Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvio giuliano

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

Salvio giuliano

Final (112/3/2). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) – Salvio giuliano has been editing here since the end of 2009. He has contributed a number of articles related to Italian law and made a number of measured contributions to a talkpage where anyone explaining the Italian legal system could expect a certain amount of flak. I've checked his deletion tagging which I consider to be very accurate. I like the combination of building the wiki and cleaning it up. He has the tenure, contributions and temperament that makes for a good admin and I commend him to the community. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, many thanks for your nomination.
I'd like to take this opportunity to get a couple of common questions out of the way:
  • Apart from one occasion where I edited using my IP, back in 2009, because I hadn't created this account yet, I have only ever used this account and my alternative one, Salvio's not home (talk · contribs), which is disclosed on my userpage.
  • Should this request be successful, I will be open to recall, although I have not opted for a precise procedure yet.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to work in the areas I've already worked in as an editor. So far, I've focused on patrolling new pages, fighting vandalism (lately not as much as before, alas) and detecting inappropriate usernames; should my candidacy be successful, I would like to use the mop in those areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as content creation is involved, I would say that my best contribution is Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, an article about the criminal system of the country I live in.

That said, I must admit I'm prouder of my gnomish contributions, that is to say fighting vandalism and patrolling new pages, as I like to think that I'm helping to keep Wikipedia clean, so that the people who write much better than I do can concentrate on creating new articles and improving the ones we already have.

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: Although I tend to be a rather low-profile editor, since I mainly focus on maintenance tasks that are not usually contentious, in the past, I've got involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There, a user identified some people, including me, as members of an "anti-Knox group", and held we were trying to cast Amanda Knox in as bad a light as possible; this user identified themselves as part of the "pro-Knox group". We discussed for a very long time on the article's talk page and, then, tried mediation. Unfortunately, mediation was unsuccessful, which caused this dispute to spill onto various noticeboards (WP:ANEW, WP:ANI and WP:AN), until this user was indeffed.

To be honest, this entire affair did not really cause me stress; rather, it caused me a bit of frustration, because there came a point when I thought that we had moved well beyond a normal content dispute, that could be solved using WP:DR, and started thinking that the other user had become disruptive in their attempt at clearing Knox's name. This wasn't because I didn't concur with them, but because they were adamant in not trying to hammer out a compromise, an agreement, but started considering the article as a battlefield, instead.

That said, if I were to find myself in such a situation again, I think I'd either walk away or behave much in the same way: first, I'd try to talk things through on the talk page, then try mediation (or another dispute resolution method) and then, if I thought the user was being disruptive, I'd report them to WP:AN or WP:ANI.

Additional question from Coffee
4. What is your understanding of WP:BLP, and what further protective measures (if any) would you like to see the project implement?
A: In a nutshell, I understand WP:BLP as a way to remind ourselves that living people must always come first; I think the person who wrote the policy page says it best, when they emphasize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; we should be particularly mindful to avoid publishing anything that can be deemed libellous or otherwise inappropriate; and this is not just a way to avoid lawsuits. When writing about living people, we have the potential to cause much real world harm, because Wikipedia is highly visible in the Internet, and that is why I believe we are under the moral obligation to make sure that whatever we publish is reliably sourced and written using a neutral point of view. This, of course, does not mean that we should whitewash possible scandals or conceal negative bits of info, provided they are notable, relevant, and well-documented.

As far as further protective measures are concerned, I think that the current policy does a fairly good job at protecting living people, although I admit that I would like it better if pending-changes protection was applied to all BLPs as the default option as a way to at least diminish the potential for harm. I know, however, that the community disagree with me on this point, so rest assured that, if my RfA is successful, I will definitely not go on a protection spree.

Addition question from Snottywong
5. What is your opinion of the current state of the New page patrol process? Does the average patroller do a good job, or does more need to be done during the average patrol? What, if anything, do you think could be improved with the process, and how would you improve it?
A: In my opinion, the current new page patrolling process could be improved.

First of all, i think it could achieve much more than it presently does: often, today, an article either gets tagged for deletion or, when it does not meet the criteria, just tagged for maintenance and left as it is. For instance, to add a couple of categories using WP:HOTCAT, insted of dropping a {{uncategorised}}, or to move the article to the correctly capitalised title or to fix an evident grammar or spelling mistake and so on would not take too long. I know that there are many patrollers who already do that and that when they do not — I am sometimes guilty of this too —, often this is due to the fact that there are way too many articles compared to the number of active patrollers... To tackle this issue, the first thing that should be done, in my opinion, would be to try and get more experienced users involved in new page patrolling, so as to spread more evenly the workload, in order to allow single patrollers to do more on the pages they encounter.

Another perennial problem of new page patrolling is that it is often the first contact a newbie has with Wikipedia and it can be very bitey, especially when a mistake is made – errors happen, sometimes because the patroller is still inexperienced and trying to learn the various nuances of the criteria (particularly A7), other times because he thinks the article would be a WP:SNOW at WP:AFD and, so, applies the wrong criterion, to quickly get rid of the page – or when the patroller does not answer the questions of the article's creator... To avoid that, I would first try to make sure that the various templates are reworded in a friendlier way, so as not to bite newbies, then I would encourage users to be more helpful towards good-faith newcomers and, finally, I would try to improve the feedback a patroller receives from the reviewing admin: when a speedy nomination is declined, the person who tagged the article could use a note from the admin, explaining why the article does not meet a given criterion – many sysops already do that and tools like WP:CSDH make this really easy –.

Furthermore, I would support restricting the ability to create new articles to autoconfirmed users only, so as to diminish the workload on new page patrollers and to decrease the possibility that newcomers get bitten, since they already have had a first contact with Wikipedia and the first thing they see no longer is a cold machine-like template, informing them that we do not want their contributions. If non-autoconfirmed users still wanted to create articles, they could go through WP:AFC, where the climate is a bit more personal...

Moreover, I think that the new project that has been recently started, could be very helpful in finding new ways to improve this process, which is quite necessary and yet sensitive.

Additional question from Lambanog
6. Agree or disagree: "Wikipedia supports the addition of content". What policies or guidelines, if any, lead you to your conclusion? Do you find this evident in practice?
A: This is a very general question, to answer which I deem it would be necessary to descend into far more detail than I can do here; so I'll keep my answer short, even though this means sacrificing accuracy.

I believe that, in general, Wikipedia supports the addition of suitable content – for instance, the addition of material regarding a kid's totally unremarkable ten-year-old best friend will, and probably should, be reverted on sight –. This is primarily a matter of commonsense, in my opinion: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and to spread knowledge is its ultimate goal. We need addition of content, to keep our articles up to date, to always provide more insightful bits of info and to keep creating new articles. However, there is a policy, namely WP:Editing policy, which explicitly encourages people to boldly add information to Wikipedia, and there is, then, a guideline, WP:BOLD, that invites users to be bold and make changes, to improve Wikipedia and another one – although it only tangentially involves the addition of content –, WP:BITE, which reminds experienced users to help newbies who are trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia. And I believe that in the vast majority of cases, we are successful in upholding this philosophy, but when something goes right nobody tends to notice; instead, we immediately notice in the rarer cases when something does not go as it should, such as when an overly enthusiastic patroller reverts good-faith edits as vandalism, or when an editor removes bits of info that do not fit his opinion on a given matter, often only using three-letter acronyms, or when there is a clique of editors who tag team to keep information out of an article and so on. All in all, in my opinion, barring the occasional situation of pathology, Wikipedia does support the addition of content.

Additional question from Hasteur
7. In extension to the previous New Page Patrol question, do you see the need to minimize "badges of shame" by only tagging new articles with the most important issues or is a full accounting of issues that an editor(s) has with a new article (and potentially racking up maintenance templates, a Prod, and a speedy by multiple different reviewers) more important for communicating to the creator all the potential issues with an article?
A: As a general rule, I believe a patroller should try to tag a new article with the most important issues the ones that, in his opinion, should be tackled first. There is time to fine-tune pages, after all – provided there are no serious concerns –... There is no point in bombing a four-line article with six tag. It only risks biting and alienating the newbie who was trying to create a new article. If, on the contrary, only few tags are applied, there is a reasonable expectation that the page creator will consider what the patroller is telling him. An {{unreferenced}} – or {{BLPunreferenced}} – plainly tells him that Wikipedia requires sources and, hopefully, he will look for them and add them to the article. If, maybe after an edit conflict, the user finds himself faced with a wall of boilerplate messages explaining all the things a patroller thinks are wrong with his article, then he might grow aggrieved and decide that Wikipedia is not worth the trouble.

At the same, there is no point in repeating three times the same thing, as with {{advert}}, {{pov}} and {{inappropriate tone}} or in using a generic tag, such as {{cleanup-rewrite}}...

So, to summarise, I believe that new articles should only be clearly tagged with the most pressing issues, to allow their creator to work on them without overwhelming him.


General comments

  • Links for Salvio giuliano: Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Salvio giuliano can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Thought he was one already. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support He should be doing a very good job! Now having many different user groups make's me think like the user has even more potential. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support deleted contribs show that the admins agree with the candidates nominations. Hsa done account creating and a little of other loggable items. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Much too valuable as a page patroller to give him the mop. Almost never makes mistakes at UAA, great social skills in dealing with other patrollers and admins, and ... oh wait. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Well-qualified; will make an extremely valuable addition to the administrative corps.--Hokeman (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I Can't See Why Not Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Top quality contributor, with a very collegial approach and a great temperament -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seen him around a lot. He and Mean as Custard took over my little niche of userpage spam and cost me a lot of edit count... Good spread of editing areas, and accurate tagging. Mind you, I do agree with Dank that perhaps we should keep him in patrolling... Peridon (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Tiderolls 14:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I only have to look at who the nominator is to make this decision. WSC is an editor that I have quite a bit of respect for and I have yet to disagree with. (The candidate's contributions look good, as well). Strikerforce (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I have only really ever observed Salvio as a trainee ArbCom Clerk, but I have noticed that he does a fine job there. I am satisfied enough by Dank and WSC's observations in other areas of the project to support. NW (Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - No issues here. Great editor. Orphan Wiki 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Well-qualified. Swarm X 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support For some reason I seem never to have come across him; which could be good at least as easily as bad. But looking at his contributions, over a wide sweep of the project,he reveals a high level of competence and skill. Will be a good admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This is an easy one. Minimac (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support If there's a reason not to give him the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I see no issues here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Good candidate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support He deserves it. WayneSlam 18:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Clearly well-qualified and clueful. WSC's concise nomination statement puts it well. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. This is an easy one for me. I hate to fall into that cliché, but I really did think he was one already! Just to be sure of my !vote, I checked some of his comments at the talk page of a now-departed user, and no red flags whatsoever. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. What took you so long? --FormerIP (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Absolutely. I have seen SG do excellent NPP work and think he's very much cut out for administrator duties. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Knows his way around. Contribs show he can discuss controversial issues sensibly :) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Of course. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support All looks good here, a scan of talk page discussions show an editor who has a clear, concise manner. WormTT · (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Trustworthy user, excellent work. Thought he was one already. Connormah (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Great answer to my question, I hope you keep those ideals at heart when you become an admin. Best of luck with the tools! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support About darn time. Courcelles 21:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Obviously. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. My gut tells me no, but I don't know why. My brain tells me yes, so I'm going with that because it's backed up with the evidence of solid editing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. NW (Talk) 04:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Without reservation; a solid candidate. ceranthor 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support No concerns with you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I've been aware of Salvio for some 12 months now, and as someone else who was involved in that particular long-running dispute, I remember vividly what he describes in his answer to Question 3. I have never known him to come across as anything other than reasonable, polite, and - with reference to the egregious user misconduct to which the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic has been subjected in the past - able to demonstrate endless patience and coolness under fire. It's a full endorsement from me. SuperMarioMan 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Bejinhan talks 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Could have run for office a lot sooner. Everything fine, broad experience, clean content work, and a well balanced pie chart on a high edit count of the right kind. Meets my criteria. Kudpung (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add that I'm very impressed with the answer to Q5 (NPP). Demonstrates even more that the candidate has an excellent grasp of critical meta issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: seems like a solid Wikipedian to me and one who will do good work as an admin. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No concerns and meets my criteria Pol430 talk to me 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. He's an admin already, so allowing him to mash the buttons himself makes sense. This request is just housekeeping, really! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support From observation an impressively responsible editor...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I haven't seen anything worrying in the user's contribs. So far as I can see, he has good judgement and is civil and friendly. All in all, an excellent candidate. — Oli OR Pyfan! 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes Tommy! 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Username work. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I saw his contribs and nothing where I could scream "wait". He conforms to the norm in my oppinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Fine candidate. —DoRD (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support You're not an admin already? I'm honestly surprised. I also agree wholeheartedly with your response to Q4, a query as posed by User:Coffee. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak support—I"m not sure why, but I can relate to My76Strat's oppose here. Nevertheless, I've seen nothing but good stuff from him and, barring my unsubstantial qualm, I don't see why not. Airplaneman ✈ 18:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support – Easy decision. —mc10 (t/c) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Can't see any issues CalumH93|talk 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No red flags. --Banana (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Knowledgeable user, with good history and great project-centred work (UAA, ACC etc). Has my full trust and support. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:37pm • 09:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Give the man a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per review of contributions, as well as having many a time seen his contributions in article histories. --joe deckertalk to me 14:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Salvio is a trustworthy, experienced editor. AGK [•] 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. No brainer support. In bocca al lupo! --Quartermaster (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Worked with him as a clerk - excellent chap. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Certo I've always seen Salvio as a clueful, experienced editor who would be a good admin. Oh, and I'm half-Italian, so I feel also somewhat morally obligated to support him ;-) Regards SoWhy 15:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - like many others, I thought he was an admin already; a polite, reasoned and dedicated contributor, no reason to oppose. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - a clueful editor with a good editing history. No concerns here. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. After reviewing his contribution I think he will make a great admin--Shrike (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Clean block long, intelligent discussion of New Page Patrol, seems like a good dude. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Seems like a good candidate. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Hell yes, finally, oh my god why didn't this happen sooner, [insert tons more of exclamations here] support! Salvio is incredibly clueful, knows what he's doing, does things right, is courteous, patient and kind! He was one of the first people to interact with me on-wiki and cleared up so many points of confusion. Since then, I have witnessed him do the same for others as well as participate in areas such as the deletion process and UAA. He also exemplifies the ideal of assuming good faith while still getting the job done. Salvio would definitely make good use of the tools and I'm surprised this didn't come earlier! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - certamente. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support No doubts here. :) Steven Walling 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I only recall one interaction; I made one of my apparently "unclear" statements, yet he had enough clue to figure out exactly what it was I'd said even then. I'm getting the impression that wasn't a one-off. Of course, you know the conduct and judgement expected of admins, and if you're willing to abide by those standards, there's only one way to vote - Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - this user not only understands Wikipedia policy, but also understands what Wikipedia needs to continue to succeed into the future. He is the type of user we need representing Wikipedia as an administrator. Kansan (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Yes, Salvio is a good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Adminiship is no big deal and this guy is not going to put goatse on the Main Page. Why say no? Egg Centric 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, why not? Strikerforce (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Note: Removed by Strikerforce as a duplicate of #11 above. —DoRD (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I think that Salvio would be a fine admin. bobrayner (talk)
  78. Support. Salvio has the temperament, the level-headedness and the clue required to become an admin. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Checking through contribs, I can find no concern - but I do see excellent demonstration of Wiki-knowledge, and evidence of collegiate friendly discussion. Looks like a great candidate.  Chzz  ►  18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support —SW— express 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Time to dole out another mop  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support We've had a quite a few problems at WP:UAA with overly gung-ho users making unfounded reports and demanding blocks for imaginary or extremely minor infractions. Salvio has been a voice of reason over there and was one of the few of the short lived "clerks" we had there who actually helped things rather than aggravating them. His demeanor and understanding of the subtleties of our policies, along with an ability to use common sense make him an ideal candidate. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, but would like to see more content creation. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support The candidate's remarks about biographies of living people and new page patrolling are insightful and perceptive enough to convince me that this is someone who will exercise the administrative powers wisely. Speaking as an editor whose main efforts are devoted toward content creation, it would be nice to see more in that area. However, I agree that translating a major article from Italian qualifies as a useful content contribution to the English Wikipedia. That's enough for me. Thank you, Salvio giuliano, for the work you've done here. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, per Cullen28.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 02:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Solid. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - level headed editor. Would make an excellent admin.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - remains calm and composed even in the face of adversity, clueful. MLauba (Talk) 10:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Contributions are consistently high in quality. I've not seen his name pop up as a source of problems. His research has been spot-on and timely. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Well qualified. And he's a WikiGryphon! -- Ϫ 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Seems well qualified. - Haymaker (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support What else? Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support No problems whatsoever, is active enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Solid collaborator, no red flags, will be particularly helpful in this role. Pleased to support. Townlake (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Wanted to be #100, but it's nearly 2AM where I live, so #99 will have to do. I've seen nothing but good from Salvio, and he'll make a fine admin. --Dylan620 (t • c) 05:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Sweet, I get to be #100. I think this is a first for me. And this guy is an obvious shoe-in for the administrative toolset. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Seems a great candidate Jebus989✰ 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support because you are one of the best. —Soap— 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. No joke. Jujutacular talk 03:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Risker (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I've only had good interactions with Salvio. Responsible editor and deserving of the mop. – SMasters (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support He has a good investigative eye, among other things. —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Why not? Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. I see no issue. I hope as an admin, he would act fairly, proportionately, and without bias. --Kaaveh (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support' Couldn't find anything that would make me doubt his abilities, best of luck :)  Rmzadeh  ►  05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Of course, without any doubt the mop would be in good use. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose My gut tells me yes, this is my nature. My brain tells me no, which I will follow based on observations. (Moved to depart this RfA) My76Strat (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you share a couple of these observations with the rest of us? NW (Talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be interested in your observations that pushed you to land here. Connormah (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do tell. Jessy T/C 00:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to expand this sentiment if Salvio giuliano requests clarification. Absent such a request, I prefer to let the sentiment stand as is. No intention to disrespect the queries of my fine colleagues above. And I'll gladly expand after this RfA closes, if interest remains. But I am satisfied holding this oppose for the reasons I have known, without appearing to solicit additional opposes. I fell better for each participant to reach their own best conclusion. I hope this sounds reasonable. My76Strat (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be satisfied by by the reasons you gave, but I highly doubt that a bureaucrat would be. If you want your !vote to be taken seriously, I would recommend giving your full reasoning now, regardless of whether Salvio asks for it. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where your coming from 76, but i do respectfully disagree and believe an explanation should be given. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's only fair to Salvio giuliano. A candidate should always know reasons for oppose votes. It may be something he can work on in the future. Orphan Wiki 15:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's only fair to My76Strat if you all stop badgering. If Salvio wants to know, he will ask. A bureaucrat doesn't need five other users telling him/her what !votes should be "taken seriously". It would be best if you let Salvio handle this, as the only thing it's costing him currently is a unanimous WP:100 finish. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fetchcomms for that supportive comment. I can only reiterate my desire not to offend the genuine interest of my colleagues. For that matter, if you strongly feel I should elaborate, use your energy to convince Salvio to request a clarification. Then it will be shown here. Otherwise I am fine no matter how the suggestion is interpreted at close. So long as Salvio knows that a significant obstacle exists between his candidacy, and my ability to support. Certainly there's no danger of the closing bureaucrat counting my suggestion as support. My76Strat (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people do this before and it is utterly silly. Why would any candidate actively choose to beg you to turn this oppose (which is currently meaningless, and would be effectively ignored by the closing crat) into something that could actually hurt his chances at a successful RfA? You'd be better off remaining silent than conditioning your oppose on whether or not the candidate wants to beg you for the reason. Although it may not be your intention, this screams to me as a ploy to simply get attention. Did you really think everyone would accept your oppose rationale without comments or questions? —SW— spill the beans 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that was not my intention, In fact I wish for the most part you had just accepted my position. Good luck Salvio, I think you'll be a fine admin, I simply can not support. Sorry. My76Strat (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Insufficient content. The author has almost no demonstrated content creation on English Wikipedia. The article that he touts in his RFA statement is entirely from a single source, a translation from Italian Wikipedia, and still has an untranslated Italian phrase in one of the section headers.TCO (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pubblico Ministero"? I'm pretty sure that's intentional. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Giudizio direttissimo". TCO (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Yes, that needs a translation. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wish to argue on the insufficient content creation part of your rationale, because I freely admit that my content creation is limited. However, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure is not merely a translation from the article on it.wiki, but it comes from an explanation I gave on the the MoMK's talk page, to counter allegations that Italy had a medieval legal system. It's been wikified and expanded since then, but it's still not a translation.

    As far as giudizio direttissimo is concerned, you're right too, but that's a technical expression which has no direct English counterpart. That's why I didn't provide a translation. It's just like when you find in the header of an article a latin expression or the English word "trust" — when the article is written in a foreign language —. Direttissimo, literally, means extremely fast, so it could be translated as very fast trial, but I chose not to do it, because I felt it could be perceived as somewhat macaronic. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I still disagree. Even if there is no literal translation (accurate), there is still likely a translation. At least a close one (you could then put a note and explain the subtlety).As far as the translation, it's tagged as a translation and still shows signs of incomplete translation.

    And all this aside, a couple words of Italian was not my main beef. It's the lack of real content creation here. That piece is all from one source (like the people who summarize a website, you have summarized a trial procedure manual). Where are the references to law review or books talking about the subject? What we do here, generally, is to assemble articles from multiple sources. If you can't or won't do that, then you're not showing editorial ability. For that matter, within that topic, why is there no discussion of the evolution (over time) of the practice, or a comparison to major other practices in other countries? All we have is this summary of one procedural source with no real context for the topic.

    You have NOT demonstrated content creation ability in English. That's my minimum bar for a support. If you are a thoughtful person, show me article creation, here on en-Wiki. I want to see it from native-speakers, I DEFINITELY want to see it from a non-native speaker. If you are a smart lawyer or whatever, this should be easy. TCO (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Translating a mammoth article that requires far more than just a conversational command of language, requires great skill. Such skills demonstrate competency, maturity, and a detailed approach to the kind of of content work we do here. We need more admins with such skills, but it's certainly not the only reason for my strong support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree: to say that translating an article into English is not "content creation" is to underestimate the amount of time and work translation requires - translators not only have to write the entire article essentially from scratch as any other contributor would, but also have consider issues such as untranslatability, cultural adaptation, finding and verifying alternate-language sources, all while keeping in mind various translation issues... it's a very complicated process, and I feel Salvio's contributions in this regard have added real value to the project, and demonstrate the ability of an intelligent, reasoned and capable editor, hence my support above. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with these guys. I've created all of one article, which was a translation of a Spanish WP article, and even though I've been speaking Spanish since I was a small child and English is my lingua franca, it was harder than substantially expanding an article. It's a lot of effort, something I hold in high regard. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not think that it is appropriate for an editor with so little evidence of content creation to be to become an admin. There is also considerable concern over the balance of the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' page and an having an administrator who overtly supports one side of the argument is not a good idea. Neutral editors are vital for the reputation and balance of Wikipedia and I would prefer caution if there are any question marks about a candidate. NigelPScott (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — NigelPScott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  3. I completely agree with NigelPScott! This editor is far too biased to serve as an administrator. Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality would suffer with this editor as an administrator.Turningpointe (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Turningpointe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If Salvio giuliano has a point of view on the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and has actively edited that article, then all that is necessary is for Salvio to avoid administrative action on that article and related articles. These comments in opposition seem pretty weak to me. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bitter, much? How miserably pathetic, petty and desperate. As far as I am concerned, the above two "votes" can be discounted for the attention-seeking, pointed attempts at innuendo that they really are. For NigelPScott and Turningpointe - two editors with far more blatant agenda of their own at the aforementioned topic - to complain about "bias" seems to me to be little more than a childish joke. SuperMarioMan 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Seems okay, but content creation is lacking. Has gotten into an argument with an editor not interested at resolving an issue, a plus—knows what that looks and feels like—but is probably naive in thinking Wikipedia supports content additions. Lambanog (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Cannot in good faith support the candidate due to what I consider to be a poor answer regarding new page patrolling. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2011 (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.