Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Vicenarian (talk | contribs)
11,582 edits
m →‎Xeno: tally update
Line 97: Line 97:
#'''Unqualified support''' I believe that Xeno would do an excellent job as a Bureaucrat. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
#'''Unqualified support''' I believe that Xeno would do an excellent job as a Bureaucrat. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' As per the other 39 people here. :) [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]] ([[User talk:Pastor Theo|talk]]) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' As per the other 39 people here. :) [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]] ([[User talk:Pastor Theo|talk]]) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' without a doubt. Xeno has always been around to help me take my first unsteady steps on Wikipedia, from welcoming me, to teaching me, to putting up with my endless, endless inane questions. I have no qualms about recommending a pay raise. --<font color="#009000">[[User:Thejadefalcon|Thejadefalcon]]</font><font color="#03C03C">[[User talk:Thejadefalcon|<sup>''Sing your song''</sup>]]</font><font color="#00A550">[[Special:Contributions/Thejadefalcon|<sub>''The bird's seeds''</sub>]]</font> 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====

Revision as of 15:58, 4 September 2009

Xeno

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/1/6); scheduled to end 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. I'm an avid watcher of CHU /USURP /SUL, so I know the process over there and I like to think I'm a fairly decent judge of community consensus. You may remember me from such administrative roles as the Rorschach debate. –xenotalk 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, this is a self-nom. I started this as it seems our 'crats could use a few more hands. I'm around often and would attend to the CHU queues. I also have a pretty good understanding of our bot policy and BRFA procedures, so would likely work there as well. RFAs would probably not be my main focus, but I would help there when needed. –xenotalk 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. As a community, our stance on when to promote is constantly shifting. A bureaucrat's job is to stay tuned into what the community wants. Numbers shouldn't come into it, but they usually do a good job of helping you see the lie of the ball. Personally I think that the dividing wall between "Support" and "Oppose" should come down, and we should stop looking at the numbers so much and put more emphasis into judging the candidate on their merits.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In the end you have to make the call, and you have to trust that you are making the right decision. Otherwise, why make it? I am always open to discuss any of my actions. Of course, I would always draw upon the expertise of more experienced colleagues, just as I do in my capacities as an administrator.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. Someone told me the other day I'm a policy stickler to a fault =) I've always tried to ensure that matters receive a fair hearing and have attended to many unblock requests. As far as engaging others, I find I get on pretty well. There was this one time ... =| ... Anyhow, Giano and I have spoken since and I think it's water under the bridge now. I know I screwed up.

Optional question from Soap

4. I'm interested in your views on the username policy. How would you judge the appropriateness of each of the following usernames? Assume that all are good faith contributors with no vandal edits and no apparent conflicts of interest. These can be interpreted either as new accounts which registered these names as their original choices, or requests from existing accounts to change their names to these.
Jimbo Miller (for a user claiming it as his real name, and who prefers to be called Jimbo)
Jimmy has stated he has no problem other users using "Jimbo". I believe it has also come before RFC/N before and been allowed.
OnlineDoctor
Don't really see a problem with this, as long as the good-faith/no COI conditions are met.
ImpeachObama
This one would give me pause. I believe there are some arbitration restrictions I have to consider. I don't patrol UAA, but I would think twice about granting a CHU request to use this name.
Pissanna (user claims it's a foreign name)
Don't recognize the word, see no problem with it.

Awesome Question by Awesome Harej

5. My lucidity and temperament may be questionable as of now, so it's possible I will have to clarify my question later on. The difficult part for me when I ask questions at requests for adminship (or bureaucratship) is that I need to phrase the question in such a way that the candidate cannot give a politician's response. I've done the best I've could, but to this day I have not come up with that magical question. That being said, I will ask you this, and I want you to be forthright. Say you were entrusted to close an RFA, not unlike the one of my good friend McBride. In fact, let's say you were the one who closed it, what with its barely-above-75% and people-voting-after-the-official-deadline. Therefore, any decision you make is bound to be controversial. Before you know it, the orange bar of doom shows up on your screen. Some guy waves his fists about the way you closed the RFA. How do you rationalize punching him in the face?
A. Well, face-punching is rarely a good way to resolve most situations, and certainly not on Wikipedia =) As I said, I'm always willing to discuss my actions and their rationales. I'm still not quite sure how to approach this question, it's a hypothetical but also has a specific example, and in the example I was an early, strong, unequivocal supporter, so I wouldn't be the one closing that RFA. The voting-after-the-deadline is a bit of a red herring given that it's understood that the closing time is only the earlier that a 'crat will get to it. (Faux community crises notwithstanding...) Feel free to ask a follow-up if this doesn't give you enough to go on.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Absolutely, top-notch admin and no reason to believe they couldn't handle a few more buttons.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Sorry, I'm going to have to support. Same as Giants, a great admin, will be a great Buerucrat too. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you apologizing? iMatthew talk at 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Joke on opposes. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support Yes, yes, yes, yes. Did I mention yes? Jeni (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think so. Nathan T 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xeno seems to be everywhere, all the time, doing almost everything. I'm constantly impressed with his judgment, knowledge and dedication. I'm certain he could handle CHU/USURP/SUL, he seems to be Bot-savvy, and I trust his judgement in determining consensus in tricky situations. This would do nothing to solve the 2009 MZMcBride RFA crisis (see support #2 there), but otherwise it's an excellent idea. Happy to support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure hope MZMcBride's RfA isn't still open in seven days... :) LittleMountain5 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You never know. It may eventually have to be moved to 2009-2010 MZMcBride RFA crisis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I'm probably as surprised that I did this as you'd probably be seeing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Yes definitely, absolutely, POSITIVELY! ArcAngel (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yeah... uh.... sure! :) iMatthew talk at 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. God yes. Excellent user, excellent administrator, no reason to suggest he won't be an excellent 'crat. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (edit conflict)Support Definitely! Xeno's a great admin, and I'm sure he'll be a great 'crat. LittleMountain5 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, although he's a total noob. Tan | 39 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - what they all said... Xeno is an awesome admin.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No fucking brainer. Yes. → ROUX ₪ 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I will continuing the theme of cursing and say motherfucking yeah! The V-Man (Said · Done) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Aye Alan16 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support per Floquenbeam. I wouldn't have labeled him as the next bureaucrat candidate, but based on many positive things I've seen, I trust Xeno to have good discretion as a crat. He's knowledgeable, has sufficient experience, and I've consistently been impressed by his excellent level-headed judgement abilities. For many reasons, xeno has always struck me as one of our very finest administrators, and whenever he makes a comment, it's useful, for lack of a better term; he doesn't contribute to drama, but instead adds something good to a discussion. A definite yes from me. JamieS93 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Very strong support — You know something? Somehow or another I sort of knew this request was bound to happen sooner or later. In fact, was personally thinking of actually getting off my lazy @$$ and nominating him myself, but I see he's spared me the effort, so I'm not complaining. Anyways, Xeno is an exemplary admin, and he has experience in all the areas he needs to know for being a 'crat, so I support this nomination easily. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support yes. Guest9999 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Xeno. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran, Xeno. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. His admin review went well, and he does well with username issues. Not quite as much experience at RFA as I prefer to see, but he hasn't been quiet at RFA, and has always been thoughtful. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies ... your RfA !votes show plenty of friendly, thoughtful engagement. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Unlikely to misuse the extra few buttons. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Absolutely. Javért  |  Talk 04:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Yeah mate. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I have no issues with xeno, and the 'crats could always use another hand. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - This guy is like, good and stuff. He does good stuff with things. I'd like him to do more good stuff with things with other things to do with things. And stuff. — neuro(talk) 06:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Xeno has an excellent understanding of policies, guidelines, and consensus. He has a strong history of dispute mediation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, per Tan ;) -- Luk talk 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support (from oppose), as the biggest concern I had was actually acknowledged and addressed several months ago. MLauba (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support despite Tan's comment, probably one of the most clueful admins we have and I see no problem in handing him the wrenches. Only MLauba's former oppose was a bit concerning but he managed to demonstrate his talent for learning from mistakes. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Hell Yes no question whatsoever. Xeno is everywhere and he does an excellent job in every area he works in. Thingg⊕⊗ 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I support Xeno to become a Bureaucrat on the English-language Wikipedia website because he took my question in complete seriousness, and in fact requested clarification, then did his best to answer it. Anyone who can do that can do RFA. That, on top of all of his other qualifications plus endorsements from his supporters (compare to the weak nature of the oppose votes), make me believe he will do just fine as a bureaucrat. @harej 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No worries Like most of us, Xeno is not always perfect. But he's shown that he's willing to follow policy, listen to concerns and learn from them. I can't ask much more than that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support You are an amazing adminstator and I fully trust you with whatever tools are in your hands. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - A quality admin whom we can count on; a !vote for Xeno is a !vote for what's good in Wikipedia.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes, I cannot see any reasons why not, Xeno has been a very good admin in my experience. AtheWeatherman 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Unqualified support I believe that Xeno would do an excellent job as a Bureaucrat. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support As per the other 39 people here. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without a doubt. Xeno has always been around to help me take my first unsteady steps on Wikipedia, from welcoming me, to teaching me, to putting up with my endless, endless inane questions. I have no qualms about recommending a pay raise. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Sorry Xeno, but I don't think you are suitable for the role of bureaucratship. AdjustShift (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On May 3, 2009, Xeno blocked DougsTech indefinitely from editing en.wikipedia.[1] At the same time, there was a discussion at WT:RFA whether to topic ban DT from RFAs or not. There was no consensus to topic ban DT from RFAs, let alone an indef block. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 170#Proposed topic-ban of Dougstech from .21voting or commenting in RfA. The issue was taken to ANI, and DT was unblocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#Xeno.2C DougsTech.2C and indefinite block. On May 6, 2009, Xeno awarded DT a barnstar! See [2]. Blocking someone indef from editing, and then awarding the same guy a barnstar after three days? DT was eventually indef blocked, and has left WP, but the whole incidence indicates that Xeno doesn't have a solid judgment. AdjustShift (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for elucidating. I think the decision I made initially was an appropriate action given the circumstances, but when the community decided to give DougsTech another chance, I went along with it. As for the barnstar - encouraging users to reform is a good thing and I won't apologize for that. I was cautious but optimistic at DT's huggle use. But in the end... –xenotalk 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth, I was one of the few people that stood by Dougstech and against his banning to the very end. I don't see a problem with Xeno's actions as an admin during that time. He was mostly representing the community's view throughout. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision you made initially to indef block DT was correct? No, Xeno. Ottava, you may have forgotten that incidence. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 170#Proposed topic-ban of Dougstech from .21voting or commenting in RfA. There was no consensus to topic ban DT from RFAs, let alone an indef block. And please see the discussion that took place at ANI. Xeno, when you indef a guy and the guy gets unblocked, you should wait for at least two months before awarding the guy a barnstar. You waited only for three days. AdjustShift (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've commented on this before, and my thoughts haven't changed much. Topic ban wasn't really appropriate and would've set a bad precedent, but in general the community agrees that disruption-only SPAs should be blocked from editing. I did consider my involvement in this incident thoroughly, however, and even revived an old proposed process page called Wikipedia:Administrator review and invited comments as to my actions. I don't know what the hangup on the barnstar thing is. There's two paths people can choose, I was trying to steer DougsTech along the right one. –xenotalk 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjust, I don't get your point about the barnstar. After Doug was initially unblocked, he showed some signs of potential good faith. Xeno recognized this and tried heading him in the right direction by complimenting the anti-vandal work. What's not to appreciate about that kind of action, honestly? Even in his blocking message on DT's talkpage, xeno was willing to unblock if DT wanted to contribute to the encyclopedia. Purposely refraining from encouraging an editor "for at least two months" sounds like holding a grudge, to me. JamieS93 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After Doug was initially unblocked, for how long did he showed signs of potential good faith editor? I'm against purposely refraining from encouraging an editor for two months, but we need two months or, may be more in some cases, to analyze the performance of troubled editors. After an editor is back after a long block or an indef block, we need to see how he contributes for about two months. We can't judge someone in just three days. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand what issuing barnstars has to do with someone's judgment; they aren't part of a process that has any sort of consensus except that they may be given and awardees may display them. They're nothing more than a pat on the back and "good job", just because you give one to someone who's otherwise a screw up doesn't mean you should be flogged.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ottava, you may have forgotten that incidence" I don't forget incidents in which I am the lone voice trying to keep people from being chased out of this community. Xeno's indef was what was proposed -many- times before by -many- people, many of whom I have some respect for, although it was disheartening to see them wanting such a block. Furthermore, you are forgetting that Dougstech had other issues besides just his RfA votes, so you have to consider the whole package. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have some other concerns. I don't support candidates for bureaucratship unless there is a strong reason to support them. Xeno is a good admin, but probably not suitable for bureaucratship. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. The baiting (User talk:Xeno/Archive 14#Madame la Comtesse!) of Giano over the whole User:FlyingToaster affair (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 15#Flying Toaster RfA) is still on my mind. What shocked me about this back in the day isn't just the baiting, but that it happened in article space. Admins are given the mop to keep the encyclopedia clean. And while no abuse of admin actions has occurred, mucking up article space and playing games there, more than in any other namespace, goes completely against the very reason the tools are there in the first place. And while Xeno has made amends about the baiting, I'm concerned that there never was any acknowledgment that baiting in article space was particularly reprehensible. Barring that, I cannot support expanding the toolset further. MLauba (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Comtesse affair was without a doubt my most regrettable moment on Wikipedia, but one that was ultimately a teachable one. I realize where I went wrong and would not repeat the same mistake. As I said above, "I know I screwed up". While I didn't go so far as to call it "reprehensible", weeks later I visited Giano's talk page to note that "by following [him] to the Spencer article, it was actually me doing the disserving [to the mainspace]. It was entirely unacceptable - full stop." [3] –xenotalk 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears I missed that, thanks for setting the record straight. In light of this, I withdraw my opposition. MLauba (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm not convinced either way just yet; I don't have a good gut feeling for some reason. I'll look through your contribs and see if I can understand why. Wizardman 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There should never be a user named "OnlineDoctor". Such a username confers authority which does not exist on Wikipedia and may not even exist for the username holder. @harej 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it conveys the meaning of a doctor who is online. We have many doctors who edit Wikipedia. The question specifically stated there was no other areas of concern. Obviously if the user was trying to setup a private practice in his userpage, things would be different. –xenotalk 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point. Don't worry, I'll have a question prepared for you soon enough. @harej 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Placeholder, per Wizardman. You're a pretty good admin, but I have a gut feeling about this RfB. I'll come back and update this later. NW (Talk) 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning support. Will review all that crat related business later. The current oppose doesn't concern me, though I could understand how it might concern others. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not opposed at first glance; will probably revisit this later on. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Wizardman.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Need to think about this. --John (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Xeno&oldid=311852261"