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

CanadianCaesar

final (63/4/3) ending 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

CanadianCaesar (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I've been a Wikipedian since June 2005 and have over 5,500 edits. I have an obsession with improving articles I find on Canadian law that need work, with categorizing articles, and checking for copyvios. In fact, I work so long on Wikipedia my eyes hurt. Along with very good folk like User:PullUpYourSocks, User:Hurricane111 and User:Habsfannova, I've tried to improve coverage on the Constitution of Canada. I enjoy reverting vandalism and hope to improve my performance on that front with rollback and blocking powers. I have also participated in many deletion discussions and love it when I see votes "per CanadianCaesar". CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. I got a little nervous yesterday and removed the RfA, I'll admit, but I want to help Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Of course Sceptre (Talk) 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, but please use more edit summaries on minor edits. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 11:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I see involvement in a lot of areas: wikiprojects, copyright, article templates. Well rounded solid editor. NoSeptember talk 12:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, looks like s/he would be a very good admin Where (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, everything looks good to me. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Wow can't believe people are opposeing you !!! Mjal 15:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, see no potential for abuse here, people are quite capable of learning on the job and people should not be penalised for being more interested in helping wikipedia the encyclopedia grow as opposed to looking after process. If the user is trusted, they should be supported. Adminship is no big deal. Answers to the questions are solid. Hiding talk 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support In my experiences with him, trustworthy and good-natured user. Xoloz 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 17:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good edits, plenty of experience. I agree with Smurrayinchester on edit summaries, though. --Allen 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. User is ready to take on more responsibility. No Guru 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Well-rounded editor who is ready to take on more tasks. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. CC helps with vandals. WP is not in position to get picky. For what I remember, CC's edits were generally useful. Being involved in internal WP processes would be plus but main task of admins is dealing with avalanche of vandalism and crap. Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I do share some of Radiant!'s concerns, but I have seen nothing that makes me believe that CanadainCaeser will abuse the mop or get his or herself into anything stupid. Basically, this user being an admin would be "no big deal." youngamerican (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Just spent a pleasant fifteen minutes skimming through CC's edit history. Very, very, very impressive material. Support. DS 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. >1000 edits in Wikipedia namespace is enough. Wouldn't abuse admin powers either. -- WB 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Great answer to my question :) This combined with excellent work otherwise, which many people above me attest to, makes me feel comfortable with lending my support. Ashibaka tock 01:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Lots of contributions in the Wikipedia namespace which is important as well. I can't understand why he loves reverting vandalism, but it is an additional bonus for an admin. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absolutely Flowerparty■ 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-6 06:08
  24. Support No problems here. Would make an ecellent admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support More Canadians eh! John Reid 07:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 'Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support BlueGoose 08:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, everything looks very good. I wish I had that many edits to large articles. Grandmasterka 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support Lots of good work in AfD and on articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems ideal, and I'm impressed with the answers to the questions below. Leithp 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I like what this guy is aboot. Proto||type 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I'll trust him. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, seems like a cool person, could contribute as admin ikh (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, should make a fine addition to the admin pool. Hall Monitor 19:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--Ugur Basak 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I've seen this user around relatively often, his edits have been solid. Nothing missing that can't be learned on the job. User:Adrian/zap 02:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. ENCEPHALON 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Easy support for great contributor and fellow Canuck. Marskell 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. No issues whatsoever. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, inexperience in a given area should not be a bar. Adminship has no criteria other than having earnt the trust of the community; adminship is no big deal. Hiding talk 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you accidentally voted twice. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC) oops, apologies. Hiding talk 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. O Canada. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - looks good abakharev 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support-I had one very positive interaction with this user a while back that left a good vibe. I also like and tend to agree with his responses to the questions below. Should do fine. -- JJay 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support--Jusjih 09:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I've looked carefully through this user's edits and I'm impressed. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 11:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Deserved support. haz (user talk)e 13:23, 9 February 2006
  55. Support. Thryduulf 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Hell no I won't not support!!! BD2412 T 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. And I won't not refrain from disagreeing with you. Try and work on the edit summaries but I have no other problems. Raven4x4x 09:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support All in 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support 100% - outstanding Wikipedians. --Hurricane111 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Piling on, but I didn't want to miss the chance of saying "Hail!" to Caesar. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support FloNight talk 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, Hell, judging from the way you handle everything I though you already were an administrator... Obli (Talk) 12:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of familiarity with process and Wikispace, other than a large amount of AFD votes. Please get some more experience before running for adminship. >Radiant< 11:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Radiant Giano | talk 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: edit summaries are helpful and important, even for edits marked minor. Jonathunder 21:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose: what radiant said. Sigh. aa v ^ 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutralper above. Pschemp | Talk 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Good contributor, but the opposing users have a point.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Radient! --Doc ask? 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. On many occasions I've tagged articles for speedy deletions and then watched for what seemed like forever before the link turned red; on many other occasions I've seen articles tagged for speedy deletion and sometimes wished I could second the motion. The delete button, I think, would he a useful tool and one I would be able to handle responsibly, as I dislike bold deletions. Closing AfDs would also be interesting, as I've participated in many such discussions; once again, I dislike bold deletions but I respect consensus. I don't think I'd have a problem with deleting an article with a consensus to delete, even if I would have voted to keep. Lately I've also noticed many offensive names in the user creation log and am interested in blocking powers for that purpose.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly proud of my work in Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe the Charter deserves the coverage we give to the United States Constitution and have started several articles in that category, and have raised others from stub level to more informative pieces. For example, Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms involved some research from a variety of sources. Although not as much as my colleague PullUpYourSocks, I've also written articles on Supreme Court decisions and like these to be full and complete. See R. v. Labaye, Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), R. v. Morgentaler (1993), and Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada for examples.
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. When I was new, certainly there was stress, but I hope that's in the past and appreciate people understanding my errors. User:Tony Sidaway was particularly encouraging and helpful. Generally I try to avoid edit conflicts, and can think of only two incidents that might qualify; one being reverting some odd GNAA edits, the other being how to cover literary criticisms, but no one broke 3RR, we took it to the talk page and we debated. I've learned never to edit another person's userpage except in good faith; the one time was the last time and it was months ago (I removed an obscenity inserted by the userpage's own user). I have never been blocked for anything.
4. Would you apply "ignore all rules" to your admin powers if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed? Ashibaka tock 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that lately, and I've come to the conclusion that, administrators being editors, with their votes weighed equally as other users and their being no less immune from policies like 3RR, that IAR ought to apply to administrators while carrying out activities that anyone can do; however, inasmuch as one carries out administrative activities, there is inherently greater responsibility entrusted with the user and IAR should not apply in those situations. As I said above, I dislike speedy deletions that don't match the criteria; because as I said below, it's serious business and we have an encyclopedia to build. This, and I genuinely don't want to be a disruption; viewing wheel warring sometimes makes me a little surprised and annoyed. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)? Hermione1980 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the open wiki world, deleting, blocking and protecting are serious business. If I ever made a mistake in one of those situations, it would impede the goal of the project. I didn't respond angrily, for example, when Phil Welch removed a speedy tag I applied to an article, incorrectly in retrospect. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Category