Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Casito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Casito

Vote here (10/5/3) ending 05:26 31 August 2005 (UTC) Casito (talk · contribs) - Cassito is very hepful he helped me learn how to archive my pages and he also edits a lot and he should be an admin I think for his help on here thank you good afternoon--Wiki brah 05:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am honored to accept this nomination. My friend, Brian0918 was going to nominate me when I hit 2000 edits, but I guess I am nearly there. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support been around a looooooooooooong time --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian (t) (c) 18:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support - meets my standards. Just because he won't be able to allocate as much time to the project doesn't mean he'll stop. He looks a responsible user and won't use his powers badly if slightly more infrequntly. No reason in my mind to oppose. Good luck! --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support - D. J. Bracey (talk) Image:St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, good candidate. The nominator's newness should not reflect on him, and he has both the number of edits and the time here required by most people's standards.-gadfium 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 20:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-26 23:15
  8. Support His answers are well considered and have the ring of truth. Hamster Sandwich 09:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, no reason to oppose. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:57, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm having a hard time finding any reason to oppose. Limited involvement once school starts should not be held against you. There are over 400+ admins, most of them active. If you can only come on once in a while, that's fine. Wikipedia will not lose anything if this user becames an admin.Acetic Acid (talk) 14:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Andre (talk) 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose reluctantly. I think this nominee's heart is in the right place and is a good candidate except...more than 60% of the nominee's edits were done on 10 days. 10. Ok, maybe he is contributing huge amounts in single edits. That's certainly possible. There's also the note below in his answer to question 1 where he says he available time to work on Wikipedia will go down as he starts grad school. I have real concerns about a lack of day to day, week to week involvement in Wikipedia that he would most likely have as an admin. I would like to see the nominee clarify just what his level of commitment to being an admin is, and whether he truly thinks he will have time to wield the mop. If adequate explanations are forthcoming, I would consider changing my vote. --Durin 18:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    Explanations
    1. The huge number of edits over the ten day period were mainly from a catagorization project. I submit that, even without them, my edit history is substantial enough to merit my adminship.
    2. At this point I do not know how much my education will effect my Wikipedia involvement. It may not effect it it all, or it may be significant; I just don't know. It would have been dishonest, however, for me not to report this possibility. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Good explanations. At this point, I think it would be better for you to understand the impact grad school will have on your available wiki-time before becoming an admin. As such, I retain my vote as oppose, for now. --Durin 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I don't do rigid guidelines on RfA, and I prefer quality over the various quantities. But there isn't enough experience in Wikipedia: space and Talk: space and the like, and given the length of time that's really not so many edits — the graph also shows rather sporadic participation. And while we have the rather unfortunate nominations process, the nominator might give some consideration to offering that kind of nomination — although it is not among the reasons for my opposition. -Splash 21:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    If you could, could you explain the last sentence? It don't understand it... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, only just saw this. I mean that the nomination statement doesn't make this sound like a serious nomination, but that, when voting on RfA I make my own mind up. Nevertheless, the nominator's off-colour behaviour and off-center nomination rather clouded my view of this a priori. -Splash 13:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, agreeing with the above. Lack of experience in Wikispace. Radiant_>|< 07:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, the second edit of his which I checked was an error (marked as minor) which I had to fix: compare his diff and my diff. If it wasn't made by an admin nominee, I'd be thinking about issuing a vandalism warning. Three isn't two! Uncle Ed 01:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're opposing because he miscounted and changed a couple words? Are you serious???? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-30 04:23
    • So, I made a mistake. I've probably made many more, and so have you. I had added wave drag to the list of types of drag, then I saw it below, and forgot to fix the numbering. It pains me to say it, but this was obviously a mistake; issuing a valdal warning for it would have been extremely overzealous; doing so while neglecting my long history of good edits to articles would have shown bad faith. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Will support when Casito accepts. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutral as of now. Share concerns of Durin. Would definitely support if Casito demonstrated that his edits can be in a variety of topics, thereby connoting that he'll keep his eyes on a variety of topics once an admin. – Friejose 13:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral ditto. --Chris S. 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Same as other neutral votes; that's all that needs to be said. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Um firstly is this a joke? The nominator on his user page has many articles he has written that were put up for votes for deletion and/or speedy deletion. Not to mention templates for deletion. The nominator is also a recent vandal having warnings dated August 14 at earliest. The nominator is too sketchy for me to give complete support. Jobe6 04:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what Wiki brah's intentions were in nominating me. I only spoke with him once, and I agree that some of his edits were dubious. I considered declining on those grounds, but since I was planning to make a serious run in the comming weeks, it would have really hurt his feelings (and appeared a bit suspect) if I had turned down his nomination only to accept an other a few weeks later. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: Image:Casito-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 18:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Question I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no hard and fast rule, but WP:CON describes some rules of thumb for telling if a consensus is reached. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 21:06, 25 August 2005 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I am mainly interested in dealing with new pages. When I find time, I watch Special:Newpages and improve pages I believe were created by new users. As an admin, I will be able to delete the spam and nonsence which is always cropping up. Furthermore, If I become an admin, I plan to follow CAT:CSD. Also, I will probably pay attention to current backlogs. Lastly, I want to be able to help users who have problems. At least twice, users have assumed (based on my time here and contributions) that I was an admin and wanted my intervention. It was painfull to tell them that I couldn't help. I should probably disclose that I am starting graduate school, so I won't have as much time to work on Wikipedia as I have in the past.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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. Deconstruction is a topic that only specialists (not me) really know a lot about. Unfortunatly, this tends to narrow the POV. I have been debating with its primary editors for some time, and I have grown tremendiously as a result. I was initially a bit coarse, but I quickly learned that that there was a better way. I am most proud that the discussion has remained polite and civil while there is still strong disagreement. In a different incident, I was recently caused a great deal of stress by a user who made repeated personal attacks against me, and other users who eventually took him to arbitration. I tried my best to ignore him and focus on copyediting and adding content. Becomming an admin really won't change my stand on edit conflicts. I would never use admin powers agains a user who had a genuine difference of opinion. On the other hand, I would not shy away from dealing with obvious vandals and trolls, especially when an other user asked for my help.