certainly. I see no alarms. --GedUK  06:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I feel this user will use the tools to better wikipedia, and see no reason to oppose.76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs may not vote in RfAs. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good admin candidate. Pmlinediter  Talk 07:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, why not? Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Why not, indeed? No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, looking through contribs, top edited articles, talk page, etc... I find no cause for complaint. Good user and would/will make a good admin :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Giants27 T/C 13:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support did some digging around on your CSD noms and nothing major jumped out at me some I didn't quite agree with your rationale but not enough to warrant an oppose.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support per I'm Spartacus. Giving the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support because Vianello is a trustworthy editor. Also, not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I haven't had much experience with him (as well as other Wikipedia contributors, I usually am too busy trying to revert vandalism and still don't fully get how to work IRC), but I feel that he can be a good admin.--Iner22 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good, solid contributor, will be a good addition to our administrator team. No reason to object. tempodivalse [☎] 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Looks good..America69 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Not seeing any cause for concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support per I'm Spartacus! Some speedy mistakes (A1 with context, A3 on what is clearly an attempt to create a redirect, A7 the same minute as the article was created, A7 with clear indication of notability (meets WP:MUSIC even)) but not frequent or bad enough to oppose or go neutral. Just be a bit more careful if this succeeds and read some essays on speedy deletion (like WP:FIELD, WP:WIHSD or WP:10CSD) to develop a feeling for it. Looks good otherwise. Regards SoWhy 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I've had Vianello's talk page on my watchlist for the past year and can vouch to his cool-headed responses to queries from new users whose articles have been speedy deleted. I also enjoyed reading his CSD essay. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Could use the tools, and I see no reason to deny him them. Timmeh! 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Да, разбира се! Highly motivated, truly dedicated. No signs of civility issues. Knowledgable. Viel Glück!--It's me...Sallicio! 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support AGF --Caspian blue 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support nice article work, decent csd skills and good attitude.--Lenticel (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Definitely seems to be a trustworthy user and could most definitely help out the wiki as an admin. I disagree highly with the statement by DougsTech below: Wikipedia can never have too many admins. There is always work to be done; there are always things to do. The question that we ask our RfA candidates shouldn't be whether we need admins, it should be whether we trust this user— and I think that Vianello has certainly proved to us that they are qualified for this position. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Synergy 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as Wikipedia needs more administrators like him and he seems to know exactly what to do in situations. I am honored to cast my vote as a support. Tavix |  Talk  01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Orane (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Net positive. AdjustShift (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support User has been around since Feb 2008 and think the project will only gain with the user getting tools after checking track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I see no problems. Deb (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I think you would be a great addition to the administrator team. Sure there are a few mistakes here or there with CSD tagging, but hasn't that happened to everyone at one point in time? While anyone can learn about wikipedia's policies and what not, your calm, civil demeanor is a vital asset to being an admin. Overall, your a user that has proven to be trusted with the tools and I'm glad to support you in your RFA. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Friendly and constructive from the start[2], the nominee communicates well, and is quick to announce and correct his mistakes [3]. Things might have gone differently for Gaiseric if Vianello had been in town. The project will suffer no additional risk, but will benefit greatly with this editor as an Admin. --Preceding unsigned comment 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  41. Support Looks trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support Wizardman 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Very intelligent question answers, which show someone who actually thinks about things rather than just following the crowd. A contributions rummage finds absolutely nothing to complain about. Hooray! ~ mazca t|c 19:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support. I looked at David Fuch's diffs, and only the second one had any problems in my opinion. Other than that, I did not see any other problems, so one diff is no grounds for an oppose. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support Good intentions, no indications that Vianello will abuse the tools, I see no reason not to.--Res2216firestar 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No reason to oppose; you appear trustworthy. ThemFromSpace 05:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support seems OK, more inclusionist than the norm but seems to recognize that - not a fault, just an observation - and seems to know policy and won't misuse tools to further his/her bias. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Solid, well-thought out answers to questions. I think #12 is more important than #8 on my question, but eh, got to more-or-less the right place. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support Questions answered brilliantly. –Nathan Laing 11:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Seems good to me. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Trustworthy user, good answers which are well thought out. The admin position is described as "a mop". such a person has experience with cleanup and will be suited for the sysop position.  Marlith (Talk)  18:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Seems trustworthy for the tools. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - looks good, just about meets my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    >_< - Fastily (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question for you DougsTech, do you actually believe there are too many administrators, or are you doing this to cause a controversy and try to play off the reaction of other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter, these opposes are completely pointless and never taken into account. It is quite tempting to simply strike them in the future to stymie the irrelevant and inevitable "omg DougsTech, you are wrong" comments from people who haven't seen him take this to every RfA on the block. I got to use "stymie" in conversation, sweet Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a discussion, anybody is entitled to ask Doug to explain his comment, just as anybody is entitled to ask any other Supporter or Opposer to explain their comments, that's not to say that any person commenting needs to explain their comment, but many users feel that they shouldn't be commenting if they are unwilling to discuss further. Nick (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But he never does explain his comment. The closest comparison I can draw is Kurt Weber; discussing his oppose rationales with him was bloody useless, and as a result people just stopped doing it. People are welcome to, yes, but 1) it never gets DougsTech to justify or change his !vote and 2) it causes far more dramah than needed. As such it is pointless. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would like to see more audited article contributions. In addition, there's some diffs that I take issue with. For example here[4] the user appears to blank promotion off a user's page, but doesn't explain why with a note on their talk or warn them first. Also not entirely pleased with his rationales (or lack of them) at some AfD pages, for example [5][6]. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm not comfortable with the answers given. They seem to skirt issues and the descriptions of editing also seem narrowly focused in a way that causes me to wonder if you're getting the big picture on issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Move to support Neutral - Waiting for answers to questions. - Fastily (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral: Not enough main space edits. South Bay (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Per answers to my questions. Doesn't grasp that there is a BLP problem, but I'm sure it will become apparent once the bit is received. Support of various proposals gives hope. لennavecia 05:50, 19 April 2009 (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/Vianello_2&oldid=1089730249"