Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paolo Liberatore

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Paolo Liberatore

edit

final (51/0/0) ending 18:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Paolo Liberatore (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I have been on Wikipedia since March 2005, but become really active only on August 2005. I typically edit articles on some obscure topics related to computing and computer science, but also sometimes tag articles for speedy, nominate articles on AfD, partecipate to AfD discussions and revert vandalism. My edit count is over 3000 on wikien (and slightly more than 100 on commons, if that matters). - Liberatore(T) 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the selfnom. - Liberatore(T) 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. 3,300+ edits, plenty of experience in project space perfect rate of summary use, speaks English fluently enough to crack a few puns on afd, no sign of conflict, seems like a strong candidate. — Feb. 21, '06 [19:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  2. Support. Great on articles+great on AfDs+great on community matters+great on vandalism=will be a great admin. youngamerican (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Sounds good to me. Karmafist 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support seems to have the makings of a good admin. Hiding talk 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seems diligent and capable; should do well as an admin. PJM 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Mjal 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Moe ε 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Latinus 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support this one is obvious Dlyons493 Talk 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Ugur Basak 00:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Good attitude, good answers to the questions, excellent use of edit summaries per Mathbot. Hermione1980 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support VegaDark 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Why the hell not? --Aaron 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship. gidonb 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good job. pschemp | talk 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Terence Ong 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, no problems here. Essexmutant 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per H Cynical 12:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, yep. Proto||type 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Thunderbrand 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support based on answers to questions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support EdwinHJ | Talk 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --AySz88^-^ 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Contribs look good and he seems trustworthy to be an admin.--Dakota ~ ° 07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support DaGizzaChat © 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - good editor, grasp of policy, compsci —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-23 11:54Z
  31.   Support Oh my gosh, is it going to be unanimous? drumguy8800 - speak? 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support great user, support of course Robdurbar 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Wide variety of contributions, all of 'em good. -Colin Kimbrell 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support From what I've seen by reviewing his contributions he seems like he's a very good contributor albeit one who eats too many web cookies :) Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support without any doubt. Raven4x4x 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support This one is easy. I've had Paolo's talk page on my watch list since October 2005 and have seen nothing that disturbs me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support no-brainer. Good contributions, level-headed, should make a good admin. --W.marsh 04:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Elf-friend 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Great contributions and the excellent answers to questions clinch it. -- Samir ∙ TC   07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good answers to questions.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per Quarl. —Ruud 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support User:Paolo Liberatore will be an excellent admin. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-25 06:03Z
  43. Support, by Zot. JIP | Talk 10:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 14:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Saluyot 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good luck! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like PL will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Chris Chittleborough 18:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Suppport, should make good use of the toolset. Hall Monitor 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support All in 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support +sj + 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#Oppose Robdurbar 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC) or maybe not ;)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Speedy deletions, closing AfD debates, cleaning up the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, reverting vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Of course, HTTP cookie! This is an article that is now featured, and I hope will be featured on the main page soon. I would say I wrote about 40% of this article. A lot of other editors also contributed to it, and I am quite pleased of the final result of this collaboration. I also gave some contributions to the proposed policy WP:SOFTWARE.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. As I said, I tend to edit article in quite obscure areas, where controversies tend to be quite uncommon, and are usually quickly resolved when appropriate sources are presented. Working on AfD is different, of course. However, most of the debates I partecipated into had been quite civil, believe it or not. I was annoyed by sockpuppets/meatpuppets in the beginning, but I ended up accepting them as part of keeping the wiki open, which is something I think carries more benefits than troubles.
4. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
A. I always try to consider the possibility that I have made a mistake. However, If I disagree with the explanation provided by the other administrator (for example, the one in the block log), I would leave a note on his/her talk page. In general, I think that waiting for some time for an answer is better than edit/wheel warring (this applies to edit wars as well, it's just that wheel wars are worse because of their stronger effects on the community). If time matters (for example, a vandal that keeps vandalizing pages) and the other adminstrator does not reply in a reasonable time, I would ask for a second opinion (asking someone else or leaving a note on WP:ANI). - Liberatore(T) 21:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

5. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. Such an article should go to the Wikipedia:Deletion review. Depending on the attitude and experience of the editor, I would point him/her to the deletion review or carry the article there myself. - Liberatore(T) 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. Patrolling recent changes I noticed that sometimes it's just not easy to tell vandalism and good-faith edits apart. In this case, I would do a Google search. If I can find a reliable source of the removed statement, I would reintroduce it and add the source at the bottom. Otherwise, I would leave a note on the article talk page. - Liberatore(T) 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would leave a message on this editor's talk page (with a copy on mine) explaining why the article cannot stay in its current form, pointing to WP:CSD. If this editor does not expand the article in a reasonable time, I'd remove it from the main space again. Depending on the subject of the article, I may move it to user space, leaving another note. I think that also pointing out the appropriate criteria for inclusion such as WP:WEB may be useful in these cases. - Liberatore(T) 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. You're patrolling new pages (again) and you notice that someone created a new article about a current minor celebrity (again). The article is clearly not a stub: it's is long, detailed, wikified to a reasonable extent, properly formatted. There is no sign that it is a copyvio. The article also asserts that the person is notable. The article is distinctly unflattering, but still descriptive, so it does not qualify as an attack page. The article is completely new, not a recreation of anything that was previously deleted, or a fork of an existing article. You conclude that none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion apply. (a) Under what conditions, if any, would you speedy delete the article? (b) Another admin speedy deletes the article. What do you do?
A. Depending on the time I have, I may look for sources or remove the unsourced material, leaving a note on the talk page. Speedy is appropriate if there is evidence that the information is false (which means that there is not sufficent evidence that it is true, actually). I think that the main problem here is libel in the "live" version of the article. Past revisions can be removed without hurrying, as they are not indexed by Google and are usually viewed only by people with some experience on the wiki. In case (b) I would probably assume that the other admin has done the required research. - Liberatore(T) 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/Paolo_Liberatore&oldid=1140110359"
  NODES
admin 20
chat 1
COMMUNITY 2
Note 6
Project 2
USERS 1