Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno

Xeno

Voice your opinion (talk page) (120/26/6); 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. –xeno^talk 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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. –xeno^talk 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As a user expressed interested in viewing documented participation in the areas I have stated I would focus on as a bureaucrat, I note the following BRFAs I've participated in the last three months: 1 2 3 4 5. I have 24 edits to WT:BRFA and am the 2nd most active participant at the Bot owners noticeboard with 67 edits there. I recently discovered a bot that was creating what was to be an infinite number of redirects from lowercase capitalization, limited only by the number of mixed capitalization titles we had in the enyclopedia. Knowing this could be better handled by the software, I filed a bugzilla on the matter. Brion discovered that a software configuration had an unintended side effect, disabling TitleKey for en.wiki. After fixing it, the task was no longer necessary and the bot could stop flooding the encylopedia with the (now unnecessary) redirects.

I have two bot accounts (User:Xenobot and User:Xenobot Mk V, with nearly 100,000 edits between them [1] [2] and have filed 7 successful BRFAs for their activities. I am also a very active participant to the AutoWikiBrowser project, fulfilling requests on the checkpage, helping users use the tool, keeping the manual up-to-date, reporting bugs, and suggesting new features.

In terms of the username process, I have made 81 edits to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and also am intimately familiar with the SUL unification process, after having sought unification via usurpation of unused accounts on over 10 other Wikimedia projects. I have also frequently fielded questions from users at the various CHU-related talk pages.

–xeno^talk 02:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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. (Expanded in Q9)

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.

Additional comment: I wrote these answers fairly late in the evening, and someone mentioned they don't give them much to go on. I've expanded Q1 below in Q9. After reading a few past RfB's, I suppose I initially misread Q2. I thought it was asking how I would deal with potential criticism after making a contentious decision, and that's why I pointed out that I've always been willing to discuss my decisions.

Bureaucrats must ensure they are delivering the will of the community. They cannot impart their own predispositions, indeed they should recuse if any exist. Ultimately bureaucrat chats should be encouraged wherever there is sufficient community disagreement, this way all concerns raised in the RFA are given full consideration. Being that the "promote" button comes without an "unpromote" one, one must be thorough in their assessment of the discussion.

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.

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

6. How would you have closed the following discussions? You can choose between: successful, unsuccessful, crat chat with an opinion of successful, or crat chat with an opinion of unsuccessful. Remember: Although I have my own opinions on each of these, I'm not looking for you to agree with me, but simply to provide detailed explanations of your decisions.

Opening remarks: There was a recent thread wherein a user expressed discomfort with being a staple of the RfB process. Balloonman had an excellent suggestion that if we are going to pose questions like these, we should de-personalize them so as to remove the individuals' name from constant scrutiny. I would certainly support moving in that direction. For example, one could ask a question about a facet of the RFA without referring to it directly. I'm going to abstain answering two of these questions per the concerns raised in the thread: in choosing between a successful RFB and respecting the wishes of two long-time contributors, my choice is easy. I'm also extending this courtesy to vanished users. –xeno^talk 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Mbiz and I have already started the process of depersonalizing them... see User:MBisanz/Qs#Crats for the one's that have been completed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! –xeno^talk 05:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded on a few answers. –xeno^talk 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Carnildo 3 61%

Tough question. You're asking me to revisit Wikipedia history prior to my true start here. As I stated above, the most important task of a bureaucrat is to stay "tuned in" to the community. RFA standards do indeed shift over time. I've seen a shift since I was +op'd, and I've heard others comment as well: "I would never be sysopped in today's RFA process" (all things being equal). Impossible to prove, but ask yourself the same question.

As far as this RFA, I can only judge it by 2008-2009 RFA standards, as that's what familiar with. I've commented elsewhere that after an ArbCom case, an administrator really begins to be prejudged by others who may not even be that familiar with the case. I fear the effects this has on a former administrators' subsequent requests to re-gain the tools after being desysopped by the committee.

In this RFA however, I see strong opposition from many parties that felt it was inappropriate or premature to re-grant the tools at the time. As the arbitration concerns (both those I mention above and those related to the present case) need to be thoroughly examined before making a decision here, I would enter a bureaucratic chat an opinion of no consensus to promote.

• ^demon 3 63%

As a reconfirmation RFA, we have to take into consideration the fact that an administrator in their normal course of duties - even if they make what is generally regarded as the "right" decision most of the time - will generate opposition. WJBscribe captured this elegantly in his closing statement, and I agree that 63% is a good showing and with the decision to promote. (One also has to take into consideration those who opined simply to oppose the very concept of the reconfirmation RFA, we saw this also in LHvU's recent experiment)

• Davemeistermoab 68%

You are linking me to the versions after closing, so I'm being inevitably tinged by the words of the closing bureaucrats. This one was into the discretionary range, but I trust Dan took the time to fully examine the article-space concerns to determine if the problems were simply a poor background in formal grammar - but not such that the "sloppy grammar" translated into sloppiness in their approach to contributing in general. Administrators must be precise in their execution so this is an important question to consider. Without taking the same amount of time as I would if I were actually closing it, I apologize for this non-answer.

(Expand) Leaning no consensus: jumping off from my comment above, a bureaucrat should not do a lot of investigating of the candidate on their own, their job is to divine community consensus and not substitute their own judgment.

• Danny 68%

As I stated above, RFA would likely not be my main focus as a bureaucrat and I don't think I'd be the one closing the corner cases. This one definitely needed to go to 'crat chat and I would have gone with an open mind. This one is massive and I can come back to it, but my main areas of concern would be the impact that administrative actions have had on new users. I think we need to be as welcoming as possible to grow as a community.

(Expand) I think the 'crat chat was inevitable, given the Foundation issue. Leaning no consensus per the opposers related to WP:BITE.

• Ryulong 3 69%

See above.

• Gracenotes 74%

High temperature RFA right in the middle of the BADSITES debates ? If there is a community debate of this magnitude being centered about an RFA, then one has to consider the effects that granting the tools would have.

The bureaucrat chat would be necessary. I'll try to come back to this one.

(Expand) This one needed a 'crat chat to help untangle the badsites debate from the RFA. As a sometimes-contributor to Wikipedia Review I would probably recuse. Though to my recollection I have never participated in the debate, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is nearly as importance as avoiding impropriety itself.

Thinking about it impartially, I would hover around no consensus and promote, the latter by putting slightly less weight on the opposes that turned on the single issue without mentioning other concerns. Unresolved community issues should not be the focus of an RFA.

• DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%

See above.

• Riana (RfB) 86%

I wouldn't even consider close RfBs until after I had at least a year or two experience with the extra buttons first. I would participate in bureaucrat chats to lend insight when possible.

I will revisit this one later to indicate what concerns I would focus on during the discussion.

(Expand) As far as I can tell this one centred on nominating an unsuitable candidate for adminship. This could be attributed to poor judgment overall, or it could've just been a momentary lapse in reason. However, many saw it as a concern so I would lean towards no consensus if I were making the call myself, or 'crat chat with an open mind (slight lean towards promote as I would prefer to ascribe it to the momentary lapse in reason - something to which we are all prone!)

Additional optional questions from Pmlineditor

7. How would you have closed the following RfA(B)s?

Opening remarks: I'm going to abstain from some of these because I participated or other reasons related to "opening remarks" above. I'm also going to forego the 'safety net' of the bureaucrat chat, and will admit I haven't reviewed them each in great depth and given them far less than the amount of attention I would in an actual closure. I'm happy to answer any questions as to my rationales, I'm just going to be brief. –xeno^talk 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2

Abstain.

(Expand) Still abstain. This incident is directly related to the Comtesse affair given treatment below. However, people are saying my answers are too brief, so I'll take a stab at the general issue.

There were some vague content-related concerns raised, however the word 'copyright' did not appear once in the RFA. The bureaucrat's job is not to do their own lengthy investigation into the candidate, they should base their decision on what was presented at the RFA. The RFA process usually does a good job of highlighting areas of concern, it failed here.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady

Promote

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith609

Promote.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rootology

Abstain. (Expand: This RFA has been blanked as a courtesy and the user changed their name and effectively vanished.)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth

Promote. (Expand: Trusted user with a single focus on a useful task. A great argument for unbundling the tools.)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

Abstain. I supported @ 101. Recusal and avoiding the impropriety and the appearance thereof is something I take very seriously. However, let's pretend I wasn't involved in the RFA.

In this case I see a large majority of people willing to let bygones be bygones. Promote, on the checkusers' re-assurance that the canvassing was heavily weighted in the direction of oppose.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla

With current standards, I would be hesitant to close an RFA that was this lightly trafficked. I would probably recommend an extension. (Expand: If this was not possible, no consensus. I think the concerns that the user had little experience in "adminly areas" is a particularly salient one.)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57

Promote.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU

Promote.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5

Abstain. Again, this is something I would've been without a doubt recused on. I was support #2 and I also commented at some of Everyking's arbcom filings urging a +sysop because of the difficulty of having success at RfA after being stripped of the tools being that some users may be prejudiced just knowing this.

Personally I had hoped a bureaucrat might promote from the discretionary range.

Thinking about it impartially, No consensus was ultimately the correct choice. With close to 100 in opposition, I think the user did not enjoy the trust of the community. This was mostly because of their answer to Q5 and their belief that AfDs should be closed "by the numbers". I disagree with this and understand why such a broad segment of the community was not willing to re-grant the tools even on the candidate's assertion they wouldn't be closing AfDs.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2

Abstain. (Expand: I had originally abstained because I thought this user had vanished. This turned out to be inaccurate, and I now abstain because they've opined in this discussion.)

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Quadell
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3

If I were to close an RFB, it would not be until I had substantial time on the job. These are also pretty old, mostly prior to when I became active here. I do note that except for Andrevan's successful candidacy, they were all below 85% which is presently understood to be the floor of the discretionary range. As bureaucrats must always act with the best interests of the community in mind, I agree that a very substantial majority should be present to justify promotion. They should represent as broad a cross-set of the community as possible.

A: These require a lot of thought, I'll start answering them (starting with Q6) around 1700 UTC. –xeno^talk 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Q6 is done, I'll start answering Q7 a bit later. –xeno^talk 19:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

All done. But feel free to follow up. –xeno^talk 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

People are commenting my answers are not giving them enough to go on. I've expanded and answered some of the ones that I abstained on strictly for reasons of my being a support. Obviously in a real-world situation I would recuse if I participated. I've done my best to give impartial answers here. –xeno^talk 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from yourself

8. Why did you unprotect Encyclopedia Dramatica? Didn't you realize this was folly, and would surely to lead to vandalism?

A. I approached ED the same way I do all indefinitely protected articles: with an eye to seeing what prompted the original protection, and whether it was so egregious as to warrant an indefinite ban on anonymous (small-a anonymous ;>) contributions. As the indefinite protection was placed pre-emptively - counter to our protection policy - by a now-retired admin, I felt that we could give unprotection a try without prejudice to a reinstatement of semi-protection. IPs and new users are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, the more barriers we put to their entry, the more stagnant and hardened the encyclopedia will become. There was no harm in giving it a shot. Our often-irrational fear of ED and its contributors gives them far more power than they could gain by simply writing over-the-top satires about us. I note that the permanent protection of "contentious" articles is one the community is still grappling with and appears to be somewhat divided - see the ongoing AN thread on this matter.

8b. DougsTech: poor timing, do you think?

A. Definitely. On reflection, diving into the situation on the heels of the WT:RFA discussion I didn't participate in was a mistake. I've learned from this, and become much more deliberate in my actions. In trying to end drama, I created more: this I see now.

Optional question from Malinaccier (talk)

9. Could you please explain your answer to question one, particularly in response to the second part of the question?

A. This should come out as I answer q6 & 7, but I will try to summarize:

Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote?

Which of the 182-volume compendium of them? =) I've tried to follow along over the last little while. Bureaucrats should pay attention to WT:RFA and related discussions if they are actively participating in closing RFAs.

What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

To promote a candidate, one has to be sure that they enjoy the trust of the community. The toolset has expanded quite a bit and adminship is a very nuanced role. They must possess the technical competency to not muck up the encyclopedia with them, but also require the ability to connect with the community and act as a conduit for consensus, pressing the buttons for the right reasons.

The same is true for the bureaucrat - who is entrusted with taking in what the community has to say about the candidate and making an impartial determination from the discussion. I think the fact that corner cases often result in a bureaucrat chat is a good thing, so one person does not have to make the call on their own.

Adminship should be "no big deal" but they are powerful tools and even unintentional misuse can have far-reaching effects, notwithstanding the countless other concerns we have to take into account. Ultimately the RFA process does a fairly good job of highlighting areas that may be of concern. Before pressing the promote button, a bureaucrat should give all aspects of the discussion a careful and thorough examination.

Additional question from Durova

10. Been on the fence about asking this, but considering it occurred only last week a query seems to be necessary. What are your views of this discussion and your participation in it? Your participation appeared to lead into the gutter rather than out of it. What are your views regarding decorum at public noticeboards, and how would you handle equivalent situations in future? (Note: nothing that occurred there personally offended me; the concern is that certain avenues of gratuitous discussion discourage diversity among our volunteer pool).

I'm still confused about this particular thread. When I saw the request, I took a very cursory glance at the article to see if there some something grossly wrong with it (focusing mostly on any kind of administrative processes like protection, deleted, XfD, etc. had been taken upon it). I didn't read it thoroughly and thus didn't put two-and-two together the joke Law was trying to make. I asked him exactly what administrative tool would help him fix the article, because I wasn't seeing it.

No answer, and a 'crat re-tooled him; I didn't object, I remained curious though.

I notice Law hasn't made any contribution to the article. I agree that he could've asked for the tools back without making a crude joke. I wasn't trying to feed into the joke, but simply using similar vocabulary to pose the question to him. Reading it now, and understanding the joke, I see where you think it would've been "leading into the gutter" - "what tool do you need" ? No, the joke flew right over my head. I was truly talking about administrative tools. The article was not protected, etc. There was no admin intervention required.

Your exact words were "(not objecting, but) What tool did you need to unfuck it?" With regard to this RFB question it is not relevant who began the thread or why. What is pertinent is that it occurred on the bureaucrats' noticeboard; I wonder why you phrased your response in that manner. Bear in mind that among the posts which followed by other parties was "No dear, my boyfriend. You count as 'occasional sexual liason', which is one step below 'boyfriend', and directly above 'casual hump'. I'll send you a flowchart." Would you say your participation raised or lowered the tenor of discussion, and after several days' reflection do you have any second thoughts? In other words, is this the type of dialog you encourage in public settings?

Law used the word fuck 4 times in his initial request. As is natural for me, I probed for additional information by reframing the question with vocabulary familiar to my conversation partner. Of course, I couldn't re-grant him the tools - I was really only idly curious. I agree that admins should conduct themselves professionally, and what followed at the BN was not the caliber of discussion that should occur there and you'll note I wasn't involved in it. I understand your concerns, but as I said, I did not pick up on those connotations.

To clarify, this question was not about whether you punned on the word "tool" (I never supposed you had). It's that you added "...to unfuck it" and followed up with a second post, yet had nothing more to say after the discussion turned raunchy and several people objected. Occasionally editorial discussion needs to be explicit due to the inherent nature of a subject; this was not one of those times. If this RFB passes you will have the ability to re-grant the tools. How would you handle a valid but crude request in future? How would you handle a BN thread that turns into a hot potato?

Well my last comment in the thread was at 16:38 close to its natural end. A comment was made over 8 hours later that roused some further commentary. If I had seen the discussion, I might've made a comment but I had already mostly wrapped up for the night. The next day, I noticed it and saw the suggestion by Newyorkbrad [3] and wrapped a hat around the matter [4] in agreement. If I had been the acting bureaucrat in that thread, I would've taken a more active role in shaping it.

Optional question from Cool3

11. How would you close this hypothetical RfA?

Wow! I can see you've put a lot of thought and time into composing this. I'm going to give it the attention it deserves and will answer it by the end of the UTC-day. –xeno^talk 04:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A. So the first thing I notice is that it's very lightly trafficked by current RFA standards. Maybe you might want to beef it up a bit with some more stand-ins, but I'm sure it's already been a lot of work. When you combine this with the potential that up to 10 of 40 votes were potentially canvassed; the fact that the user has not responded to several questions coupled with the fact that lack of communication is a concern that was raised and documented by respected users, I am leaning towards no consensus. This is only if the RFA can not be extended, as I believe has been done in the past when concerns of off-wiki canvassing were raised. This would be the ideal solution, and some mention of the off-wiki canvassing should be made (if it doesn't present privacy concerns) seeking impartial commentators.

Question from Cla68

12. I think it was about a year ago that the Wikiproject Computer Games was accused of trying to game the FAC forum to try to get articles promoted that weren't up to the standards. Do you agree or disagree that this was going on? Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A. Hm, I found this discussion from May 2008. I wasn't involved with any kind of FAC reviews back then (or now, for that matter). I looked over the discussion briefly and from what I can tell there were VG editors who were lending support too frequently to FA candidates when the articles didn't cut the mustard. In this case I would hope that it is merely untempered enthusiasm, rather than an intentional attempt to game the system.

Question from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

13. Several people have brought up your contributions to Wikipedia Review. Would you like to disclose your user name there so that others can see if there is any merit to their concerns? (Disclosure: My view is that there is nothing inherently wrong with participating at WR or any other external forum.)

A. Sure, it's no secret. –xeno^talk 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Xeno: Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Xeno can be found here.
• Promote Xeno (bureaucrats only)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to the talk page. JamieS93 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who finds his edit summaries irritating? Majorly talk 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For example...? The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 17:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about a habit I have to copy and paste my talk page comments into the edit summary (e.g. [5] [6]. I don't do this as often, in part because of Majorly raising the issue at my talk page, but on the other hand, I have had other users mention they found the practice helpful. Personally I find it useful especially for edit conflicts, because the comment is already in the paste buffer. –xeno^talk 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. Also, with such edit summaries, you can see your comments right from your watchlist, which is convenient. So, no, I don't find them irritating, personally. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are for summarising the edit, not pasting the actual edit contents. Often, the text is truncated and the formatting such as the colons and tildes are pointless. I have noticed this habit isn't being continued as much, which is positive. Majorly talk 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, in particular, I have been avoiding using this method when the comment would be truncated to account per your concerns. Nevertheless, I still find this method helpful for following up on comments I've made. –xeno^talk 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always found that practice to be helpful and have occasionally employed it myself. Javért  |  ^Talk 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have doubts. Now, I don't think I've ever ran into you before, but I've seen your name countless times plastered over the admin noticeboards. While article writing isisn't a requirement for cratship per se, the amount of writing you'll do, which is already too low for my liking (I concede that my standard, which I try to maintain for myself, is much higher than the community as a whole expects), will only decrease further. I see you somewhat as a career admin, whose involvement is with the administrative tasks largely; this will only increase with the crat bit. While we need gnomes, admins, etc, we are an encyclopedia, so the writing of articles should take precedence to a certain degree. Xeno, I would be very interested to hear what you think. Maxim_(talk) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion here: "While article writing is a requirement for cratship per se..." This isn't true, it's just a standard made up on a whim by some people; "I see you somewhat as a career admin, whose involvement is with the administrative tasks largely; this will only increase with the crat bit." How is this at all a problem? We want active functionaries, not ones that get the bit just to display on their userpage and throw their weight around with; "we are an encyclopedia, so the writing of articles should take precedence to a certain degree" This is certainly true, but is anything Xeno does actually an issue? As I've mentioned, article writing has nothing to do with bureaucratship. We have several bureaucrats who don't do a lot of article work, who do just fine. No point in making up standards that don't actually correlate with the job being asked for. It's like requiring good typing skill for working as a gardener. Majorly talk 22:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll just comment for now that I utterly failed -- article writing isn't a requirement by itself :p. Maxim_(talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maxim, I'll admit I am no article writer. While I do enjoy it when I get right down to it, I simply don't have the time to focus on writing. I do my best to contribute here and there. I will still likely continue with my regular gnomish outlook towards the encyclopedia, editing wherever the pursuit of knowledge takes me. –xeno^talk 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• @Xeno – might be best to avoid responding to all the opposes. I've got no problem with it, but I know all too well that some think differently. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I am not a fan of people who respond to every oppose either, but responding to those first few opposes helped to get those issues into the open. I'll admit I didn't spend much time writing the nom. I'm happy to answer any additional questions people may have, I didn't get much traction on with the standard ones: too open-ended. –xeno^talk 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• C'mon, 25 RfA questions to respond to? No one is going to gain any benefit out of answers to all 25, and it will only mean that Xeno will be able to spend less time on each and not answer as fully. Can't these please be chosen a little more judiciously? Maedin\^talk 16:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your concern, but I did invite additional questions; my answers to q1-3 were admittedly brief. I may expand those as well. –xeno^talk 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Inviting them is quite different from being bombarded by them. I just see them as inconsiderate. The benefit of answering 25 that no one will look at fully is far less than that of answering 10, which everyone will look at closely. Perhaps I shouldn't care so much, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm agreeing with Maedin here. I really see no added benefit from asking Xeno all these questions. It seems like the whole reason is to see if (and when) he will screw up a question. Obviously that's not the sole reason, but it's just that most of the situations in Pmlineditor's questions have already been raised in the stock RfB RfAs one question earlier. (X! · talk)  · @886  ·  20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  After answering Q6, I certainly wouldn't complain if the list in Q7 was trimmed a bit =). –xeno^talk 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• In regards to Q10; I don't think Xeno "brought the conversation into the gutter". My comment quoted there was made as part of a conversation ridiculing the tightarsed, humourless view expressed by another user, that user being.. Durova. Ironholds (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

   Why are you apologizing? iMatthew ^talk at 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Joke on opposes. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong Support Yes, yes, yes, yes. Did I mention yes? Jeni ^(talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
4. I think so. Nathan ^T 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
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)

   I sure hope MZMcBride's RfA isn't still open in seven days... :) LittleMountain5 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   You never know. It may eventually have to be moved to 2009-2010 MZMcBride RFA crisis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Further note: In general, the oppose commenters raise three main issues: (a) Blocking DougsTech; (b) Unprotecting the ED article, and (c) Baiting Giano. I disagree with all three of these actions (although only very mildly for the middle one). So why am I supporting? Because these are three incidents out of 12,000+ admin actions and 49,000+ edits. People are going to make mistakes. We can't, practically, weed out all the imperfect people and only give the Crat flag to the perfect ones. If these actions were part of a trend, I can see a concern, but they're isolated. The Community is even fairly divided on the first two items; if he'd done the opposite, I wonder if we'd have people on the other side of the issue opposing for that? In each case, he accepted with grace the corrective action of the community. Consider the possibility that you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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)
7. Support Yes definitely, absolutely, POSITIVELY! ArcAngel (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Yeah... uh.... sure! :) iMatthew ^talk at 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
11. Support, although he's a total noob. Tan | 39 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - what they all said... Xeno is an awesome admin.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
13. No fucking brainer. Yes. → ROUX ₪ 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
14. I will continuing the theme of cursing and say motherfucking yeah! The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Aye Alan16 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
16. 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)
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)
18. Support yes. Guest9999 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
19.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Xeno. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

    Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran, Xeno. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

    Apologies ... your RfA !votes show plenty of friendly, thoughtful engagement. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

21. Yes. Unlikely to misuse the extra few buttons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

    The opposers do raise valid concerns, though I still believe the benefits resulting from Xeno's promotion would far outweigh the occasional misstep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

22. Absolutely. Javért  |  ^Talk 04:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Yeah mate. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support I have no issues with xeno, and the 'crats could always use another hand. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
27. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, per Tan ;) -- Luk ^talk 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
32. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
39. Unqualified support I believe that Xeno would do an excellent job as a Bureaucrat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support As per the other 39 people here. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Moving to Oppose, sorry.

40. 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 rise. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Weak Support Keepscases (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Xeno's a dedicated and active admin who I very much respect. My general criteria for bureaucratship is "an above-average admin who understands consensus", and Xeno fits this perfectly. ~ mazca ^talk 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Really-pissed-because-of-multiple-edit-conflicts support I trust Xeno's judgement, and in general agree with his "controversial" actions detailed in the oppose section. ƒ(Δ)² 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Helpful editor and admin. BRfA could certainly use another bureaucrat who already understands the BRfA process flagging the approved bots. And xeno has always seemed logical and helpful when I've interacted with him. Per above as well :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Support The opposition's alternating accusations of being process bound, and at the same time not following process enough I see as merely a manifestation of Xeno knowing when to ignore all rules and when not to. While I sometimes feel that Xeno takes assuming good faith a little too far, it's often safer to err on that side of the issue anyway. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Absolutely, I trust Xeno to wield a power mop - or whatever it would be called. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Going through some of Xeno's work, I'm impressed with how thorough the candidate can be when executing admin duties. I look forward to seeing that same attention to detail in the Bureaucrat's chair. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support This editor is above and beyond what is hoped for in an admin and no doubt would be a fine bearocrat. Support with zero hesitation. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - without a doubt. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Where do I start? - I'm not entirely sure Xeno would expect me to have such strong feelings towards his application for bureaucratship, but I have been nothing if not impressed at his actions as an administrator and negotiator (in particular, his role in the Rorschach test incident). Seldom do I vote in these requests, but I felt I had to in this case. Xeno acted most appropriately in his role during the negotiation of the Rorschach affair and requested another admin get involved when his neutrality became affected. This, to me, shows sincere maturity, clue and self-control, all qualities necessary in a bureaucrat. I have no doubt whatsoever that Xeno will act equally appropriately as an bureaucrat, and I trust him not to go berzerk. I understand the opposers concerns, but I do feel Xeno has learnt from his mistakes sufficiently and that those mistakes should not cloud this RfB. Best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - Have encountered this admin in many places, constructively working to build the encyclopedia, defuse conflict, and encourage others. Their sense of humor and energy are additional pluses. I have read the opposes and find additional reasons to support when I examine their reasoning. --StaniStani  20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. This candidate has demonstrated good discretion and decision-making over a long period of time. Meets the criteria for community trust. —Matheuler 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support:

    Welcoming He has been around to help new editors take their first unsteady steps on Wikipedia.

    Constructive Edits (He does not spend all his time reverting or deleting edits and he takes the time to improve poor edits) And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus He is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. A sensible and dedicated Editor/Admin who interacts well with others. Good Luck and Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

56. Strong Support I've seen a lot of Xeno's work and never had a problem. I read the Opposes, and the links, so saw a lot of the seamy side of sysops, but nothing to change my opinion.--SPhilbrickT 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - darn good. The opposes seem to be related to isolated incidents, which I personally ignore, as the net effect is important. Bureaucrat is nothing, really. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
58. Support I have seen time and time again Xeno work tirelessly, constantly, and accurately promoting the ideals of consensus. I've been waiting for this. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Absolutely yes! =). America69 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Strong candidate, will serve the project well with the added tools. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support What's a few more buttons? I trust Xeno to use them wisely. hmwitht 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support He's far less muddy than most others who've tried to wade in and help around here. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Will make a good 'crat. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Strong Support I have run into Xeno before, or atleast his bot :) He is a very helpful and kind person. Can't see a reason why he should not be a bureaucrat. Warrior4321 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. I can empathize with several points brought up in the oppose section, and indeed at the time of the DT (first) block, I sat on the opposite side of the isle from Xeno. I also think there are times that Xeno is a little quick on the trigger, but I've seen that work to the benefit of the 'pedia at times as well. I appreciated the efforts to establish both: Wikipedia:Administrator review and WP:REFUND. At the end of the day, Xeno has shown a willingness to discuss any and all actions, and more importantly, to give fair consideration to opposing points of view. That's the selling point for me. A couple extra functions for a website isn't going bring the sky crashing down in this case, so I'm happy to "support" this bid to help our esteemed colleagues. — Ched :  ?  05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Answers to the questions aren't that good, but I know him well enough to be confident with the extra buttons. :P GlassCobra 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support One of the best editors I have seen around. Xeno can definitely handle the role of a 'crat. Airplaneman ^talk 16:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Absolutely no concerns. As for the Dougs Tech dustup, the problem is that a competent, clueful administrator took the correct action against a user who had no interest in contributing any meaningful content to Wikipedia. This was not the blocking of some misguided noob, or an over-emotional but otherwise valuable contributor. The Dougs Tech fiasco did not expose a problem with Xeno, rather, the incident highlighted that we have a sizeable group of editors who are willing to defend the likes of Dougs Tech and drag out process to tie the hands of the admin corps from taking sensible and obvious action. The work of Xeno helps build a better encyclopedia, and helps foster a competent community of new and old users coming together to build a compendium of objective human knowledge. The work of Dougs Tech helps foster drama, and tears apart the community. Critical, independent, and objective thinking with a well demonstrated mastery of Wikipedia policy is exactly the type of person I want in the role of bureaucrat, and Xeno fits the bill. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    The parts about DougsTech are certainly true, and Xeno should certainly be commended for his part in that, certainly not opposed over it. Majorly talk 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Commended for what? Indef blocking DT when the community rejected the topic-ban proposal? Creating needless drama at ANI? Awarding DT a barnstar three days after indef blocking him? I'm not supporting or opposing DT's action; I'm pointing out the manner in which Xeno conducted himself. Hiberniantears, what do you have to say about Xeno's answers to Q1 and Q2? Please read JayHenry's comment here. Sadly multiple voters lack critical, independent, and objective thinking while voting at RFAs and RFBs. AdjustShift (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    DougsTech was nothing but a troll and Xeno did the right thing by blocking him. The community were obviously wrong in that case. Later on I seem to recall they endorsed a ban. Xeno was obviously clueful enough to do it early, but the community insisted that the trolling be allowed to continue. I too thought awarding a barnstar was pretty dumb, but not everyone is perfect. We aren't after a demi-god here, we're after a user who can count votes and promote/not promote. It's not difficult, no matter what some people like to pretend. Majorly talk 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    @ Adjust Shift - I take Xeno at his word as regards the barnstar. Barnstars are the wiki equivalent of a "poke" on Facebook. They are not actual awards, or certificates that carry any value. When someone gives me a barnstar, I appreciate it. Were I involved in a dispute with someone, and they gave me a barnstar after the fact in good faith, I would regard it as a gesture of reconcilliation. Dougs Tech was correctly blocked by Xeno for being a gigantic horse's ass. The community incorrectly overturned the block. Xeno, realizing he got shafted, had to then make the best of an imperfect situation and he chose to reach out to Dougs Tech. This isn't bad judgement, this is good diplomacy. As for Xeno's answers to Q1 and Q2, I obviously see no problem. Xeno is often criticized for being process bound, rather than open to critical thinking. His record suggests a healthy mixture of the two, and I see that in his answers to the two questions. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Majorly and Hiberniantears: thanks for your responses. Both of you have some points, but I've some concerns regarding Xeno's suitability for bureaucratship. AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

69. Support Very competent and dedicated editor. I'm sure Wikipedia will benefit from him becoming a 'crat. -- œ^™ 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Support -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Xeno won't abuse the extra tools. Regarding some of the opposes, DougsTech should be put behind us. Most of those involved could definitely have made better decisions during the debate, myself and several admins included. Does Xeno's decision back in May indicate he'll misuse the bureaucrat tools? I don't think so. Timmeh (review me) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Strong Support We definitely could use more 'crats, and I think Xeno could definitely make a good 'crat :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. In my opinion, Xenocidic has always used sound judgment and has worked within Wikipedia very well. Excellent technical abilities, communicative and responsive to other users on his talk and elsewhere. No hesitation in supporting. Keeper | 76 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Someone is still living in 2008. Enigma^msg 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Would someone please explain this reply to me? — neuro^(talk) 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    It sounds like he's saying that Keeper's comment explains Xeno as he was in 2008, not recently (though I disagree). iMatthew ^talk at 12:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    hehe, E-man was referring to Keeper's use of my full name which I switched from very early in '09. –xeno^talk 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    I've actually created an Excel spreadsheet for username changes involving people I know. Gotta make sure I keep everyone straight. Useight (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, Xeno is correct. I guess I should've appended a smiley at the end. I was poking fun at Keeper's absence from Wikipedia. Enigma^msg 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    I was simply using his formal name, for this formal request :-). And mostly just bragging that I've worked with/known this "Xeno" character for awhile. Very funny response though Enigmaman :-) Keeper | 76 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

74. Support Hes my adopter and hes EVERYEHERE. i swear hes Dr. Manhattan. Anyways, very democratic, full support. Tim1357 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    E -> W. :) Enigma^msg 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

75. Support, we could use more 'crats and this user is right for the job. Nuff said. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Support' I personally have never had any issues with the user; the only time I've had a meaningful interaction with the user was during the DougsTech block, and while I think Xeno was hasty, he was perfectly willing to listen and discuss things. He's flexible, and that's a quality I appreciate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support I absolutely trust Zeno as an admin, and believe that he is as ably suited (perhaps even more suited given his demeanour) for the 'crat position. --ponyo (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Willing to take a chance on this editor. He's had a few slipups, but I generally find that he has sound judgment. I would also note that a couple of the opposes are wildly unconvincing, although that of course is not a reason to support. Enigma^msg 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Support per answers to question 10. We're all human. Durova³¹² 06:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
80. I think Xeno has integrity, a sensible outlook, and an approachable demeanour. He frequents all the right places and has sound decision-making ability. The opposers don't concern me a great deal. Therefore, support. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
81. I believe Xeno has the ability of becoming a sensible crat. He is a great admin and I don't find any opposes to compel me not to oppose him. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
82. Xeno has been with Wikipedia for a long time, so I think he'd be a good 'crat. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
83. Support I've been aware of Xeno for over a year and also followed two of the sagas mentioned by the opposes. I trust Xeno's judgement and especially his willingness to react to changed behaviour as evidenced by his giving a Barnstar to Dougstech after he responded to the blocking incident by doing some useful stuff with Huggle. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
84. Support He has been an Admin for some time and I think he will be a good 'crat. Regards, December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
85. Moving from neutral Per my contention that 'crat'-ship is less of a big deal than adminship. The harder we make this process of rights change, the more we sneak toward treating different bits as ranks. We are determining whether or not we want Xeno to rename people and close RfAs. That's it. On the opposes: many, if not most, have a great deal of merit to them. There are some good points raised there and further supports would do well to read them first. I will fully admit my bias re: the DT question. I was happy to see DT get drummed off and would have been happier to see it sooner. So an admin pulling the trigger 'early' is not a black mark for me. Protonk (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
86. Support great admin, great judgment, be great crat. — JoJo • Talk • 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
87. Certainly —Animum (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
88. I wasn't sure about this one, but I've been convinced. After all, Xeno is willing to learn, and I know will take on board any concerns and other things here. Agree with HibernianTears' rationale as well. Acalamari 19:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
89. Yes - Entirely suitable for this role. Crafty (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
90. Support - no warning bells ringing for me. Deb (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
91. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards (Yes, I know this candidacy is an RfB rather than RfA, but my standards are at this time more or less the same as in if you did good as an admin, well…). Anyway, the candidate is willing to provide copies of deleted articles, which is always appreciated by us article rescue and improvers and as always I also carefully examined any XfDs we both commented in. I am not sure what is up with changing PC78’s comment to be less grammatically correct here, but his arguments in that discussion were by and large spot on. This comment is at least open-minded. In any event, as far as I recall, as an admin, Xeno never blocked me or deleted articles I worked to save, so that also scores high with me.  :) But beyond all of that Xeno has received User:Xeno/barnstars from numerous editors and for a variety of reasons. The candidate has welcoming userspace, even noting that he/she "would like to wish you a happy Hallowe'en," which is always appreciated. He cares enough about the project to actual donate according to his userboxes. And yes, I even agree about Summer Glau... The candidate welcomes new users, has made nearly 50,000 edits, and his sole block was an accidental one to himself which User:Jehochman quickly undid. Now, I think some editors below make some valid points as heck I defended Doug Tech to some degree, but I think Xeno has done enough positive here to merit giving him a chance. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
92. Suppport Tempodivalse [talk] 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
93. Support. Most jobs a bureaucrat has are easy, and simply require a little more trust than extended to an admin. I fully trust Xeno, and am convinced he will tend to the added responsibilities wisely and, well, responsibly. His gnomish doings will be of benefit to quickly get the non-controversial things done, and despite and because of the incidents (and their aftermaths!) mentioned above and below, I fully trust he will be wise enough to approach controversial issues with the restraint and judgment required. Amalthea 10:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
94. Support per User:Faithlessthewonderboy/On bureaucratship and Wisdom89. I mean, if we're going to have bureaucrats, they may as well be wildly bureaucratic, amirite? =) faithless (^speak) 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
95. Support. I've seen numerous examples of Xeno making helpful and appropriate actions, and came here early in the process expecting to support. When I saw the opposes, I decided to take some time to think about it. So far, what bothers me the most is actually the issue raised by Durova in Q10, and having that answered, I really see no convincing reason not to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
96. Support. Helpful, trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
97. Support, for I see no reason not to. --Aqwis (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
98. Support ≈ MindstormsKid 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
99. Support per Amalthea. --John (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
100. Support Great user, trust that mistakes (ie. Doug) won't be repeated. :) Cheers, I'^mperator 23:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
101. Strong support Handled the Rorschach controversy exceedingly well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
102. Support – I am very appreciative of his conduct as an admin as well as his knowledge of bots and the bot policy. I hope to see Xeno flag bots as this admin seems especially apt in that field. MuZemike 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
103. Support - I see no problems here. Tavix |  Talk  01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
104. Support - Xeno is not only an extremely competent and trustworthy administrator, he's a down-to-earth, quick learning, decisive and effective person as well. He has demonstrated that he is able to handle controversy much better than many others could ever hope to claim, and when he does make a mistake, he learns from it. I must admit, I find accusations of being 'too bureaucratic' rather strange - the name of the position does have certain similarities - and while ignoring rules can be wonderful, I would have much greater problems with a user who demonstrates that they feel their opinion is better than policy. WP:IAR can be great - saying that someone doesn't do it enough is troubling. An expression of strong and complete support. Ale_Jrb^talk 09:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
105. Support - I have long viewed xeno as one of our hardest working and best admins. Given the amount of difficult and/or controversial decisions he has taken on, it is not surprising that he has made a few mistakes (as outlined in the oppose section). I am bothered by the brief and/or non-committal answers to several questions. Ultimately, neither the opposes nor the weak question answers have persuaded me that my numerous positives experiences with xeno have given me a false impression of his ability. Thus, I am happy to lend my support despite this RfB being a less than ideal presentation of his qualifications (IMO). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
106. "Bureaucrat" on Wikipedia is a ticky-box job that could be performed by a well-trained gibbon and instils about as much respect, and I neither understand why people make so much fuss over RFBs, nor care whether or not Xeno is one. Support to cancel out some of the imbecility in the "oppose" column though. "Xeno is like a well-trained gibbon" is at least as valid a logic as about 50% of the other points raised on this RFB, and whoever has the thankless task of closing this farce will probably take both about as seriously. – iridescent 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

     Note: Discussion moved to talk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

107. Support - Xeno is generally a trusted user and should make a good 'crat. The answer to question one didn't inspire me, but the rest of the answers seem okay. I have read through the RfA and I recognise the concerns of the opposition. There is probably going to be debate for months if not years on what happened with DougsTech, mistakes were probably made from multiple sides, and I am willing to overlook this. I will also overlook the FlyingToaster issue given the apology. The unprotection of Encyclopedia Dramatica on user request did not seem unreasonable, though that is the kind of page that needs special consideration, so a minor mistake there. I don't particular care about Xeno being a Wikipedia Review regular either. Overall, I give my support. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
108. Support - I would trust Xeno's judgment as a 'crat based on the conduct I've seen at WP:ANI and elsewhere. His answers to the questions in this RfB just affirm my respect for him. -- Atama頭 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
109. Support - A tireless contributor who could only benefit from the extra tools. --LAAFan^sign _review 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
110. Support - Per User:Iridescent. I could not have said it better! :) Ripberger (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
111. Support - I just can't see a problem. Tim Song (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
112. Support Don't see anything wrong. BejinhanTalk 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
113. Support Issues raised such as the Dougstech Affair and Comtesse Affair are definitely appreciated, but it is my opinion that xeno is a better contributor because of them, not worse. Everyone will make mistakes in this process, and it looks like xeno learned from his. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Good choice for bureaucrat. --Bastique ^demandez 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
115. Support. Of course. Syn 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
116. Support. Drama magnet issues but overall support. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
117. Weak support - In my experience, user is always sensible, civil, and willing to discuss. A couple of the opposes give me slight pause, but nothing to oppose over. A few months back I had a discussion with this user that made it seem to me that they only recognize de jure consensus, discounting de facto consensus, but that perception may be incorrect and, in any case, it's a philosophical viewpoint that I don't think would negatively impact this user's 'cratting. -kotra (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
118. Weak Support. After some consideration, it is true that Xeno is not a perfect person, but no RFB candidate is. He is, however, good enough for me. I don't think he'd make any errors so great to render him no longer a net positive. Useight (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
119. HUGE Support. One of Wiki's strongest. I'd love to see xeno get this position. --APShinobi ^{My Contribs} 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
120. Support The oppose reasons are bordering laughable.--Otterathome (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
121. Support I don't think that he'll misuse the tools. PGWG (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
122. Support — Lost^(talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
123. Support I came to oppose because of the DougsTech thing, but reading this entire page it strikes me that Xeno seems to be a man/woman of action and, of course, you only get into trouble when you do stuff! Several months have passed since DT, Xeno has admitted his/her mistakes, apologized to giano, and seems ready to move on. I'm willing to move on as well and support his/her candidature. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

   On May 3, 2009, Xeno blocked DougsTech indefinitely from editing en.wikipedia.[7] 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 [8]. 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)

   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... –xeno^talk 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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. –xeno^talk 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   I really get annoyed when people speak without even reading the whole thing. On May 3, 2009 Xeno blocked DT indef from editing; on May 6, 2009 Xeno awarded DT a barnstar. Will you call that a good judgment? AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'll be the first to say it: yes. The block was kind of controversial, and I can easily see how somebody would dislike it. I don't know about Doug (above), but I'm fully aware of the past DT situation. Barnstars are just little tokens of "thanks"; awards shouldn't be focused on, but they shouldn't be restricted either. "...we need to see how he contributes for about two months"; I'd fully agree with you if we were talking about granting rollback to a historically contentious person. It never hurts to give a smile/barnstar; and if the user appears to have a change of heart, it could very well help them stay in a positive direction. I'll leave you with your opinion, though. JamieS93 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Jamie, if another admin would have indef blocked DT on May 3, it would have been a different story. If I were to indef block an editor and the editor gets unblocked, I'll not award the same editor a barnstar after three days. A barnstar is not like smile. Barnstars are used on WP to reward someone, to let them know that their hard work is appreciated. And the block was controversial. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. That block didn't serve any purpose; instead it created a needless drama at ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Great, because I get downright pissed off when people assume that I didn't read something. I read the whole page several times before I commented, let alone !voted. Let's be more clear, WTF does a barn star have to do with anything? I'll find someone to block right now, award them a barnstar and wait for you to bring an ANI thread on it so I can enjoy watching people write "WTF". There is no judgment required to award a barn star.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not only talking about barnstar; I'm also talking about indef block. It is indef block + barnstar. Indef blocking someone one day and giving the same guy a barnstar after three days is not a good judgement. AdjustShift (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   "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)

   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)

   • 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)

   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." [9] –xeno^talk 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   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)

2. Oppose Hopelessly process bound. I seriously doubt this candidate's ability to use common sense and approach reviews of RfAs with careful consideration. For evidence, have a look at this case where Xeno insisted I take four images to FfD that were used on a deleted article about a completely non-notable band (you can see how notable it is yourself...have a look at this). It is this sort of rigidly bureaucratic approach to processes that will result in seriously bad decision making at RfA. Further, this editor arbitrarily makes up rules on the fly to block people whom he finds lacking. We all know the DougsTech saga. But, Xeno coming up with a new law that you must edit the mainspace in order to avoid being blocked here was absolutely absurd. What arbitrary laws will he come up with at RfA? The scary part here isn't so much that he'll come up with the arbitrary laws, but that removing a bureaucrat bit is virtually impossible. Once he's a bureaucrat, we'll have virtually no way to prevent similar actions on his part. I do not want to think about what arbitrary laws he'll apply to WP:RFA and WT:RFA, such as this one he suggested. I also dislike his movement of substantial discussion away from RfAs onto their talk pages [10][11][12] (and there are multiple others). This sort of activity colors the RfA. No. Absolutely not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   You are welcome to your opinion, and thank you for providing it, but please be accurate in delivering it. I came up with no such "law", I simply enforced our disruptive editing policy. It was from there that you came up with "XenosLaw", which was an inaccurate and overly simplistic characterization of the situation. –xeno^talk 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   (ec)Hammer, maybe I'm missing something here... but didn't you come up with Xenos Law? IMO your argument might hold some weight, but by pointing to a place where you made a sarcastic post concerning Xeno's activities and then attributing it to Xeno kind of unmines your point. If I am misreading it, I do apologize, but that's what this looks like.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Then allow me to be more clear. Xeno urged Dougstech to work in the mainspace [13] and blocked him for failure to do so [14] "I've blocked you indefinitely as you no longer appear to be interested in building the encyclopedia; having not edited the mainspace in nearly a month" (and the further on claim of disruption elsewhere was not proven and subject to a great deal of debate). I didn't make this up. According to Xeno, lack of editing in the mainspace is a criteria for being indefinitely banned from the project. --Hammersoft (talk)

   What an incredibly inaccurate and disingenuous way to spin that event. Oppose if you want, but don't twist context around. Tan | 39 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't spin it at all. It's Xeno's words, not mine. He blocked him in part for failing to contribute to the mainspace. He said it, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   The way I interpreted that was that his lack of actual editing meant that his actions were just disruptive trolling within the Wikipedia space. A complete lack of actual article-writing or any mainspace contributions meant that DougsTech was essentially a disruptive single-purpose account. This doesn't mean that there is a mandatory editing requirement, merely that a lack of actual encyclopedia-building combined with disruptive work in other parts of the wiki is blockable. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not trying to re-visit the Dougstech debacle. That isn't my point. My point is that Xeno used the lack of contributions to the mainspace as a criteria for blocking. This arbitrary and capricious creation of rules he sees fit to block people by carries great weight for me in considering what he would do as a bureaucrat. There is no requirement on anybody to edit the mainspace. An editor can be in perfectly good standing and never touch the mainspace. Whether or not anyone contributes to the mainspace isn't any factor in whether a person should be blocked. But, Xeno saw fit to make it a factor. That is exceptionally troubling to me. And Tanthalas, accusing me of disingenuity is out of line. If you want to label my conclusions as inaccurate, fine. There's no need to comment on me personally. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I have every right to state that I consider your comment disingenuous. If you take it as a personal offront, that's your business. Tan | 39 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Calling my statements inaccurate is fine. Calling them disingenuous strongly implies that I am intentionally making them inaccurate. That's a personal attack. I'm quite confident you can convey your meaning without using the personal attack. In fact, you did so before you even mentioned the word. I could just as well call you a ******* ******* (insert whatever offensive words you'd like) and say "If you take that as a personal offront, that's your business". You do have a responsibility for what you say. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I'm not sure what you want to hear; I'm certainly not going to retract or soften that comment. Tan | 39 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Tune in for next week's exciting episode of "It's an insult!", "No it isn't!", "Yes it is!", "No it isn't!" on this and other RFA affiliates. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   There is a fairly decent essay you may wish to see on this topic, and although it was written after-the-fact, it quite succinctly summarizes my position. –xeno^talk 18:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Too strictly process bound. Things like this are unhelpful to requests for adminship. It's not supposed to be a cross-examination, it's supposed to be aye or nay. Asking candidates stock questions I find is almost always an unhelpful, essentially useless practice. We have enough RfA questions as it is, and a potential bureaucrat trying to make the process even more difficult is not what we need. Majorly talk 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just FYI I haven't asked my stock question in as long as I can remember, though I keep it around for posterity, partly because it's linked from the RFAs in which it was asked, but mostly because I like to use it as an example that vandals can become constructive contributors. (P.S. The right answer is: give a second chance, people! ;>)–xeno^talk 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I find the fact that you ever thought it a good idea to be problematic. RfA needs to be made easier, not more difficult. Others have used the question in attempts to trip candidates up, use it (and other questions) to make an excuse to oppose somebody. Any bureaucrat who finds asking stock questions an acceptable practice will always get a firm no from me. Majorly talk 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   No one is immune to making dumb decisions. It is promising that Xeno has since moved on from that question. @harej 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, I've never seen that before, and after reading it I thought it was a pretty well structured and interesting little question. I would have added it to my support, as it brings a lot of insight in a very decorative and aesthetically pleasing way. Xeno, ever think about producing guides or manuals? You would seem to be highly qualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   This is a joke or your new method since you no longer ask what is What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Easy! That's 613.756756756756756756756756756756756756756... iMatthew ^talk at 02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't really care, but that's a reference to the types of questions that Majorly used to ask. So I find it quite humorous that he is critical of someone else's questions. Maybe you got the joke and I just didn't follow, if so, sorry.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you missed the part that my questions were a parody of the ridiculous sort of real questions that came up on RfA. Did you seriously think I cared about whether the user played the violin or not, or what their favourite colour was? It was an attempt (in vain) to show how ridiculous stock questions are. I am quite allowed to be critical of someone else's questions when they are actually serious ones. I find it quite disheartening you find this "humorous". Majorly talk 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   The humorous part of your questions was never clear as you didn't usually !vote afterwards. Sorry if I didn't "get it".I don't have a real problem with your oppose.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Majorly. Wildly bureaucratic. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you see the irony ;-) Tan | 39 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Tanthalas beat me to the punch. @harej 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see the irony here. Majorly talk 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not irony exactly, but it's close enough for government work. Xeno wishes to be a bureaucrat. Is being opposed for being too bureaucratic. → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The whole Giano baiting incident is partly why I'm opposing, though I did see just now your apology above. However, unprotecting Encyclopedia Dramatica[15] with the rationale "So we'll get some juvenile vandalism, protection will go back up, and that protection will have a policy-based justification (and come from an admin that's not presently retired and vanished)" is frankly ridiculous. You don't unprotect a page like ED that you know will be the target of vandalism, especially not when you have J.delanoy, the site's most experienced anti-vandal fighter, as well as another administrator advising you not to. NW (Talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Actual damage caused by unprotecting the ED article: 0. J. Delanoy was right, of course (and I think I argued against removing protection on the article talk page), but unprotecting an article because someone asks you to isn't the end of the world and doesn't indicate particularly bad judgment. No substantive comment on the Giano baiting bit (I may agree with you in some respects, but I'm guilty of baiting giano too, so glass houses and all). Protonk (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I agree that the actual damage caused was just some oversighted material (that I'm assuming is vandalism), but the fact that Xeno would even consider such a thing to me indicates a severe lack of CLUE. NW (Talk) 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   If I recall correctly it was some vandalism in the edit summary that would have been deleted normally if we had revdelete enabled, but I see your point. We may just disagree on that. Thanks for responding. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   The stuff that was suppressed (assuming you're talking about the three August 11 items) were attempts by the IP to out another editor (I won't bother saying who) in both the body of the article and in the edit summary. (just popping in so we don't have to guess what the contents may have been) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Did the supporters read this thing? The answers to questions 1 and 2 are, as far as I can tell, completely meaningless gibberish. --JayHenry (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Honestly, I've seen very few answers to those two questions that aren't meaningless gibberish. They're vague and silly questions that simply cannot be answered in a definitive manner. ~ mazca ^talk 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   They are vague questions, I agree, but lots of users have given thoughtful answers to them. Look, in his first answer he claims that the community's stance on when to promote is constantly shifting. Um what? On what is this based? He then says "we should stop looking at the numbers so much and put more emphasis into judging the candidate on their merits." What on earth is meant by this? The second answer could have come from Will Ferrell doing his impression of George Bush. "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?" This is gibberish in that it tells us precisely nothing about how he thinks or how he would act, only that he would do it with bravado. From the questions we can produce this scenario. X: "Although there is numerous opposition, I have decided to promote on the merits." JH: "Why?" X: "Because I have made the call. Otherwise, why would I have made it?" JH: "..." --JayHenry (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Partisan behavior during the Dougstech debacle, vague answers to questions, and unprotection of ED article lead me to question the candidate's impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose, mostly per NW. Most of the opposes do worry me, though not overly so. That ED diff though makes me question your judgment for something like this. Wizardman 03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Agree with the DougsTech opposers. I call making a decision on your own while the community is discussing it "cowboy adminship". Would a cowboy crat close a 66% RfA as pass if he really, really feels strongly about it? Don't wanna chance it right now. In my view exercised poor judgment in the DougsTech matter, inflating a minor matter into a dispute that jammed a lot of fans. Lack of consensus does not empower a lone admin to do what he pleases. No other problems with candidate, whom I respect for his admin work, and expect if he does not gain promotion that he can live it down in a few months.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sound admin, great editor, and regretful but firm oppose. The sum of many issues; in particular over DougsTech and an altogether too process driven attitude which I see in Q1 and Q2. I don't think you've demonstrated enough flexibility or original thinking to issues through your edits. I'm sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Firstly, I consider all the concerns raised above to be perfectly valid. Secondly, I do believe that the candidate's answers to the questions above do not reflect neither the judgement nor the attitude becoming to a bureaucrat. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that this user's interests are far too political to be a bureaucrat; this becomes evident both from his contributions on-wiki (especially those in the project space) and those off-wiki, i. e. on wikipediareview, — where he can be considered a regular contributor. Altogether, I am under the impression that the candidate does neither possess the judgement required for a bureaucrat nor that he would act in the best interest of the community if he was to take a decision as a bureaucrat. --Aitias (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Long threaded discussion refactored to the talk page. HiDrNick! 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

12. Strong oppose This user's history of questionable administrative actions such as the ones mentioned above gives me serious reservations about promoting him to a such a trusted position. Furthermore, from the user's contributions I see little documented evidence of experience in bots and usernames. The user's (unconvincing) assertion of experience is not enough. Triplestop x3 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't feel completely comfortable with your judgement as of late. However, I do believe that you aren't far from passing an RfB either. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose for harrassing Dougstech. NVO (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose I'm not seeing the judgement we hope to see in a crat. To be fair, you've been asked to comment on an excessive number of RfAs and RfBs, but so far your response has been to dodge a definite answer on 17 out of 24. We're looking for someone to assess whether a community consensus is there, it seems you don't want to do that, or are unsure how to. It may well be that you will make a good crat one day, not too far away, but I think you need to rethink your approach to being a crat. Just saying you don't plan to work in the most sensitive area of the job doesn't seem a very good response to me. Dean B (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    FYI, I have expanded on Q7 and answered some I would've been recused on in a real-world situation. I'll also go back over Q6. –xeno^talk 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

16. Strong Oppose per Hammersoft & Majorly.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose, you're a fine admin, but we don't need any recently controversial people in the bureaucrat's seat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
18. Oppose The Giano thing. Per Lankiveil above I do think you are a good admin, well intentioned and capable, but you alienated a lot of people with that one. Time will heal, I'm sure, but we need to see more form again before you move up a level. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Don't you mean down a level? :) In all seriousness, administrators work for editors. Bureaucrats work for administrators and editors. It's the editors who decide who gets to work for them in that capacity. Without editors, there wouldn't be administrators or bureaucrats. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Then you are saying we are all in agreement, we all want to kick Xeno downstairs.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    His offenses haven't warranted him being put in the dungeon yet. Maybe in time. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose. It's not about the Giano affair; you have apologized for it, and everybody makes mistakes. It's not about the answers to the questions; although I found them unsatisfactory, I'll take your word for it about the need for de-personalization, and view the responses in that light. But I agree with Wehwalt that indefinitely blocking DougsTech demonstrates "cowboy adminship." I am not sure I can trust you to evaluate consensus fairly as a bureaucrat. Sorry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose I would have gladly kept my support for this RfB and moved on, but the ferocity of the attack on Aitias coupled with the badgering of earlier opponents to this RfB piqued my curiosity on why people were trying to discredit the opposition. In re-reviewing this candidacy, I can appreciate concerns raised on Xeno’s ignoring community consensus in his bad block of DougsTech and his subsequent barnstar to the same editor – one erratic extreme to the other in three days – plus his sarcastic baiting of Giano. In looking again at Xeno's record, I am bothered by this salt-in-the-wound comment to TenPoundHammer following his unfortunate RfA [16] – I find it hard to believe that Xeno “may have even switched to neutral or support” for TPH, especially when he was ready to help sink the RfA less than an hour after it went live (I think he would have started at Neutral and not Oppose, if that was the case about seriously harboring the notion of possible support). I am sorry and I hope I don’t seem flaky in changing sides in midstream, but I am not comfortable supporting this RfB. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    I'm confused - you start off talking about Aitias then you actually talk about everything but Aitias. The answer to why people responded to Aitias is that he has a lot of problems with a lot of people and was asked to be desysopped in an RfC. Aitias's oppose is easy to be seen as a revenge post and just furthering of the problems that resulted in his desysopping. Your defense of Aitias is only an encouragement for him to continue such disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava, why are you dragging this issue? We have to concentrate on Aitias' rationale rather than the motives behind his oppose !vote. As I pointed out earlier, Aitias has a right to support or oppose anyone. Regardless of whether he was desysopped or not, he has contributed positively to en.wikipedia. People not only responded to Aitias' oppose, they also responded to lots of oppose !votes. If nobody, except Xeno, would have responded to my opposition, I may have gone neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    I have no problems responding to this. I am not defending Aitias – I don’t know him and he did not request my assistance. I wouldn’t have paid any attention to his rationale if there had not been undue focus on what he said. Since this rumpus caught my attention, however, I took a second look at this RfB and recognized there were problems that made my support difficult. And if any of you guys want to bop each other on the heads, please take it outside – I didn’t come here to watch a UFC match. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    There are no rights to vote, nor is there a right to get revenge, troll, or disrupt. There was major community support against his behavior that he is continuing now. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Is Aitias blocked? Is he topic banned from RfA/B? Those are the relevant questions. If the answer both of those is no, then Aitis is an editor in good standing. Aitias does have the privilege of commenting here, and without people assuming bad faith. Nobody who disagrees with his votes can take his vote away. Just drop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    He was admonished by arbcom for precisely this sort of behaviour. Though he wasn't blocked, he was desysopped for it. Majorly talk 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    And he still gets to comment on RfAs and RfBs. If you don't like it, take it up with ArbCom. Attempting to railroad him out of this request is out of line. You're in the wrong forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Listen, you mugs -- if you are going to take up pew space in my !vote, I expect some tithing from the whole bunch of you. And if you don't have cash for the collection plate, I accept PayPal. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

21. Weak oppose. While I find you to be an intelligent user and administrator, I'm not sure that a somewhat controversial bureaucrat is what we need right now. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose I have generally high standards for RfB, and Xeno has not impressed me to that level. Prodego ^talk 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Obviously a lightening rod for drama and dramatic editors. Bureaucrats should not be drama-magnets. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose The guy creates too much drama. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose - don't feel that his judgment is up to the level that we should require for bureaucrats; per Pastor Theo, NuclearWarfare, and others above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose, primarily for Giano-baiting. While I was impressed enough with his own self-block to give him a barnstar for it, I expect bureaucrats to have some consideration aforethought not to stir that pot. I also have quite high standards for bureaucrats. I'd like to see solid content work, FA construction, for example. Handling of main page day chaos, working with new editors in what I consider to be high stress situations. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• 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)
• 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)

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. –xeno^talk 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Don't worry, I'll have a question prepared for you soon enough. @harej 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly there was a large discussion on BN about honorifics in user names. The issue isn't settled by any means. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Moved to oppose. 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)
• 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). Moving to support. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Not opposed at first glance; will probably revisit this later on. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
2. per Wizardman.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Need to think about this. --John (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. Since I have been extraordinarily busy as of late, this is just a reminder to myself, which I'll see when I glance at my contribs again, to come back and give this the consideration it deserves. Useight (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to weak support.

3. Neutral - I was on support but now there's a little bit more reason why I may no longer lean support. I'll have to revisit this later. Consider this a placeholder. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 11:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I have reviewed this over once more and I still cannot reach solid support or oppose at this time. Xeno, I think you're not a bad guy - but I think the community has some more questions that haven't been answered - some about your history, some about your readiness. I believe in time these questions will be answered, but right now I'm not ready to make my decision, so my vote will remain neutral. I wish you the best. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Came here to support but reading everything it would seem that the opposes could carry a lot of weight. My previous interactions with you have been astonishingly positive and his overall demeanour is typically soaked in clue, making him a fantastic admin. My main concern is a gut feeling. I don't think you're ready, I think you perhaps are too stuck with the rules, and I don't think of all the admins on this website that you're the one to be the next 'crat. Really sorry but it's just how I feel. Good luck howver, and whatever the result of this RfB I look forward to further excellent interaction in the future.  GARDEN  22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - hmmm. Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Comment, Xeno has made some mistakes. That doesn't necessarily mean that he/she won't be a good 'crat. It could very well be a positive indication that Xeno is willing to jump in and make some difficult decisions and learn by experience, including learning from mistakes. On the other hand, it could also mean that he/she isn't a good candidate. I think more important indicators are if Xeno pushes any POV in articles and/or plays favorites with any particular editors or groups of editors. If the answer to both of these questions is "no", then it's probably fine for Xeno to have increased admin privileges and responsibility. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)