Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carlossuarez46

(57/3/0) final Andre (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) - I first edited in 2003, but I have been an active editor since the latter part of 2005. In that period of time, I have created and edited numerous articles mostly in the realm of ancient history and geography, participated in Afd's and Cfd's and on several WP policy pages, and on removing vandalism. I believe that Wikipedia's reputation is at stake each time a viewer consults us, so we should strive to have the best, most up-to-date, and accurate articles. I'm proud of what I have contributed to that positive experience. One area where we are always in need is the numerous admin backlogs that need attention; with admin tools, I could contribute to reducing that backlog and improve Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to work most in the backlogged areas such as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion, proposed moves and mergers, and in AIV.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am proudest of the articles on the various cities named after the Seleucid and Ptolemaic royals: many (though not all) of the articles linked at Antiochia, at Seleucia (disambiguation), at Ptolemais, at Laodicea, and at Apamea.

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: I haven't been in "edit wars" since my newbie days. What sometimes causes me stress is how discussions at Afd or Cfd move from the relevant to the personal attack. I have been subject of some, which is disappointing. Generally, my response is to return the focus to the discussion point, with a citation to WP:AGForWP:CIVIL if the response is especially out of line. I also realize that on some points in the Xfd world, my views are not majoritarian - that's fine and I can live with that. Sometimes my views change, sometimes the majority or consensus changes, and sometimes I'm just the in the minority to stay, which is just fine too.

4. Question from Chris ^g A while back an article called Small Mercies was created, Small Mercies is a band that had it's song on the popular Australain TV show Prison Break, the article had many adds and removed of speedy tags untill an admin deleted it, in that situation as an admin what would have you done (for more info see here ?

A Unfortunately, I have to be vague: I cannot see the content that was deleted. However, I did read Prison Break and in that article there was no reference to the band. For what it's worth, the show is popular in the US as well. Carlossuarez46 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break is an American show, actually. —Anas ^talk? 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Question from User:Rocksanddirt How much time to you spend on WP now? (either per day or per week), and how do you see that changing if you were to become an admin?

A Good question. There are days when I spend hours on WP, and some days I skip. I guess some of those edit count tools would give a more precise breakdown - although I also spend a lot of time as a user/reader that wouldn't be reflected. But my time at WP largely depends on what other things I have going on. I don't see it changing markedly - I wish I could promise it would increase, but that's easy to say and probably what you want to hear, but ultimately likely to be proven wrong. I think some of the time I put into editing ancient geography articles would get transitioned to administrative tasks, which would be fine otherwise I wouldn't have made the request, but the time spent in aggregate is unlikely to go up greatly. Carlossuarez46 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 Optional question from User:NAHID:

What is your opinion on the ignore all rules policy, and in what circumstances would you invoke it or not invoke it?

A The explanation at Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means pretty much aligns with my sense of the policy. In all my edits I cannot recall ever invoking IAR. However, I have at times offered an opinion that we should do something even though contrary to the text of the "rule" and sometimes consensus builds to do just that. One can view that as making exceptions which improve WP at the expense of slavish adherence to rules or an uncited example of IAR in action. If I am promoted, as an admin, I don't see a real difference in my use up to now. I still think that a compelling explanation of why we should depart from practice or a rule in a particular situation seems better to generate discussion and consensus. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• See carlossuarez46's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for carlossuarez46: Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/carlossuarez46 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Could you explain the issue of your block? I know it was over a year and a half ago, and am mainly curious. Jmlk17 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing, the blocking admin reverted this information just one minute before imposing the block. Looking at the block summary, and the edit, I assume carlossuarez46 was blocked for noting Michael Jackson was "tried and acquitted of having sex with an underage boy." That's the only content of that edit which could match the block explanation of "posting libellous allegation of child molestation against a public figure". I'm assuming there's more to it, as I'd be shocked if that was the only reason for the block. - auburnpilot talk 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a newbie then, but as far as I know, that was the reason for the block. Carlossuarez46 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After this warning, a reason given for the block was posted here. That December 28, 2005 block, apparently using Template:Defban (which was created 14:32, 1 December 2005) at a time when these instructions existed, occurred within the first 146 posts by Carlossuarez46 on Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 now has 11,013+ posts and over a year and a half have passed since that time. This is a non-issue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why I said I was just curious :). Thanks! Jmlk17 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were right to raise the issue (it was a block, after all) and it presented the opportunity to clarify the matter. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support Has a good range of experience, and has contributed in essentially every admin-related aspect of wikipedia. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Although I don't see that much AIV or CSD work, the huge amount of work in CfD is impressive. The candidate may wish to re-consider their question 1 answer though ;) Giggy _U^CP 22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Very experienced, and am impressed with the CfD work - stands out. ck lostsword•T•C 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - See no reason not to afford him the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Has been here for a long time and has amassed a respectable amount of edits, good edits too, by the looks of things. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support An impressive editor. Captain panda 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Most definitely. CFD contributions are very helpful. --Kbdank71 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. I'm not seeing any major red flags in this user's history, and don't expect any admin abuse. - auburnpilot talk 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Fantastic contributions, I see absolutely no reason to oppose. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support A very experienced editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Great answer to question three. Looks like a good editor overall. IronGargoyle 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - good answers show a thorough understanding of how things work. I'm sure this user would make a good admin :)—arf! 07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Knows what he's doing. Been here long enough to show proven dedication and commitement. Even if the block was legitimate, it's so far in the past that I'm willing to AGF and assume Carlossuarez46 has learnt from whatever happened. A great candidate. Daniel 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support no concerns here, got the experience. —Anas ^talk? 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Experienced, can't find any reson why they can't take the mop. Jhfireboy Talk 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - see Contributions..--Cometstyles 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, seems to be sensisble and bright enough. Note that I don't think one block 18 month ago should be any kind of an obstacle. Neil ╦ 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong Support, good editor, time to give him the mop! Politics rule 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support, like the answers and the contributions. I've seen this user regularly over at AfD discussions and his contributions are always valuable and demonstrate a good grasp on policy. This user would make a good admin. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. His edits history shows that he has an incredible array of experience. His comments in AfD discussions are insightful. I'm also struck by his extremely consistent civility. All in all, I think that he will be an excellent administrator. Trusilver 18:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support that block was at the end of 2005. That's not a reason to oppose. This is a good user. Acalamari 18:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Has long been qualified to be an admin; I'm glad to see Carlossuarez46 stepping up to the plate. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I like what I see...and I vote how I see it :). Jmlk17 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. support good editor from what I have seen from his edits.--Sefringle^Talk 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - I see a very broad aray of contributions, and this dif I found as a very fine example of both your civility, and thoughtfulness in communicating with others here. Hiberniantears 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Carlossuarez46, in regards to Jaranda's oppose below, as long as you read up on how to close AfDs I think you'll be fine. I don't see evidence that you will interpret AfD as a vote. Andre (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, a great mainspace editor, that I have long admired for his ancient city articles and for his work with Smith's Dictionary.--Aldux 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Long-standing editor with solid contributions to the encyclopedia and a reasonable rationale for wanting the admin tools. Espresso Addict 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support A good, solid editor with a good understanding of policies and procedures. JodyB _talk 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support I see no big reasons to not support him. Good luck.--†Sir James Paul† 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support I don't know him personally, but his work is excellent, and he seems to have a good knowledge of policy and procedure. I think someone who works hard, and earns trust should have a chance to contribute more. old windy bear 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Wow... I had no idea you were so prolific! -- Y not? 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support1) Contributions 2) Knowledge of Policy 3) Activity 4) Civility. Pedro |  Chat  07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Why not? --Chris ^g 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong support - Con mucho placer. Buena suerte aunque creo que no la necesitas. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Terence 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Great editor with many, many great contributions. Very trustworthy. I know he will use admin tools well. --WillMak050389 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Thoughtful and always civil at CfD, if a bit deletionist for my taste. Knows policy well, and can be trusted with the tools. Johnbod 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support per interactions in AFDs Corpx 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Great answer to question three (bonus for using the word "majoritarian" :-)) and good contributions to XfDs. IronGargoyle 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) oops... didn't mean to vote twice... :-) IronGargoyle 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

42. Support. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support but no more pointless per above votes in WP:AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting to help better the encyclopedia. Клоун 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • high five* Giggy _U^CP 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

46. Support Best of luck --omtay38 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Great editor. -Lemonflash^talk 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Fantastic editor. Good luck. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support No reason to believe that he'll abuse administrator tools. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Hell yeah. Khoikhoi 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support! Peacent 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support good user, no problems. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Rock solid. ~ Infrangible 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Great editor. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support I reviewed all of your contributions and can find no reason to oppose; you have a healthy involvement in the Wikipedia side of things (notably CfD's). Not only do I think you will not abuse the tools, but I think you will have an excellent use for them. --Ozgod 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

A good editor, but I'm worried about his particiapation in CFDs and AFDs, while he is very active there, but what I seen from him, most of his comments there are keep or delete per above or nn or pointless votes, which isn't a good sign, remember AFD isn't a vote, instead it's a finding of consensus and if the article meets wikipedia policy, and I'm afraid that Carlos will close AFDs by counting votes. I could change my vote later but until then Regretful Oppose Sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, I don't know what I'm saying. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Kurt Weber opposes lots of self-noms for this reason and much discussion has not persuaded him otherwise. It is probably better not to respond to this oppose.--Chaser - T 04:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah yes, probably best not to say anything... except perhaps remind him and others that this is clearly not assuming good faith on the part of the candidate and remind him also that many many editors have asked him to discuss this on WT:RFA rather than paste that sentence in every self-nom. Note also that Kurt was one of the rare people who thought it was hilariously funny to support the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Not Wikipedia Administrator. It would be nice to see him contribute more constructively to RfA instead. Pascal.Tesson 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, Kurt Weberopposes every single self-nom, without exception, with the same message. I trust that the closing bureaucrat will be aware of this. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Statistically, carlossuarez46 looks like he'd be the perfect Wikipedia admin - lots of main space edits, many of them constructive rather than just maintenance, lots of participation in WP:space, etc., etc. But there seems to me a tendency to be a bit too combative, and a bit too touchy, which leads me to not trust him with administrative tools, as there is no recourse to remove him if he does abuse the tools. I believe the chance he'll be an abusive admin is low, but if that combativeness comes out, he could cause quite a lot of damage with no good way to remove him. Therefore, I must oppose. If admins were required to be reconfirmed, or were removable short of ArbCom, I'd support. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Recall Jimbo's rationale in terming adminship no big deal. It is for concerns like yours that this ideology exists, given that (statistically) far, far more users promoted partially on this rationale are civil and helpful than are abusive. Gracenotes^T § 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose For block two years ago. ~ Wikihermit 03:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This block is for these edits. Michael Jackson may not be gay, but given that we have an entire page devoted to the molestation allegations, this is a tolerable slip-up within Carlos' first 100 edits to the site, and long before our BLP policy.--Chaser - T 05:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Pending further information and response by candidate on the historical block. Moving to Support. Pedro |  Chat  07:12, 10 July 2007 (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.