Meta:Requests for adminship/Ruy Pugliesi

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Results: 30/10/01 - Successful

After having discussed this with other bureaucrats, it has been determined that there is consensus to promote at this time. It can be argued that this RfA was plagued with canvassing, and that it inevitably affected the outcome. Evidence of such can be found here. As such, many of the canvassed votes were taken with less emphasis. Additionally, going off the precedent of Meta:Requests for adminship/Beria, this RfA has reached the threshold for promotion.

It should be noted that there is no evidence that Ruy Pugliesi engaged in any of the canvassing, but instead users from a single project. This type of behavior on their part is unacceptable and disruptive, and could result in them being banned from partaking in future RfAs on meta.

On a personal note, I suggest that Ruy Pugliesi take the points raised in the opposition into account when preforming administration actions and wish him the best of luck. Tiptoety ^talk 23:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Pugliesi edit

Ruy Pugliesi (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Scheduled to end: July 3, 20:20 UTC

Hi fellows! Today I'm here to nominate another good user for adminship here on meta. Ruy is a quite active user on meta with several deletion requests and many vandalism reverts. He is a sysop on ptwiki and therefore qualifies for adminship, he is also a global rollbacker. He has already been a temporary admin here a few times. I think all this shows that he is trustworthy enough. We would surely benefit from him having the mop. I hope you agree with me. Good luck! -Barras 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. Thank you for trusting me.

Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 20:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As nom. -Barras 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman 20:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator :) micki t 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no concerns here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if I am the only one. Responsible for making massive changes in categories affecting to the bureaucrats' and stewards' work & organization without even asking or giving a single note to the community or the affected users if we agreed or not. When asked to stop on IRC & follow the regular process, he ignored and continued with his controversial recategorizations. I find that behaviour completly not compatible with the role of an administrator. I'm also quite shocked that Ruy Pugliesi has been granted in the past temporary adminship and flood flag completly out of process. I just can not support anybody that just don't care about asking first if anybody objects to proposed potentially controversial changes. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 06:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category changes were not controversial, Dferg. I have only splitted some of them, in order to make the steward requests archives and metawiki requests for permissions archives more usable and organized. If it was controversial, I would discuss that with local community before, for sure. When you asked me that on irc, the re-categorisation I did was already completed, sorry. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As his flag was granted by me, I would like to know something: Which of his changes have been wrong? Have you, or anyone reverted them? We had enough others with temporary flag with lesser work. And as I can remember, you didn´t say anything about that at that moment on IRC. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You remember bad because I protested there. May I see otherwise the consensus regarding granting temporary adminship and flood without any formal request to make hundreds of changes? May I see a single note on-wiki regarding those recategorizations? I don't think meta nor any project should work that way. As my time is still a bit limited I've not reverted anything —and quite pointless & unpolite to start a revert-war—, but as Ruy recognizes above I protested in IRC about those changes yet he didn't stopped. In few days I'll probably be back to full avalaibility and therefore I'll start a discussion regarding those un-consulted changes; discussion that I was going to open sooner or later when my time allowed it. I just try to follow policy and if I find or think others are not doing so, I think that I have a right to raise the issue, as I've done in the past. Best regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have the right to raise the issue. You also have the tool to remove the flag if needed. So if I was wrong, or if I am wrong just do it next time or now. Policies are fine but what about common sense? Are we that kind bureaucratic that we can´t even trust each other? I´m still following that adminship is not a big deal. I still can´t see anything wrong in his edits, or any kind of vandalism. I think that someone who don´t agree will have reverted them untill today, someone with more time. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
«You also have the tool to remove the flag [...]» I'm shocked. Policy is policy and it does no harm following it. And yes, I'd have removed those temporary flags if I was there when those was granted/removed twice, but when I arrived the changes were already done so I have nothing to do but complain. If following policy and courtesy to the community is now considered detrimental then we should consider which course this project is now following. As this thread ends nowhere I'm stopping it here. Best, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dferg --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dferg too -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 07:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - GR ok, admin no... Sorry. Leandro Martinez msg 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ruy Pugliesi does good work here with fighting vandalism, though it would have been nice if he first discussed it with the community before changing the cats as Dferg said (I didn't know it was controversial btw). ~~So, a neutral vote for now.~~ Changed it to a support; judging his edits, he will do well as sysop here. Trijnstel 09:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. --WizardOfOz ^talk 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having read the comments, I'm of the opinion that the changes Ruy Pugliesi performed were not that problematic, and may even make things easier. Perhaps the way it was handled could have been better. Nevertheless, I wouldn't oppose him because of them, and he's done much good work here. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, per Dferg, Sorry! Vibhijain 09:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. Matanya 10:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter. Ruy is a good vandal fighter, and will do well as an admin. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, A good Vandal Fighter, I shall suggest others to review their Decision.--Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dəstəkləyirəm və uğurlar arzu edirəm! Onun gördüyü işləri çox yüksək qiymətləndirirəm! --Cekli829 06:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dferg. Concerns with judgement. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm trusting Barras and WizardOfOz ... a×p_de ^Hello! 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per PeterSymonds and Barras. Mathonius 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know Ruy through my work in the SWMT and I know that he is trustworthy. The support of editors like PeterSymonds and Barras (people I hold in high esteem) only solidifies my opinion. Regards, MacMed (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above, especially PeterSymonds.--Darwinius 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support PeterSymonds' thoughts echo my own. Courcelles 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only interest of this user is accumulating new statutes have no other concern. And he is still involved in this problem is not explained. GRS73 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New reason for opposing: [1] and [2]. GRS73 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is going pretty far out on a limb, suggesting that Ruy "gave" that user rollback for supporting him. Not even people on enwiki assume bad faith that much. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rights log (The user have one day of editions in pt.wiki...) Leandro Martinez msg 01:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MacMed. I agreed with you. MacMed just asked me today for rollbacker right on irc. According to our local policy, the rollback feature is granted at administrators' discretion to experienced vandal fighters. I've checked MacMed's contributions and have only found positive edits such vandalisms reverts. He can confirm everything here if you want and I also could release the logs from irc if he agrees. Best, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second user's own Pugliesi you made a request out of the Wiki-pt. According to the rules for allocating the user has to be reliable and have a history of vandalism and fighting in the specific case this user has editions in 50 Wiki-pt. Sorry my english. GRS73 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had been talking to Ruy on the #cvn-sw IRC channel, and I joined the #cvn-wp-pt channel to help out. I performed ~40 reverts or so, then asked Ruy if I could get rollback since undo was becoming a hassle. He said it was no problem since I am a user trusted on enwiki, commons, and the OTRS team. He didn't "pay" me for support, my support stands and it is for the reasons stated. Regards, MacMed (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you so much on contribution to meta. --Waihorace 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per PeterSymonds. I'm partially agreed with Dferg that maybe it would have been better to ask first then change those categories. However, I don't think that replacing a category to a more specific is controversial. It is just the way they evolve as long as pages are being created and categories are getting full. Guidelines tells us to be bold in cases like this. It is clear to me that no harm was done and it might even be necessary in future. I wouldn't oppose for that anyway. I think we all should consider all his contributions and not only this single issue.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has shown good vandalism fighting abilities on hi wiki. Vibhijain 16:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per PeterSymonds, when the actual changes were occurring and Dferg complained (I think that's fair to say) on the #wikimedia-stewards IRC channel, nobody had any particularly strong objections, if any, and although I didn't say anything at the time, I didn't see anything particularly controversial with the category changes, and PeterSymonds said as much in the channel. The Helpful One 22:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per PeterSymonds. From what I can see, the issue here concerns maintenance work and I don't really see anything that is harmful. As a not-so-active user at meta I look at the contribution and things seem fine. Bencmq 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per PeterSymonds and Teles. Other opposes have nothing to do with his job on Meta, so there's no reason for me to oppose this request. Global rollback, sysop, counter-vandalism team... it seems OK to me. CasteloBranco^msg 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the facts already indicated above by editor GRS73, a serious invasion of privacy in checking accounts not resolved in the Wiki-pt, there's something more interesting to reflection here. Ruy Pugliesi has just given a flag of "reverser" to editor MacMed on Wiki-pt [3] , which HAS ONLY ONE DAY OF REGISTER and there does not participate.[4] The most interesting is that this same editor voted here for granting sysop status to Pugliesi. Is this really that the attitudes of the editor outside Meta, attitudes that show his personality, should be relief? This looks like those FIFA elections... MachoCarioca 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very dedicated and experienced user. Jbribeiro1 09:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per peter Mardetanha ^talk 20:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Does good work here with fighting vandalism, but the above suspicions left me in doubt. --HélioVL ^(discussão) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dferg. Aleposta 13:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PeterSymonds. Toto Azéro ^{follow the guide !} 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per PeterSymonds. Grunny (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds.--Jcaraballo 03:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user has only 7 edits at meta and [5]. Strange and I can say the same for many of the users voting S/O above. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the obvious canvassing happening on this vote is outrageous. Must be blind for not noticing this. Sad, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - sadly it is often the case that people suddenly become interested in Meta when an RfA is around. It is not the first time and will not be the last. In time peace will return and those who actually work here will get on with what they do. Doesn't reflect well on folk though sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about removing all votes or discounting the ones from people who clearly appear to be not regularly active here? It's up to the closing crat which votes he counts or not, but I find this quite suspicious (even as nom). -Barras 09:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, Strange O/S seems to appear in RFA , Closing crat should approach very carefully Mardetanha ^talk 09:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar opinion that was opposed by a few users, it would be better if A policy regarding this can be formed to avoid such conditions in future--Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some fuss in wiki-pt relating to this RfA, with Leandro Martinez (above) linking to it in the project flag log, and GRS73 (above) displaying it at his user page. It is to be expected that some users noticed it there.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it was totally inappropriate, IMO. I agree with Barras, Mardetanha and other comments above. micki t 10:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mh....This canvassing would probably be a reason for me to discount some votes, but since I'm surely not the closing crat, I won't take this decision. It is the second time that this (differently) happens to me when I nominated someone. It becomes quite annoying, really. -Barras 10:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's not up to you. micki t 10:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What i do, i do in the wiki. I don't use irc or chats, and don't ask for votes, or do any type of external influence. And, i'm almost daily at here to apply blocks (results of checkusers made, according to our policy) because we still without local CU's. It's too difficult to me to undertsand why a user with 51 editions at pt.wiki (~ 3800 globally), which don't understand portuguese language and has only one day of editions in pt.wiki receive a magic rollback flag by Ruy. It's not the only user (after this RfA, 4 flags)... Sorry, i assume the good faith of the users but all have a limit. Leandro Martinez msg 10:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But your canvassing linking to this RFA in the userrights log is ok? See this. You are great. Really. I love such people. Canvassing. Great. Wikipedia needs more such users as you. Kindly, -Barras 14:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per PeterSymonds, I've had no issues with Ruy on strategy wiki or Meta. Theo10011 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC) after checking the comments and links above, per Dferg. I would abstain from voting. Theo10011 19:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adminship should be no big deal; a capable and dedicated user, if sometimes controversial. Dferg's concerns are worth noting - I hope Ruy will communicate more carefully about work affecting many people/pages in the future, admin flag or no. –SJ talk | translate 10:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a ptwiki editor and since I am not a frequent user on meta, I don't feel confortable to opine on the this RFA, but I want to explain why many ptwiki users who came here did in good faith. As pointed out by Darwin, this RFA made some fuss on our project. As you might know, ptwiki suffers a lot from internal disputes and its inability to solve them. That said I think many ptwiki users felt compelled to vote here in order to avoid injustices. This is not the first time it happens here, please see Meta:Requests for adminship/Beria. Lechatjaune 17:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dferg and above users --- @lestaty ^discuţie 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 19:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I already said several times i have severe trust issues with that user. But i had decide not to vote, after all is only my personal view. But after see what he did in pt.wiki (see MachoCarioca vote above) i can't not vote here. Béria Lima ^msg 20:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.