Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2

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

Vivio Testarossa[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final: (17/33/0); closed by Kingturtle as unsuccessful at 11:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vivio Testarossa (talk · contribs) – Previous RfA's: 1, 2, 3
Hi, despite what I said at the end of my last unsuccessful requests for adminship, I have decided to give it another attempt. Looking back at that attempt I now realize that I wasn't ready yet at the time, and am glad the community did not promote me then. Anyway, my experience on Wikipedia includes Articles for creation, various deletion related avenues, New pages patrol, and Recent changes patrol. As mentioned in my previous rfa I was that I had been an anonymous editor for a long time before becoming a named account. In addition to the above mentioned "admin activities", I also help assist other users on the help desk. I don't usually get into writing articles (except for disambiguation pages), as I am not as proficient with that as I am with other activities mentioned above. Note be sure to check my alternate account as many of the redirect creation/etc are done using this account. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 04:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

As an administrator, my focus would mostly be on dealing with admin backlog, in particular Criteria for speedy deletion and dealing with suspected copyright violations, and AIV to deal with obvious vandals. I would like to avoid Sockpuppet investigations, I have found that I either get at "natural 20" or a "natural 1". Regardless of the area of involvement, I wouldn't do an admin action that I might have a potential conflict of interest in, as to avoid a biased decision. I also consider Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall an important issue and would be willing to stand for recall on this.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
My best contributions, in my opinion, would have to be my work on Wikipedia:Articles for creation , Anime articles especially Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha and recently Strike Witches. Other than the above, my next best contributions I would have to say would be the various redirects and disambiguation pages that I have created as well as the few references that I have found.
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?
Yes, I have had some (in my opinion minor) conflicts with other users, (one example being names for articles) and sometimes my edits are reverted (for various nonvandalism reasons). But most of the time that I have had conflicts, it is usually in trying to handling users who vandalize articles. Even when dealing with vandals, however [1], I try to help them with their questions. I am always trying to avoid, conflict by not engaging in Edit wars (as this doesn't help the encyclopedia move forward).
Additional question from NocturneNoir
4. You claim your best contributions are to anime articles. However, I don't remember ever seeing you around WP:ANIME or the associated talkpage. Is there any reason for this? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why I do this. The main reason would be that I typically look when I look for edits I typically silently look over various pages, and check for any issues that I can find if I find any problems that I can fix whether it be reverting vandalism, fixing punctuation, adding internal links, etc I do so. But now that you mention it maybe I should try using using the project page to coordinate my efforts with others.
5. Another question while I'm at it. Can you justify the use of seven non-free images at List of Nanoha characters?
Yes, I can for almost all of the images except the one of (Vivio), which now that I think about it doesn't add any encyclopedic value. I don't know what I was thinking when I uploaded it. Now that I look at it the one of Arisa could possibly go to.

criteria 1: Since this is a commercial anime, there are no free images, that can be used instead.
criteria 2: Since these are low quality images, I do not feel they will take away any commercial value from 7 Arcs.
criteria 3: Addressed above, I feel that this criterion is also satisfied.
criteria 4: These are screenshot from the anime, so they have been published elsewhere.
criteria 5: I believe that the images add encyclopedic value.
criteria 6: ...
criteria 7: The images are in a least one article so this is fulfilled.
criteria 8: The images were orginially part of stand-alone articles, which I merged into this article. I beleive, that some understanding of the character might be lost if they were deleted.
criteria 9: This is met as they are not in any other namespace.
criteria 10: All the images have what I believe is a addequite WP:FUR on them.

Optional question from Townlake
6. Why are we evaluating this account for adminship instead of your alternative account? The Talk page on this account doesn't have much recent activity, the alt account's does; that's the primary reason I'm curious.
The reason was that I thought that I had to make the request using my "main account", which is the one with the highest edit count. Maybe, this should be Requests for adminship/NanohaA'sYuri?
I guess that's part of my confusion - I can't tell which one is your main account. Obviously the whole point of maintaining multiple accounts is to use them for different things; it just seems to me like the other one is much more active - and might benefit more from the tools. But I could be way off - it's your RFA and your call. (I wrote this comment about six or seven hours ago - signing now for clarification, as pointed out by I'm Spartacus!.) Townlake (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if User:NanohaA'sYuri then would be the better choice, since I'm more active with that... how would that work then? Do I need a WP:CRAT's help?
I wish I could tell you. I'm not trying to throw your RFA sideways by bringing it up, but this might worth asking a 'crat about at some point, depending on how your RFA evolves. Townlake (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optioinal question from I'm Spartacus!
7. This is more of a follow-up to Townlake's question. But somebody (unsigned) wrote Obviously the whole point of maintaining multiple accounts is to use them for different things. The proposal above is that this should be under your other account. My question is, why should it be under this account? What roles do you have for your two accounts and why is this one better suited for the bit than the account that has more edits?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original reason I created User:NanohaA'sYuri, and why I still use the account is because that account was supposed to be one that I would use on "unsecure computers" (as per criterion 1 such as ones at my college... however lately, I seem to do a lot of editing using that account regardless of location...
Question from Stifle
8. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?
A nonfree image of a living person/buildings (that are still standing) may only be used on Wikipedia if a new free picture would provide the same value to Wikipedia, and in the case of retired/disbanded groups such as musical groups, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as the old one. The above is especially true if the person's notability relied on their earlier visual appearance.

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

9. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you get some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I would analyze your edits, since you have a source for your edits I would then check the source page to see the relevance of the material in question. I might also suggest that the person who called the information "pseudoscientific information" should not have used such harsh words. As to you I would try to help you understand that you shouldn't worry too much about the "bullies" and tell that your information might be able to be included, but it would be best to take it to the talk page to be discussed upon first.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This user is well qualified and will use the tools well. -download | sign! 04:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I've yet to fully investigate your contribs, but you look fine at first glance. Good luck. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yup. Well versed, no points off from me for not being a content writer (as I am not either). Oooh, a rhyme... Keegantalk 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Looks Fine!!! - Fastily (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I see no reason not to. I checked her most recent RfA and she seemed ready then — none of the opposing points convinced me that she would have abused or misused the admin tools were she promoted. I see no reason to believe she is any less trustworthy now, other than significantly decreased activity by contrast but since when should RfA candidates have to be total Wikipediholics in order to pass? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I see no reason not to support, this user seems to be perfectly sensible. I'm not fussed which account is mopped, but i would prefer the other account to no longer be used. --GedUK  08:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support I have only briefly looked through your contibs, and they all seem great! ;) Although your edit count over past months is a slight concern. Good luck. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 17:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- Experienced, good user who knows the basics of wikipedia and can comfortably be a good admin. Emperor Leonidas (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    indef-blocked as sockpuppet. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, don't see any issues. Wizardman 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: going through the edit history of, ahem, both accounts, I have seen a lot of help to the project. Some issues early on, but as of late I see a lot of thank you's and other project-helpful goodies. I think the project could benefit from a person who is eager to learn, edit, help, and climb through the ranks. Any self-nom naysayers will disagree, but I think that we lose a lot of prospective administrators because no one has noticed their contributions and they are afraid of the RfA rocks being thrown at them for being a self-nom. I support this candidate. Good luck, Vivio!--It's me...Sallicio! 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Clean block logs, and plenty of experience, and I like the fact that the candidate has an alternate account for editing from insecure PCs, but I might suggest that if that is the only reason for an alt account you might find it easier to redirect one talkpage to the other. WereSpielChequers 11:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, because no one could possibly fuck up Wikipedia more than it already is. Tan | 39 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Your activity level should not interfere too much with your use of the administrative tools, and as such I think you are ready for the mop. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak support - technically meets my standards; lack of recent edits is not a huge deal for me. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support - Lack of recent edits I guess would make it weak (though sometimes life catches us where we cant make edits), however the user does have 12000 total edits (unless im reading wrong) and seems not to have anything to suggest not to support. Work at the help desk is always important i think, so i believe they are familliar with policy and at least know where to find it by assisting with this. The intentions are there so ill support for now. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - the last time you went over 100 edits in a month was in July of 2008; I'm sorry, but IMO that just isn't enough activity to prove to me that you have improved from your last RfA. EDIT: See below Keegan's reply for my rationale, and apologies for forgetting to check the alternate account (though this is the first time I've seen an alt with more edits than the master....) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC) & 5:20 18 March & 03:16 19 March[reply]
    Just my opinion, and we can discuss it further on the talk page or privately, but I disagree with your premise. Adminship is showing the trust to use the tools, not the need for the tools. I probably made only 200 edits or less in the past year, excluding admin actions. I'm busy for most of the waking hours working. I have the mop, however, to clean up something if I wander across be it protection, block, or deletion. Do you see harm in the user being an administrator? Keegantalk 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was afraid that I had phrased that poorly; evidently I did. I'll try again... In his last RfA (May 2008). 25 people thought that they could not trust him with the tools and therefore opposed him. Now, in the edits he has made in the 10 months since then, I have seen no major reason of how he has improved. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, I did misinterpret it. Keegantalk 05:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this oppose still stand? As far as I can see, the rational for the oppose was removed. — R2 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does; my reply to Keegan is my rationale. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per the_ed17 and your overall low edits during the past 10 months. I am totally unconvinced that you've been improved a bit from the last RFA. I looked through your most edited articles (37 edits are highest one) and your talk page archives, but your edits are just minor copy-editing. You had gotten an admin coaching but you did not seem to follow his advice again; building contents. Given your deleted images unloaded by you, I'm not sure you're correctly understanding the image policy either. Besides after your last RfA, your edits are significantly decreased. 2008/05 (147 edits), 2008/06 (56 edits), 2008/07 (264 edits), 2008/08 (26 edits), 2008/09 (44 edits), 2008/10 (80 edits), 2008/11 (22 edits), 2008/12 (4 edits), 2009/01 (15 edits), 2009/02 (31 edits), 2009/03 (61 edits) I have doubt whether you can commit to the community. Therefore, I do not think you're fit for adminship.--Caspian blue 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Same as the last RfA. I was Vivio's admin coach briefly, but was forced to end that due to time constraints. During that time, I advised him to make some article contributions (I suggested working on a featured list together), but aside from a few token AfC contributions, I'm not seeing anything in that department that has changed since the last RfA. A rather complete lack of interaction with other users is also troubling; participating in the consensus building process in terms of making articles on talk pages is important for any admin, and his user talk contributions are practically all either warning templates or automatic templates given by Twinkle for CSDs and the like. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your answer to Q5 is just more evidence of your lack of article writing showing itself. There is no fair use justification for seven fair use images in a character list; group images are vastly preferred and the individual images become merely decorative at that stage. Even List of Naruto characters, which is far longer and has a far larger character cast than Nanoha, has only three non-free images. A lack of article contributions is a significant problem here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The images were originally part of individual articles and I merged them along with the individual character data. I guess I could remove the images (I can't "delete" them though). Finding a "group picture" might be a problem, but I think I should be able to do so. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tentative oppose - Not being active is not a problem. Being inactive is. Sorry, but I can't support with so little in the way of recent contributions - your contributions get too old too quickly to be effectively judged. — neuro(talk)(review) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose Per neuro, inactivity is a problem, while being not active is okay as long as edit something on that day.--Giants27 T/C 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, more for the lack of evident improvement since last RfA than inactivity. I'll keep an eye on this, though. GlassCobra 21:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, tell me you are kidding, or at least give some sort of justification for such a belief. If anything, we need more administrators, not less. — neuro(talk)(review) 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not joking. That is my point of view, and you have yours. DougsTech (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it be a bad thing for the project if everyone was an administrator (i.e., that would mean that everyone would have technical ability, writing skills, and social skills...) That's kind of like saying everyone who works for Microsoft having at least a Master's degree is bad. I'm sorry, Mr. Jones... we have too many people with Master's degrees; we were really looking for someone with just a taxidermy certificate. Perhaps I'm missing something here. --It's me...Sallicio! 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I logged on an hour ago and the first thing I did was delete a page that had been tagged an hour earlier as an attack, OK that was unusual but its not unusual to have over 100 articles tagged for speedy deletion. I'm almost with Sallicio in believing that every experienced, civil editor should be offered the mop if their willing to take it; But what we have currently is a declining number of active admins and that really is becoming a problem. WereSpielChequers 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Weak Oppose - due to lack of activity and little improvement since last rfa - sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I just realized I voted twice - once oppose, once support. Not sure what I did there - I have crossed out the oppose vote and will keep the support vote. - Fastily (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as a 4th RfA--too eager to be an admin to be trusted with the tools. Jclemens (talk)
  9. Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free image policy, as evidenced by the answers to questions 5 and 8. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, per Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Recall is a broken process. Promises to be open to recall are unenforceable campaign promises. Hipocrite (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But what do you have against this particular candidate? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this candidate makes political promises on RFA's that either demonstrate ignorance or appeal to ignorance. Such ignorance/appeal to ignorance is unfit in an adminstrator, regardless of any other quantities. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose at the current moment. I hate to base an oppose on edit count but less than 200 edits in the last 5 months (and not really that much more on the alternate account) are too little to allow me to evaluate your current knowledge or readiness. SoWhy 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I am very lenient with RfAs (see User:hmwith/rfa), and I will never oppose based on edit counts alone. However, there have to be enough recent edits that I can judge whether or not I trust the person with the tools. 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmwith (talk • contribs)
  14. Oppose not active enough over an extended period of time to judge or to get much out the tools when s/he has them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per openness to recall - a broken process - but more importantly the answer to Q9. Pseudoscience advocacy has no place in a respected reference work. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, what I said above I would rather WP:AGF, the situation than potentially shut out, confused editor. I not saying that I wouldn't result to a WP:BLOCK if the person who posted the "Pseudoscience" continued to edit war even after I or another user attempted to explain how stuff works. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The answer to #9 unnerves me greatly. Jd027talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the answer greatly unnerving?--It's me...Sallicio! 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'm not horrified by the thought of opening dialogue or repulsed by assuming good faith, or anything, and I'm glad to see that she mentioned that. However, "pseudoscientific information" is not exactly a "harsh term." She also instructs the user to not worry about the legitimate concerns of other editors, instead of explaining policy in a simple and easy-to-understand way. Also, she tells the user that the information "might able to be included." The Bible does not muster the verifiability policy in this scenario. So, while I'm glad that she genuinely cares about the feelings of the user, and wants to help the user come to a positive solution on the talk page, the overall effect would undermine the encyclopedia. While a part of the Evolution article serves to examine the social and cultural responses, she seems to be suggesting that it might be possible for the editing from the user to stay as is. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose as the user wants the tools too badly, and per inactivity. Tavix (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Too few edits to judge the suitability of the candidate (yes, I saw the alt account!). Also, I'm beginning to feel that Hipocrite and skinwalker have a point (though, with the poor candidate stuck between a rock and a hard place, I'm not going to oppose based on that alone). --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Per neuro and recent incivility. America69 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs?--It's me...Sallicio! 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wanting to speak for America69, but I assume he meant "recent inactivity" rather than "recent incivility". Acalamari 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I meant inactivity. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. I commend the candidate for never getting blocked; however, per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, I found the claims of "indiscriminate" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users not compelling and that the argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters was similarly weak. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Per Caspian §hawnhath 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose given the major concerns raised about their deletionist tendencies, coupled with a clear urge to help with speedy deletions. Given that the user doesn't know much about our image policy, I doubt they'd be very good at dealing with that area, and overall the user also wants adminship too much. Also, a minor point, but the user stated "I will not bother putting in any more self-noms" at the end of the last RFA attempt. Esteffect (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Sephiroth. The candidate has good qualities but doesn't appeal as someone who has the knowledge of policy and how to interact with others that is needed. Dean B (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. This is your fourth RfA. That in and of itself is a bad thing; you're showing that you're getting desperate for adminship. The vote count at the end of that last RfA should have been a wake-up call: are you really ready for the mop? Your third RfA closed in late May of last year; you have made a grand total of 613 edits since 1st June of the same year. As others have said, how do we know that you are improved from the last RfA? Plus, your project-space contributions have been mostly to AFC; nothing that really demonstrates knowledge of policy. I'm sorry, but I can't support. Xenon54 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose -- Mainly per above and inactivity.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - Much too many RFAs. You need to be much more active. Also, address the concerns of the previous RFAs you've had. Also, if you want to RFA again, make it a year after this, with about 10k-20k more edits. Cheers, MathCool10 Sign here! 00:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    20k?!? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose I'm sorry Vivio, but even taking both usernames into account, I don't feel there's been enough activity since your last RfA to be able to judge your improvement. With a bit more active contributions and more interactions with other users, I would definitely support. FlyingToaster 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per many; FlyingToaster says it well. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, mostly because of the inactivity recently. We need to know you'll actually be using the tools actively. — RyanCross (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per question nine. Inexcusable and execrable. Inactivity doesn't really bother me, considering how active other admins are. Previous RFA shows other policy weakness as well. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - The answers to the questions do not show that this user has the knowledge to become an administrator at this time. Razorflame 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Seems like a nice guy, but I have my reservations. As others have said, inexperience may be a problem. It's not the edit count that's a problem per se, I'd just like to see either a higher edit count or involvement with an FA or a couple of GAs. My advice, Vivio to you, is to try your hand at writing an FA (if you find that an overwhelming challenge, then at least bring something up to GA status), and try back here. Cool3 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Vivio, I believe you need more editing experience and community interaction spread over several months, or a year. Rosiestep (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  • Neutral: I have never "voted" neutral before. I can usually be very decisive in RfA's. That being said, I take in to consideration a few things in RfA's. #1 is edit count quality and time in WP. #2 social ability and WP policy knowledge. #3 is WP:DEAL. This user has plenty of edits but spends a lot of time in user talk (38% as opposed to mainspace at 27%) and recently his/her edit count has plummeted along with the stock market. Per WP:AGF, we have to take into consideration that some people get good enough that they can write an entire FA in one edit, but Vivio's recent edits aren't in the mainspace. I can appreciate his/her diligence in the quest for adminship but I am not entirely convinced of the prospect's activity level upon receipt of the admin tools. Perhaps Vivio can provide some diffs where he/she has saved an article from deletion, helped to uncover a sock puppet attempted coup, or something else substancial within the past few months. My standards aren't very high for adminship, but I don't want someone being an admin just for the sake of being an admin. I am still open to move my "vote" to support.--It's me...Sallicio! 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, yeah... forgot to check the alternate account, sorry, Vivio....moving to support!--It's me...Sallicio! 03:48, 19 March 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/Vivio_Testarossa_2&oldid=1142506699"