Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cjmarsicano

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

[edit] Cjmarsicano

Don't bother for now. I wish to withdraw my nomination for the time being (unless someone other than the nominator wishes to talk me out of it within the next 24 hours). Thank you for your support (or lack thereof, as it may be). --CJ Marsicano 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Final (early) (1/13/2) ended (early) at 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC); original closing time at 18:09 January 12, 2006 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano (talk • contribs) – Cjmarsicano has been a user since May 2005 and has been mainly active in the music section writing many good articles. Currently C.J. has over 3,000 edits. From my dealings with him, he has been trying to find managable and practical solution for problems. C.J. has experience in both online journalism and local politics and has started to venture beyond article writing and more towards administrative tasks. In short I think that C.J. would make a fine administrator. KittenKlub 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I wholeheartedly accept! :) --CJ Marsicano -- 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (See above. Sorry.)

Support

1. Support as nominator. KittenKlub 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The first time I heard of him was a few days ago during the userbox debate and he came off as rude and abrasive. Had to be reminded by at least two admins to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Carbonite | Talk 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   I was p.o.'d, alright (and I had a right to be), but I wasn't as bad as many of the other participants in the protest. --CJ Marsicano 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose, based upon this edit, which demonstrates to me that the user does not understand the role of Wikipedia policy and thinks that Wikipedia works by voting. Edit summary use is very poor, and responses to questions below do not inspire confidence. Jkelly 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but "discuss to the point of consensus" doesn't seem to get to the point as much as "vote" =). — TheKMan^talk 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   Huh? What does my edit count (and the fact that I very recently updated it) have to do with voting?!??! --CJ Marsicano 06:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm concerned with several things: (1) Edit summaries; I tend to prefer voting for those who have a large percentage of usage; (2) Your weak answer to generic question #1; we have many admins as it is, but I'll accept more if they're willing to do some good hard work, which your answer does not prove to me; (3) Your comments here and the replies of others here; your comments may have been in jest, but sarcasm doesn't always travel well through the internet. — TheKMan^talk 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   I am more than willing to chip in - I should have been clearer in my answer, but I answered at work (I'm still there now, as a matter of fact - I'm on break) and couldn't think of a better answer at the time. Missing edit summaries, I have to apologize for - sh*t happens (I try, though!). And I'm the first to admit that sarcasm doesn't always come across well online - but that's just as much a fault of the recipient as the messenger, and you don't shoot the messenger. --CJ Marsicano 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

5. We don't hand out mops to people with defective buckets. --Michael Snow 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   My bucket doesn't have a hole in it - I inspect my tools before I use them. ;) --CJ Marsicano 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Although I actually think he's correct about the fair use issue (come on: does anyone really think that sports teams are going to sue Wikipedia over "This user is a [foo] fan" userboxes containing logos?) the abrasive manner in which he has interacted with other contributors raises some concerns about his ability to handle the important dispute-resolution aspect of adminship. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   The question of whether a rightsholder would actually sue is not what determines whether something is fair use. --Michael Snow 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Not yet. --King of All the Franks 23:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I'm not impressed by the answers to the questions; I agree that this user has been confrontational during the userbox debate, and failure to understand why fair use images can't be put on user pages is a serious deficiency in someone who should be expected to help our copyright issues. David | Talk 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. --Kin Khan 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Blase answers to the questions, rude attitude to other users. Blnguyen 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Edit summaries and above comments. Olorin28 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Poor use of edit summaries, basically not answerings Question #1 below. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry for not knowing where in the heck to start, given the laundry list of options admins have. --CJ Marsicano 05:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose for his response to other users' opposition. Instead of being accepting and polite, he is being childish and confrontational to the point of not conceding points of arguments by coming up with excuses for his behavior. This leads me to suspect that he might abuse admin powers to win arguments, and the suspicion of that leads me to oppose. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

    I would far from abuse my powers, kind sir. One of the reasons I was interested in becoming an admin (until I withdrew, for now, my acceptance) was I didn't like what I saw as other people abusing their powers, or the idea thereof. Your suspicions are incorrect. --CJ Marsicano 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

    This is the message he left on my talk page regarding my vote, and my subsequent response:

    ^{Copied from my talk page}

    Regarding your comments at my now-withdrawn nomination... you don't know me, so with all due respect, given the scope of your comments it is rather painfully obvious that you have no clue as to what my intentions would be as an admin. I'm 38 years old, rather intelligent, and honestly cannot see where you get the "childish" false impression of me. I chose to withdraw my nomination early this time around rather than wait around to get opposed out of hand. --CJ Marsicano 06:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

    This is exactly what I said:

    Oppose for his response to other users' opposition. Instead of being accepting and polite, he is being childish and confrontational to the point of not conceding points of arguments by coming up with excuses for his behavior. This leads me to suspect that he might abuse admin powers to win arguments, and the suspicion of that leads me to oppose. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

    I never questioned your intellect or your age (although I'm not sure why being young would be an insult). The comment in question is this one:

    I was p.o.'d, alright (and I had a right to be), but I wasn't as bad as many of the other participants in the protest. --CJ Marsicano 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

    Instead of apologizing for your actions (since you clearly realize you did something wrong), you consider yourself excused because you were p.o.'d (something you do have a right to be, but not a quality I like to see in adminstrators expressed on Wikipedia since their duties require them to pacify instead of battle). The fact that you held yourself to a standard relative only to those with whom you argued instead of by abiding by WP:CIV is childish and immature by my standards. Thanks for responding, though. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. As for the first oppose, I honestly can't see how that edit (updating user's own edit count) means he thinks Wikipedia works by voting. But per the low usage of edit summaries I hesitate to support this user. — JIP | Talk 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   I think the reference is to the second part of the edit, where Cjmarsicano added the "user will vote to allow fair use images in userboxes" userbox. David | Talk 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral because I don't oppose nominations. I've only had negative experiences with this user (though that is only circumstantial evidence). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 05:58

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 23% for major edits and 32% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Interesting attitude. --Michael Snow 03:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Whatever items I could help out with.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. The Mike Watt and W (Double You) biographies and many of my WP:ALBUM articles, especially for the one I'm trying to get feature status for, Johnny Thunders' L.A.M.F..

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. There's been a couple, but they've long become water under the bridge to me now. I've dealt with them the best way I know how - with Carlin-esque humor.

--CJ Marsicano, 17:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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.