The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Anthony Dipierro[edit]

!Vote here (4/16/3) ending 07:20 1 November 2004 (UTC)

Due to the presense of Kate's script I have decided to reject this request made on my behalf. Instead I hope that I can be given permission to use this script. anthony 警告 19:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to allow non-admins to use the script at Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. anthony 警告 22:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This request is not to give adminship rights to Anthony DiPierro. It is a request to make it possible for Anthony to view deleted material and to make it possible for him to copy it to his fork, McFly. The long-term way of implementing this will be a software change. However whilst that is in development I propose that

  1. Anthony is made an admin on a technical level, with the proviso that
  2. Anthony does not use the rights provided to him on that technical level, other than to view/copy deleted material.
  3. If Anthony breaches the clause above, he would be de-admined immediately and be banned for a period dependent on the severity of the breach (minimum one day) to be determined by the demote-ing bureaucrat steward/developer.
  4. Note in order to make this order enforceable, it would be apply whether or not the admin action was a good thing to do or not.

Motivation: Those of you who read the WikiEN-l mailing list will have noticed the deluge of posts about deletion. I believe that this move would be the good of the whole community simply by reducing the amount of friction on VfD and VfU. Anthony would be able to make what he considers to be a decent encyclopedia on McFly, and others would not to have put up with what they call "provocative" edits on VfD/VfU (*)

(*) For the record, I believe the "provocative" quote was made in relation to edits made about half-a-year ago. There is no doubt that Anthony has become ten times more easy to work with since then, and I think if this request is granted it would be a reflection of the community's approval for this complete turnaround in behaviour, rather than a way of encouraging bad behaviour.

To reiterate: This is not a normal request for adminship. Well-thought-out comments, whether they be to support or oppose, are a lot more helpful than knee-jerk reactions. The only reason the request is on this page at all is that there is no more appropriate page.

--Pcb21| Pete

Pcb, I signed what you wrote so that it can be easily distinguished from what I am writing here.

A little background on what was written above, since the relevant background is really not give in Pcb's description above: Anthony DiPierro runs a website called http://www.mcfly.org/en/. It is derived from Wikipedia, but it attempts to preserve pages that are deleted on Wikipedia, which is why Pcb is attempting to give Anthony DiPierro the right to view deleted pages. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know about this page until just now. I was asked somewhere (I think it was via email) if I was given adminship under these terms would I accept it, and my answer was and still is yes. But I don't think this is the correct forum or procedure for such a request, and I even said in my answer that I don't think it's the best solution anyway. I would much prefer something along the lines of Kate's tool. But I do plan on applying for real admin privileges in the future. anthony 警告

Here's the content of that email:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:44:25 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<email address redacted> wrote:
> Two questions, then.
>
> 1) Would Anthony be willing to make a promise not to use any admin
> rights for anything other than viewing and exporting deleted pages?
> (Barring, of course, an RfA that gives him the authority to do so)
>
In the unlikely event (in my opinion) that I was given such admin
privileges, I would certainly agree to this. Not sure if this would
make things more or less likely, but I'd have no problem if it was a
separate account.

Support

  1. Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Nominator)
  2. Netoholic @ 07:22, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) -- He has my support for full administrator status.
  3. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:25, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Prefer if it was possible for people (in general) to see deleted articles. Κσυπ Cyp   2004年10月25日 (月) 11:54 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No, no, no, no, no, no. Maybe when hell freezes over. This user has repeatedly gotten in trouble for trolling. So I suppose we should set a good example and reward it by making him an admin. →Raul654 07:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    To reiterate: This is not a normal request for adminship. Well-thought-out comments, whether they be to support or oppose, are a lot more helpful than knee-jerk reactions. Pcb21| Pete 07:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    And to reiteriate - this *IS* adminship, however you want to package it. And no, I do not think we should be rewarding trolling with adminship. →Raul654 07:42, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    No it's not adminship. I've spelt out that bluntly. Admins can protect pages, delete pages... Anthony could not. I, and others in the comment do not regard Anthony's recent behaviour as trolling... nevertheless you and some others don't like some of the things he writes because he has a more liberal view of things than you... I am offering you a way for you to have read it. Think of the wonders it will do to your blood pressure :). Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. If Anthony does not desire to be an admin for any purpose other than to view deleted articles, and he is able to use Kate's tool, mentioned below, to do so, then I see no reason to give him admin status. --Slowking Man 07:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I do desire to be an admin for other purposes, including easy reversion of indisputable vandalism, deletion of indisputable patent nonsense, editing of permanently protected pages to make minor edits or after receiving consensus support for the change, and deletion of material which has gone through the proper due process procedures without any serious objection. This request was made without my knowledge, though I did say that I would accept adminship if it was given on these terms, so long as I could run for full adminship at some time in the future. anthony 警告 16:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Why does Anthony merit this unusual treatment? Vfd has become a scary place. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I would advocate giving this right to people who want it - though for widespread use it would definitely have to be a software solution along the lines of Kate's tool. Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strongly oppose. This request requires monitoring and enforcement and further taxes the time of other Wikipedia editors. There is no reason for a user to deserve this kind of unusual treatment, and it would create a bad precedent leading to other, even more unusual requests. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:42, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    The protracted debate about deletion shows that there is a reason. My thinking was that enforcement would be a tiny dimple of the great elephant's bottom of admining that people already do. Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. No. I'm happy for a compromise to go ahead along these lines, but not involving giving him adminship. Why can't he use Kate's tool? Ambi 08:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    To be clear, Kate kindly wrote her tool in response to this request. I certainly think that route should be opened up to him now that it exists, and it looks like a possible way of getting community agreement. Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Definitely no. Anthony has a difficult time resolving his perspective with group consensus, and often seems not to care if his comments go unexplained and merely appear contrary. I do not think we have any basis for believing we can even understand what this arrangement would mean to him, or how he may try to rationalize any kind of action under it later. It would just mean a monitoring headache and endless circular arguments over what exactly was agreed to. Postdlf 08:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    A fair point about the contrariness, I have seen that myself, though I am glad it is diminishing, and this would be a way to diminish it further. As for the point about circular arguments, I did foresee that problem and wrote my proposal to avoid them. They are simple: Anthony uses admin powers other than for viewing/copying deleted articles then he loses them completely, whether the action was for good or for ill (other solutions would be too vague). Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean by "resolving [my] perspective with group consensus". I certainly don't change my perspective to fit in with the rest of the group, but I am very good at resolving the conflicts between my perspective and that of the rest of the group. Understanding the arrangment is quite simple. The only admin power I would be allowed to use is that of viewing deleted articles until such time as I was granted full adminship by a separate RfA request. anthony 警告 17:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. I can't, in good conscience, vote to support something like this. Mike H 12:00, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  8. No, for many reasons. McFly is a distraction that doesn't further any Wikipedia-related purpose. Anthony DiPierro has made a pest of himself on numerous occasions here and does not respect limits or community. And offering deleted material to a mirror for republication may create problems for us particularly since it includes copyright violations. uc 12:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. I am often editing Supreme Court case articles, so maybe my views are a little twisted, but I can see this vote as nothing more than a precedent and it would be a bad one in my opinion. While I often support new ideas, exceptions should be made for exceptional Wikipedians. I have not seen anything from this user to think that he should be made an exception to any rule. I'm sorry. Skyler1534 13:04, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    It's unclear to me what rule we have for which an exception would be needed. anthony 警告 17:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. CryptoDerk 13:47, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose.Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:42, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  12. VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    CARE TO EXPLAIN WHY????. Pcb21| Pete 21:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Raul's reasoning is more than enough. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 20:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. RickK 21:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Strongly oppose. Anthony has shown a pattern of agreeing to cease trollish behavior, then starting right back up again after a little time has passed. I don't doubt that he would pull the same sorts of shenanigans if he was given admin privileges and "promised" not to use them for anything other than viewing deleted articles. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This comment is completely devoid of any basis in reality. anthony 警告 17:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Anthony should not get special rights. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:25, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Under no circumstances whatsoever should this user be given any rights as admin; I would however be supportive of an indefinite ban. Sjc 10:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    LOL. anthony 警告 16:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. David Cannon 11:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC): Disclaimer: I've read many negative things about this user, but have not seen any. On the contrary, what I've seen of him gives me no cause for alarm. Having said that, I am strongly opposed to the "customizing" of adminship by granting special cases, with special provisions, for special individuals. Either we should or we should not trust this user, or any user, with sysophood. Giving him the keys on the understanding that he will not use them is not fair to him or to anybody else. One cannot be trusted with their use should not be trusted with their possession, period. If we make this special case, it won't be long before we get dozens of users requesting customization of what should be something very straightforward - with endless tweaks here with users granted administrative access, with different rules of operation for each one. I most emphatically believe that any position/privelege or whatever you want to call it must operate with uniform rules for all.
    • FWIW, I fully agree with the comments of David Cannon. anthony 警告 16:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. So far no comment or acceptance from Anthony DiPierro, or did i just miss it? In any case, the tool mentioned below should be enough for his needs -- Chris 73 Talk 13:38, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • No one even told me about this! I didn't run into it until just now, when I happened to be going to the RfA page looking for that questionaire so I could begin working on a request for real adminship. anthony 警告 16:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. I have to vote no. Though I would definetly like to commend the users who decided on bringing this matter before the community rather than making a decision behind the scenes. I also have no objections to Kate Turner's technocratic solution. Arminius 18:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. In light of the tool, If the tool can't do the job, oppose, otherwise support. Shane King 07:27, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I left a suggestion on Anthony's talk page the other day encouraging him to start his own wiki for the school listings he enjoys defending. Being totally ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of a move like this, would his priviledge extend only to deleted original articles, like the school stubs? - Lucky 6.9 22:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. The tool can do the job it seems. Otherwise I'd support. --Conti|✉ 02:22, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

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.
Category