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]

Voice your opinion (talk page) Final (8/25/7);Originaly scheduled to end 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate It's useless to continue as there is no way this is going to pass, I will not bother putting in any more self-noms. Somebody else nominate me, if at any time in the future you feel I would make an acceptable admin candidate. Seems I wasted everyones time again. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivio Testarossa (talk · contribs) - Hello, I am again going to make another attempt at adminship. It has been a great deal of time since my last attempt and I think that I am ready for another try at adminship. Well like I said in my previous rfa my experience on Wikipedia includes Articles for creation, Articles for deletion (as well as other deletion avenues such as Prod and CSD), New pages patrol, and Recent changes patrol (as well as other related activities). 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 work as an occasional clerk with making a change in user name and the help desk. I used to be known as VivioFateFan (talk · contribs), I also have an alternate account NanohaA'sYuri (talk · contribs).Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 23:48, 11 May 2008 (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 tend to focus on speedy deletions, and dealing with admin backlog, occasional page protection, AIV. My main area of admin focus, however would mostly be dealing with obvious vandals, as well as using the deletion "tool" for mainly CSD purposes, as this is the "admin area" that I am currently most familiar with.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
My best contributions, in my opinion, would have to be my work on various Anime articles especially Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha in addition to my anti-vandalism work. However, for articles other than the above mentioned Nanoha, I tend to edit them (usually only doing minor edits (spelling/grammar/wikify)) on my own schedule. Also, my edits tend to be on the line of improving existing content, rather then creating new content.
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 conflicts with other users, (over 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.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 4. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 4a. ...an editor to be blocked?
From what I can understand from reading policy editors are blocked in response to disruptive behavior by them (Vandalism, Personal Attacks). Also, blocks are not meant to "punish" the targets, but only to used to prevent harm to Wikipedia
As per policy, pages should only be protected if blocking a user(s), would be ineffective. When the pages are protected, they should be only for the minimum amount of time nessecary. Also, I would not protect any articles that I have been editing in (to avoid a WP:COI), and would submit it to WP:RPP as a non-admin would. As for what type of protection to apply, I would select it based on who is causing the disruption. If the disruption was from mostly, anons/new users then I would semiprotect it. If that proved ineffective (Evolution comes to mind), or there was edit warring between autoconfirmed users, then I would full protect it. Concerning duration of protecting pages, as I said above, should be as short as possible, indef semi/full protection should ONLY be a last resort, after long-term, multiple protects have little or no effect on the disruption in question (Homosexuality comes to mind).
Comment - Could you elaborate for me when you would semi protect a page, both temporarily and indefinitely, and the same for full protection? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pages should only be speedily deleted. only under a extremely uncontroversial circumstances. In addition to being the above they should only be SD if there is a relevant clause in WP:CSD. If I felt that it was not uncontroversial, then I would take it to WP:AFD.


From what I can see, determining consensus is not just "counting hands", but it is an analysis of the arguments of the "voters", in order to determine where, the communities' current stance on the issue at hand. As per the determining consensus in the different types of issues, the process to determine it would be similar, (if nobody/everybody supported a change (deletion/move/undeletion) then it would be done/not done. Otherwise I would analyze the strengths of the arguments.
  • 6. User:JohnQ leaves you 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?
There are many things that I would do when such a circumstance occurred. The first, thing that I would do (assuming I was not editing the article in question), would be to analyze the history of the article in question to determine whether User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe were indeed WP:EWing. Assuming that they were edit warring, I would then try to communicate with them (via their talk pages) as to the problem that seems to be at hand at suggest that they try to talk it out over at the article's talk page. If they, did not cease doing that, then I would warn them of WP:3RR, and that they may be blocked. Assuming they ignore the warning, I may have to impose a temporary block. However, if I was involved in editing the article, I would probably bring the issue up on WP:AN, WP:ANI, etc. so that uninvolved admins/users may look at the problems. Even having said all of that, I would rather deal with obvious vandals (replacing pages with "Penis"), and would do the above listed steps, only if it could not be differed to somebody else.

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]

No, the count is only used for the stuff done by, others. Not that I care if someone vandalizes my page. I would rather a person make a bad edit there then on an article. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close per WP:SNOW, anyone? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or per candidate withdrawal. xenocidic (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
Support - That first oppose made no sense for me. Very active vandal fighter and very active in the mainspace. Also supported per WP:WTHN. Good luck. :) asenine say what? 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Answers to questions demonstrate a knowledge of policy. I like your activity in the project space and the article space, even though a majority of it is reversions. However, you've shown that you're more interested in just undoing vandalism and reporting them to WP:AIV. I don't share the concern of the first opposition at all. User would be a net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support -- it takes a bit of digging to find the non-revert, non-mechanical contributions to mainspace and project space, but that's only because there's so much of the first two kinds of contributions going on, and not because of any lack of the later. Good answers to questions + good contributions of all kinds + good participation in areas he wants to work in as an admin = good person to trust the mop to. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moderate support per WP:WTFN. Seems ok overall, despite the high vandalism revert percentage in mainspace edits. As an admin you might want to avoid edit summaries like this one, but it only happened once as far as I looked back into your contribs. dorftrottel (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to oppose) Weak Support. There's a lot of stuff to go through, so I reserve the right to alter my !vote later if necessary, but I wasn't able to find anything horrendous. I did find this AFD nomination error, but I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I do think you edit sandboxes a little too much, but your other work is great. Eighty reports to AIV, that's definitely good. A high percentage of your edits are reverts, so I'm not real impressed by those; however, I still think you'll do well as an admin. Useight (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  3. Support, no reason to believe that this person would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support see User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA#Tyrenius for fuller rationale. User has improved since last time. One does not need to be an article builder to understand the policies related to blocking/deletion/protection. It is beneficial but not essential. Of course most of the candidate's communications are related to vandalism and deletion-- that's where he works the most. Importantly, this shows the candidate values communication-- he takes the time to notify creators instead of just tagging articles for deletion. Takes the time to fix details like removing links to deleted articles. and removed speedy tag when context added by creator. Fixed malformed AfD created by another. Adminship will be a net positive. Will use the tools constructively, and the time he spends using the tools will free up more time for others to build articles. Dlohcierekim 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support User has put in a self nom even though he knows full well he will take flak for it. This clearly demonstrates he is able to stand on his own two feet, something we really need in administrators.--Phoenix-wiki 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per accusations of "deletionism" from the oppose camp. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons why not are listed below under Oppose... also, you made 3 supports within 2 minutes of eachother. One even within the same minute. I do hope the 'Crat takes this under account. Qb | your 2 cents 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eek gads. Are we going to start jumping on people for their supports too? Leave it be. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I take that back, user has made the exact same support statement. Didn't notice this. Crats should note that. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm saddened to see a pile-on oppose for a terrific contributor whom I feel is fully trustworthy. This won't pass, but I certainly hope the candidate won't be discouraged from contributing to the project, and I'm certain if Vivio wishes to be an administrator, he (or she) will probably make it next time when the community sees fit. Valtoras (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I apologize, but I must oppose, since you don't have much experience in mainspace editing. You are good at reverting vandalism, but that is not enough, and you don't make as many edits these days. Try again, get experience, and try again in at least a few months and I may support you. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No significant mainspace work. Sorry, I don't feel comfortable giving tools which can easily affect article writers to someone who has done very little article work themself, as they can easily act without considering or understanding the impact their action can have on those doing the most important task of all here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose I have several reasons to oppose. First, I don't like the idea of giving the tools to a self proclaimed deletionist who wishes to do CSD's. Especially when that somebody has amassed over 17.5K edits in about 6 months. Second, while the user has over 5,000 talk page edits, almost every single one of them is related to his vandalism efforts. Looking at the last 1000 edits to User Talk spaces, I would be surprised if he's had more than 25 edits there which were not templates added via Twinkle. I see very little in the way of collaboration or working together. Which means we have little to no idea how he handles conflict resolution or disputes. Third, I decided to take a look at his 399 contributions to general talk, and found that since January most of his edits there were to revert vandalism---not actual contributions. In December, he did a lot of tagging of articles in the D&D project (Eg class/importance.) But I couldn't find anything meaningful. Fourth, he had 28 edits to Wikipedia Talk---but very few have any substance---and 2000 in the Wikipedia space. But a large percentage of his edits are Wikipedia space are via twinkle and again don't show independent thought/understanding. Fifth, I absolutely detest people who pursue barnstars via the The Award Center. The Award Center focuses on editcountitis and doing things for all the wrong reasons. I see very little in the way of contributing to the community beyond anti-vandalism. Sixth, a person who wishes to be trusted with the tools for CSD should really develop a reputation with XfD's to show that he understands the policies/guidelines. I didn't see much there. He appears to be a solid vandal fighter, but hasn't done anything to show that he understands policies and guidelines in the wider wiki world. He hasn't done anything to show that he understands what it means to build the encyclopedia or that he has the trust of the community.Balloonman (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that this will come up, but this is his third RfA in less than 4 months. I didn't find that to be problematic at all. In his last RfA he was advised to wait 3 months---which he did.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I agree with most of your points, the award center comment was a bit much. It does fall into the candidate's problem of accumulating edits very quickly, but there are legitimate challenges present there that fall outside the editcountis issue. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I ended my admin coaching with this user a while ago due to time constraints and my inability to provide more time coaching. During this time, however, I did highly recommend to him that he participate in some mainspace editing and offered to help him clean up some articles, as well as try for a featured list, largely due to my fears that concerns would be raised similar to those by Balloonman above regarding his lack of genuine mainspace editing. This editing never materialized and I did not pursue the subject due to the aforementioned time constraints. While his anti-vandalism efforts are indeed widespread, they are entirely based upon his use of Twinkle, and he has practically no interaction with other users, actual constructing of articles, or participation in consensus building. This oppose is regretful, as if I was still his coach, I would have recommended again that he pursue more of the aforementioned activities before nominating himself, but the die is already cast. Best of luck though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am sorry, but I concur with the people above, especially DHMO. I think that more article space work is needed. Whether people like it or not, knowledge of this particular part of the encyclopedia is very necessary for several admin functions. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose due to being a deletionist, lack of mainspace, and the biggest factor being that this user has attempted 3 times in 5 months to get the tools. While I'd be quicker to support someone who shows a need and want as opposed to ambivilence, that is a little too much. It just looks bad, whether or not is really is. Qb | your 2 cents 14:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose what were you thinking when you tagged Jemmal? Did you even look for sources and refs? Much your time seems to be destroying the work of other people, rather than helping improve the encyclopedia. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Balloonman's analysis, considering that the candidate apparently ignored SephirothBCR's advice (see above), and considering the RfA application rate and the very high edit rate (using automated tools, of course)... I see too many reasons to be wary, and really no encouragement to trust the candidate with more tools. I feel that this candidate needs to spend more time working with editors, building articles and resolving content issues. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Good god no. Self-nom, third RfA in four months, massive deletionist, siege mentality, former admin coachee...he's got all the strikes against him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (ec) Weak Oppose. I moved from support after realizing what was pointed out above. 449 of the last 500 user talk edits were via Twinkle; shows a lack of communication with other editors which is a critical trait in an admin. Again, this AFDhere wasn't good, either. With some more experience, that isn't automated, I'd support. Useight (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per weak arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users. Would like to see more mainspace writing or article expansion efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - A self-confessed deletionist who wants to work with CSDs? asenine say what? 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I am not confident the candidate would use the extra buttons properly. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose My main concern is the dodgy deletion work, and I am forced to oppose due to fear that the delete tool may be used incorrectly, and may drive off newbies. Before considering another request, some article-writing experience (even a few B-class articles, they don't have to be GA or FA), as well as some good work at XfD and CSD would be beneficial. Regards, EJF (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Could you give examples of the dodgy deletion work, since no one so far has done it? Only examples given here are by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and in those cases one could argue that the candidate's arguments were better than the person's who pointed them out. Every csd tagging I saw was good, comments on xfds were good enough given the content of the articles he commented on. - Bobet 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree... I checked a fair number of his CSD's and his tagging of CSD's was better than average. My concern is elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, seems to be trying to brute force their way into adminship. xenocidic (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Sephiroth BCR's comment above worries me seeing as he was preciously his admin coach and made clear to the candidate the areas that he needed to improve upon, yet here we are saying the same things that were said a few months ago. This shows a clear lack of willingness to take constructive criticism and improve upon it (a big thing I look for in admin candidates). Along with that it shows a unwillingness to work outside of areas of comfort, and I like so see admins who have a diverse amount of experience. Right now, short term vandalism and areas that simply require a automated tool are do not need any more admins looking after them, noticeboards like AIV are fairly ever backlogged. We instead are in need of admins who are able to intervene (in a constructive and educated way) to content disputes, and respond to long term vandalism along with sock abusing users, we need admins who can come to a clear consensus when closing the ever growing number of XfD's along with respond situations that may be in the "grey area" when it comes to policy. Overall I feel the candidate lacks and that coupled with other concerns raised in this RfA, I must oppose. Tiptoety talk 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose- Got to agree with Xenocidic.--Gian (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. The deletionist mentality and desire to work in XfD is a no-go. MrPrada (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I'm not sure that this user can be exactly trusted with the tools, and per Sephiroth BCR. SpencerT♦C 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Based on looking over the user's contributions; answers to the questions; and discussions here; I think more experience may be useful. Perhaps next time. - jc37 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Per Balloonman and apparent lack of article and consensus building. Also per deletionist concerns voiced above. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - experience and additional privileges do not appear to match up. Great work on the RC Patrol, and you're effective therein, without much demonstrated need for additional access outside of the ability to protect and block. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not enough article-writing experience - but on the flipside, your answers to most of the questions are pretty good - I'm especially impressed with 4b and 6. Find a couple sub-standard articles on a subject you like and improve them significantly with another editor or two, and I'll be glad to support next time around. east.718 at 02:56, May 13, 2008
  24. Oppose, deletionists self-nominating to work in speedy deletion is a bit worrying, but I too would prefer to see more work in XfDs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Kurt. Snowolf How can I help? 04:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Regretful oppose, way, way too soon to have another RfA. I know five months is a long time, but 3 RfAs in this time is far too many. I hate to say it, but it comes across as power hunger. You also need to get some article writing into your contribs rather than using Twinkle and/or Huggle all of the time. I'd support if you came back in half a year or so. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Per Balloonman. I don't see a good balance of edits, and I can't imagine giving the tools to a deletionist. Also, answer to Q5 concerns me. "From what I can see..." shows me that this user doesn't have a firm grasp on all of the policies and guidelines, but rather makes an interpretation of what he/she thinks they are. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - I think I agree with both the previous support and oppose comments (in particular the last one) so I feel it's unfair to vote support or oppose until I have a better understanding of the situation. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 07:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the last one may change, I am assuming that you are referencing my comment above?Balloonman (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 12:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Changed from support above. Balloonman has raised so very illuminating concerns. That coupled with what now seems like flat article work, I felt compelled to alter my stance. Might fluctuate. I can't put myself in the oppose category as of now though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral More article-writing experience needed. More work at AfD will improve your policy knowledge and demonstrate your dispute resolution skills. Epbr123 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Sorry, cannot support if almost all your work is undoing that of others. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral She is a bit too eager to get adminship ( 3 attempts in 5 months . Wow !). But I just hope it is with good intentions. Somehow I dont really appreciate wikipedians too eager to delete articles than helping to improve them. it is easier to delete an article than to create one. Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.A contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere. Hope she keeps this in mind in future -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, user seems to have good anti-vandalism work, but I worry that we don't have a good picture of how Vivio deals with conflicts, more than just vandals being annoyed that they are blocked. Since administrators are often called upon to deal with conflicts of various types, I am not comfortable supporting without having a clear picture of how Vivio resolves disputes. -- Natalya 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral -- This is a difficul one: I find some of this user's work really good but there are some serious issues (especially the deletion ones!)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (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.
Category