Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carabinieri

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

Carabinieri

[edit]

Final (54/4/0); Ended Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:22:17 UTC

Carabinieri (talk · contribs) - Carabinieri is a long-time dedicated Wikipedian. He started editing in August of 2005 and has made almost 30,000 edits since then. While many of these are stub-sorting, Carabinieri has also contributed a lot to article writing and has started several well-referenced articles. Carabinieri has done a lot of maintenance work in stub-related areas, discussing stub proposals and creating proposed stub templates and categories. He also maintains the news section of the Germany portal. You might also know him from Template talk:Did you know, where he has successfully nominated a lot of pages, many of them by new editors and also six of his own. In his interactions with others, he is always civil and calm, never bites the newbies and does not forget to leave warnings when he tags a page for speedy or prod. Given his experience and dedication, I am confident that he will make an excellent member of our janitorial team. Kusma (討論) 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and would like to thank Kusma for nominating me.--Carabinieri 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:While patrolling new pages, I'll delete articles that constitute a blatant violation of policy directly rather than having to tag them and wait for an admin to delete. I'll also look through the candidates for speedy deletion and delete pages that merit deletion and otherwise deal with those that don't. I'll also help by closing AFD debates. Further, I'll update DYK occasionally since I have some experience proposing entries there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I can't really name any particular article. Unfortunately, I have yet to be involved on a GA or FA. I have, however, translated dozens of articles from German Wikipedia (some examples: Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists, ‎Alamara Nhassé, Agile Frog, Classless society) and a few from French (example: Denys Cochin). I have also written a few articles myself, the longest and best of which are probably Free Association of German Trade Unions, History of the Jews in Libya, and History of the Jews in Malta.
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: Recently I have been involved in two conflicts. The first was with Dr. Steller, who started reverting my edits because she thought I had deleted an article she had written. It had been speedily deleted after a short AFD discussion, because it was in German; I wasn't aware of any of this at first. I explained the situation to her and after a while she even apoligized for having reverted my edits. She later re-wrote the article in English and it was deleted after an AFD discussion, because it was not considered notable enough.
The second conflict was about the still heavily constested article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. It was - and actually still is - really POV against Ukrainians. This led several Ukrainian editors to add content blaming Jews for the Holocaust to the article. I tried to mediate in the discussion and point the - mostly not very experienced - editors to Wikipedia policy. I also added some information from a paper by a reputable historian I found on the internet, which I though could be a basis for a well-referenced and NPOV article. Unfortunately, the article is still a mess and an AFD discussion didn't reach consensus, but I'll keep trying to encourage editors to add referenced, NPOV content to it and remove all the rest.

Optional question from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. How would you determine if something should be speedily deleted under criterion A7?
A:If the article is just about "a 17-year old student visiting xxx high school in xxx, US state and is cool/uncool for the following reasons:" I would delete it right away. Otherwise, I would generally consult google first. If the company/person/etc. is still existing/alive and related to a industrial nation I would expect it/him/her to a be mentioned somewhere other than myspace or similar websites.
I would use AFD or PROD for all articles, whose deletion could be controversial, in order to avoid making mistakes that cost Wikipedia a valuable article.

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

5. What would you do in the following situations:
5.1 You see a post on WP:ANI from a newbie about a user violating WP:3RR. You visit the page in question, and find that both the newbie and the other user have well and truly violated the 3RR rule. What would you do?
A:In general, I would avoid blocking anyone for violation WP:3RR unless they have a history of vandalism or have been warned at least once. Provided neither editor is engaging in blatant vandalism, I would make sure to treat both users equally in the situation you described. If I find that to be appropriate in that particular situation I would block both or neither user.
5.2 You are patrolling RC changes, and you find an IP changing numbers in many articles, possibly acting in good faith. You ask the IP why, but get no response, and the numbers continue to be changed without explanation. What would you do?
A:First, I would ask the anon once again to either stop changing the numbers or to provide sources. If he/she does not react to this, I would block him/her. Subtle changing of numbers or similar facts can be very dangerous to Wikipedia.
6. How do you interpret and apply WP:BITE?
A:I generally try to be as friendly as possible. It is important to explain Wikipedia policies and practices to less experienced editors. WP:AGF is also important in this context. If someone makes mistakes, one should explain to them how to correct them. But if someone is obviously harming Wikipedia on purpose there is no reason not to be firm. (something like "Stop vandalizing xxx immediately" is appropriate IMHO)--Carabinieri 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom support incredibly active and pro-active editor. A few more WP edits with 30k total wouldn't go amiss, but you've been around the block, take the mop, use it. The Rambling Man 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Looks like a great user - hella experienced, friendly, looks plenty mop worthy. delldot | talk 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thought he was already Support - Especially pleased with the way he was able to explain the stub-process some time back. An ability I think an admin needs when dealing with newbies. Agathoclea 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, clearly works hard and is a dedicated stub-sorted which is a vital task. Mallanox 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support. Stub sorting is completely irrelevant to adminship, so it's really hard to support here, but you do other things, even if they're hard to find. -Amark moo! 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support good contributor. Calm and steady reliable hand on the wheel. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support Excellent knowledge of policy and other relations. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per the nomination, I support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - plenty of experience and no reason to oppose --BigDT 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support contra Astrotrain. Casual examination of talk page reveals mucho DYK - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. Mmm, lets see- a highly experienced stub-sorter with strong policy knowledge. And admins are having trouble managing the backlog at WP:CSD. Exactly the sort of admin Wikipedia needs at the moment! WJBscribe 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. Valentinian T / C 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support per nom and good answers to my questions. Similiar philosophy toward WP:BITE as myself. Kudos! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great candidate. Convincing answers above. Pascal.Tesson 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Good answers; I support. DS 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Good content editor. Though I would suggest a separate account for automated edits such as stub sorting — Lost(talk) 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stub sorting is not an automated process. It is done almost exclusively by hand. On a few occations, Alaibot has been used as well but this is only for very specific tasks. Valentinian T / C 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles you are sorting are already fairly well sorted and categorized, stub sorting can be done with AWB or bots, otherwise there is only the good ol' fashioned way.--Carabinieri 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. My support stands — Lost(talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good answers, Wikipedia would benefit a lot if this user got the mop. Daniel.Bryant 06:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support So will Carabinieri be allowed to join Administratte Rosse? ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support of course, I am the nominator. Kusma (討論) 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support; good candidate with nice answers. I can't see any downside to promoting. Trebor 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Conscious 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – PeaceNT 09:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Terence Ong 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support no problems here. -- Anas Talk? 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Prolific editor, great work at WP:DYK. Nishkid64 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Seems calm, cool, and collected; decent answers. Could usefully contribute more behind the curtain, where calm is not always in evidence. Unless Astrotrain is being coy, there's no reason not to support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good answers to questions, good contributions to the encyclopedia. --Fang Aili talk 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No major concerns here. A good candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support We definitely need more proletarian admins. - Darwinek 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Ja! Definitely. Sehr gut. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support You answered all your questions quite well in my opinion, not to mention your fantastic edit count. Best of luck, you'll be a great admin. Ganfon 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Ample experience, nothing suggests this user would be a problem. Trustworthy and levelheaded. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Another candidate I'm kicking myself for not thinking of nominating myself, a good deal earlier. Alai 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, everyone seems to hhave said it for me.--Wizardman 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: This guy's got it all. He'll make a good admin. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good user, with balanced contributions! Bertilvidet 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Great editor, and probably will be an excellent administrator. --Carioca 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per nom and questions. VegaDark 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Per above. Somitho 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. A worthy admin. Axl 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Deserves mop. Shyam (T/C) 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Very good experiences with this editor. Beit Or 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - very high level of dedication and experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support A good content editor.--Aldux 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per above --A. B. (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Though you might have fun branching out every now and again. IronDuke 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Approval — this candidate has my approval, I'd prefer to see some more active contributions and activity but you seem to be doing a good job at the moment. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Sarah 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support inasmuch as, though Amarkov's proposition is not without merit, I think it quite plain that this user should neither abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I think it safe to conclude that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive; I am sure too that Nishi et al. will be quite happy to have another hand at WP:DYK and perhaps the main page generally. Joe 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bakharov's proposition...?--Carabinieri 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose- not experienced enough- most edits are stub sorting Astrotrain 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but he also wrote articles and participated in Wikiprocess. He's written about ten articles, which is probably more than most admin candidates. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of argument, let's say 90% of his mainspace edits are stub-sorting (not that it's anywhere close to that). Aren't you confident that the remaining 2200 edits provide him with sufficient experience to play a positive role as an admin? Pascal.Tesson 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: stub-sorting doesn't mean a good admin. Get more experience and try another time. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "see above" would cover this rationale. Do you have a particular measure of sufficient "experience" in mind? Alai 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the history of Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. It is an extremly POV and inflamatory article, basically stating that almost all Ukrainian men were busy killing Jews and Ukrainiang women were busy whoreing and bearing children to the German solgiers. Carabinery was not the main editor but if you look in the history all edits by Carabinery are pointed into making already inflammatory and biased article even more inflamatory and biased. I think the trust of the actions of an admin is to make articles more neutral and balanced, not the other way around. Alex Bakharev 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: most of my edits consisted in adding information from this (PDF) paper by the reputable Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer and removing really off-topic claims like that Zionists cooperated with Nazi Germany. [1] . I have repeatedly stated that I agree that this article is a meses and tryed to contribute towards improving it by adding information from the source named above. Could you just give some examples for my edits which are "pointed into making already inflammatory and biased article even more inflamatory and biased"?--Carabinieri 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose - Carabinieri is from a long time the name of the Italian Military Police, that is also employed abroad (see link). While some people might find that the choosen name is acceptable, I am afraid that using it for administrative actions, such as deleting pages, blocking users, protecting pages and so on can be misleading, when signed and logged with a name like that. At least to all the people that have happened to be in contact with this authority, especially because it is sometimes felt as controversial. (see link). --M/ 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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/Carabinieri&oldid=1088716280"