Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CesarB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] CesarB

final (24/1/0) ending 01:52 2 June 2005 (UTC)

I have been here since about February 2003, but only started editing one year later, after I felt I knew enough to avoid making mistakes (that even confused another user a little bit). Now, another year later (plus a few months), I feel I am ready for the responsability of being a Wikipedia administrator.

I still feel I have to improve in some areas; I'm not good at creating new articles, I feel I might not be bold enough, and I became concerned lately I might have been abusing the minor tag a bit (specifically when adding/removing categories). I think none of these would cause problems with the extra admin abilities.

--cesarb 01:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. SqueakBox 02:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC), no problem, intelligent helpful user, good at mediating
  2. SUPPORT. User can admit mistakes and learn from them. Kingturtle 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support he seems like an excelent user who learns from his mistakes, though an admin needs to be bold. Overall a support. Howabout1 03:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 04:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. While I would have expected more edits over a year, Cesar has done some good work and looks to know what an admin should attempt to do. Harro5 04:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good user. Sjakkalle 06:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. I've seen him around RC patrol as well as *fD and policy discussions. Good work! FreplySpang (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Phils 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. Cool. JuntungWu 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. --Sn0wflake 03:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I admire this user's abilty to think before he acts, and admire the ability of someone to wait a year before making an edit. Just don't take that long to delete nonsense on RC patrol! Harro5 09:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't wait an year before making any edits — if you look you can see some minor edits before that time. And didn't you vote already? --cesarb 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I like what I'm seeing here. A good amount of edits is nice, but I'm really liking your ability to admit when you're wrong (as you said yourself with the bad faith). Admins must be able to realize that they're human and that they make mistakes. You've got my vote. PS: Use Gentoo! ;-) Linuxbeak | Desk 03:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm already planning on switching to Gentoo when I get more free time and a faster box ;-) --cesarb 11:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support; he's been very helpful on RC patrol, where I have noticed him most; mature and civil attitude. Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Very experienced user: excellent contributions in general, plenty of janitorial and behind-the-scenes work. Active against vandals. — Gwalla | Talk 05:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Looks like a good bet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good and reasonable contributor. Oleg Alexandrov 20:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Appears to be a good user who thinks before he acts. Hedley 17:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Seems to be clearheaded and capable of admitting his (not dangerously frequent) mistakes. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. That's the worst wrong assumption of bad faith you've made? And you're willing to admit the un-dashing shortcoming of not being bold enough, and you're a selfnom? I want to have your baby! Bishonen | talk 11:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. And some extra support for being a Debian user. utcursch | talk 13:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Even one who just said above he is planning to switch to Gentoo? ☺ --cesarb 23:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. CryptoDerk 23:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support – always seems to be doing good work. violet/riga (t) 00:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Sam Hocevar 13:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. [1] This diff, CesarB needs to learn what Wikipedia:Patent nonsense is not as defined in that article before assigning an article to Pol Pot. When he has a better grasp on the definition of nonsense and vandalism he should come back and try again.
    The comment above by 64.62.161.12 (talk · contribs), who is a reincarnation of banned user BeBop (talk · contribs) [2]. And I did reread the Wikipedia:Patent nonsense definitions after you said it wasn't, and I still think the second paragraph was nonsense and the first paragraph didn't give any context that could help me understand what it was all about; so, I believe I was on the right tagging it as nonsense. --cesarb 15:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    Don't worry. First off, as a banned user, he is shunned from the Wikipedia community and everything he says is ignored. Second, he didn't sign his vote, meaning the vote doesn't count. Third, as an anonymous user, he's not allowed to vote in RfA anyway. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • That article was written in plain english. It was silly, but plain english. If you cant understand that maybe your just stupid, another fine reason to not consider you for admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.161.12 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 May 2005
    • LinuxGeak; "Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. What is important is not your name, but whether your contribution and voting is in good faith." My good faith is a matter for other editors before they cast their vote and for bureaucrats at the end of the vote. Not YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.161.12 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 May 2005
    Try again. I'm getting snippy here, but do your homework before you say something that is false.
Voting
To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. All Wikipedians with an account are welcome to vote.

--from RfA main page.

Oh, yeah. A silly article is patent nonsense. Calling people stupid is also called trolling. If you do not stop, I will open an RFC against you. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • CesarB currently has 2726 edits. First edit Feb 13, 2003, regular editing began Jun 21, 2004. No big ghosts in his user talk closet. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:17, May 26, 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 mostly interested in cleanup; being able to delete articles from the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, close VfD discussions (I know I can close them already, but I don't feel right closing them except on the most non-controversial cases while not being an admin), and handle more complex moves (like moves over a redirect with minor history and merging page histories) would be useful.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not made many major contributions, and only created 3 articles on all this time (I do believe this is my weakest point, and I'm working to improve it). Of these, the one I like the most is Advanced Simulation and Computing Program.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. My greatest blunder on Wikipedia was to assume bad faith on the part of User:Pioneer-12 on the List of incidents famously considered great blunders VfD. After I found out I was wrong, I apologized and I believe I learned the lesson. My second greatest blunder was creating Category:Dewey Decimal Classification, while I was still a newbie (I asked for its deletion about an year later). Since I am always ready to admit I could be wrong, I manage to avoid being stressed most of the time.