Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xaosflux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] xaosflux

final (98/2/0) ending 01:12 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Xaosflux (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating xaosflux for adminship. He is a very friendly user, who has been here since October and has over 6,000 edits. He performs vandal fighting, stub sorting, page cleanups, assists in category renames and I don't know what else. He'd be an even greater asset to Wikipedia if he were given the mop. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I warmly accept the nomination. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, definitely, no reservations. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, more than qualified.--Shanel 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - appears to be an excellent user. Essexmutant 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support very reliable user. KI 01:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support this one's easy. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Fantastic user. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. BD2412 T 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, per above and nom. Definitely qualified. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I thought he already WAS one... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, without hesitattion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Suprised he wasn't already one. --Rory096 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, all experiences have been very positive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Thought he already was an admin. WikiFanatic 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Yes indeed; good admin material. Antandrus (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, voted Speedy Keep on the Welcome template j/k will make a good admin Dr Debug (Talk) 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support answer to my question convinced me. NSLE (T+C) 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support for the answer on the questions abakharev 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Very positive interactions, I thought he was an admin already as well - Trysha (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support A definite asset to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Have seen around, will make great admin. --Allen 06:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Jusjih 06:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Fantastuc user with fantastic edits.Good time to mop, guy!Tan DX 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Good editor, trustworthy and he reverted vandalism to my user page--Dakota ~ ε ° 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support great vandal fighter, good contributions at *fD. And hundreds of deleted edits. Kusma (討論) 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Of course. LordViD 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. --Malthusian (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - Wonderfully helpful editor. Raven4x4x 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - not much in the way of "big" edits, but someone has to do the cleaning :-) —Whouk (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. No, really, I thought he was. The Land 10:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Yes please! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, good contributor. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, duh! ComputerJoe 12:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Absolutely! --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support All in 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support for a trustworthy, friendly fellow X. Xoloz 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support easy support vote for me.Gator (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:37, 10 February 2006
  43. Support Great editor, should make a fine admin. --pgk(talk) 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support--Without reservation. Banez 19:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Very good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Absolutely. --TantalumTelluride 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support --Ugur Basak 21:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Robert 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. pschemp | talk 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Pavel Vozenilek 06:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, looks all right to me. JIP | Talk 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support--MONGO 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns Sceptre (Talk) 11:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  59. Strong Support I have seen him do nothing but good work for our community. --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Mjal 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support I have seen a goodly number of positive contributions by Xaosflux, seems to have the right temperment. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Hayeuppp. Some good candidates coming through these parts lately... Grutness...wha? 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support I though you were and administrator. . .Banana04131 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. So Much Support I Can't Comprehend It... Wait, you're not already an admin? How did I miss that?! --Zsinj 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - give him the mop and the fire hose. Johntex\talk 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  68. WTF How Did I Not Know This Was Here Support. Mo0[talk] 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support, gladly. — TheKMantalk 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support, seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. Strong support, I didn't know you weren't an admin already. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  74. Handgliding is very popular in Peru, and many people go there to surf every year. Esteffect 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support, no objections from me. - Bobet 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support, seen this chap around quite a few times, and he was making positive contributions.Blnguyen 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support,mop and bucket will suit them Benon 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support, holy shit, thought he was one. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:44, Feb. 14, 2006
  82. Support --AySz88^-^ 07:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  83. Not an admin yet?! Conscious 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  84. Pointless support Proto||type 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support in spite of the shameless and bourgeois use of userboxes. ;) Eluchil 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. Late "how did I miss this RFA??" support I have appreciated the contributions I've noticed from this editor (particularly working with brand new pages). With what he does, it seems he needs admin tools, and he will make a good janitor in my opinion. --W.marsh 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support - I seem to be late to the party as well, but I can find no fault in this user. Will make very good use of the mop! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support, I can see no potential for abuse here. Hiding talk 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, yet another user who I honestly believed was an admin. --Jay(Reply) 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Good editor, should be good admin. FloNight talk 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Will be excellent. youngamerican (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support of course --rogerd 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support absolutely support, I think he'd make quite a good administrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support Good vandal fighter. VegaDark 09:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 09:10Z
  97. Support in opposition to the PJacobi WP:POINT opposition vote. I was going to remain neutral...  ALKIVAR™ 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support. Jonathunder 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose is this the guy that nominated WP:BJAODN for MfD? In that case I'm not sure if he understands how Wikipedia deletion process works.  Grue  15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    I had nominated a subpage of BJAODN for deletion (non-speedy) at one time, mistaking it to be a fork of BJAODN. I think the BJAODN section has merit, and have nominated pages on deletion debates to be BJAODN'd as recently as 02-FEB shown here. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    The reason you gave in the nomination of the article, which was "This project has nothing to do with making an encylopedia" seems to me to be different from the reason you just gave us (that it was a fork). Am I misunderstanding something? --Malthusian (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    During that edit I made a mistake and had not examined the article well enough, and somehow missed the large nav template at the top of the page. This version of the page when I nominated it [1] came across when I was doing RCP, and the latest entry seemed like nonense (the section on F.H.F.), that I took as a potential parody of the BJAODN section. When this came up on Village Pump later that day I realized the error, and was going to withdraw the nomination, but it had already been speedily kept. As the debate was closed, I posted an apology and a much shorter version of this explination on it's Talk Page. xaosflux Talk/CVU 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Pjacobi 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Too many userboxes)
    er, if your oppose reason was too many userboxes, could you clearify on how having too many userboxes will affect his adminship. Thanks. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Congratulations for having missed that one. It was really discussed ad nauseum on wikien-l and everywhere else. I'm really not interested in giving a complete summary. Just start at [2]. --Pjacobi 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    I recommend you to start at meta:Don't be a dick.  Grue  20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Why are you opposing? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Especially in light of your impoliteness to Ichiro, I must also ask: Why are you opposing? Xoloz 13:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    I also read the mailing list. The issue discussed there is not about the number of userboxes. It's about what these userboxes say. If you speak 120 languages, it's perfectly fine to have 120 babel userboxes on your user page. - Liberatore(T) 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    In this user's case his userboxes show that he knows 7 programming languages, what he uses to contribute, the wikiprojects that he is a member of, the number of times his page was vandalized, his number of edits, and about 6 silly ones. Other than the silly ones, all of his userboxes are directly relevant to contibuting to wikipedia - the silly ones only show that this user has a sense of humor and don't seem to align him politically. I don't see a problem here, I actually think we need more admins with a sense of humor. - Trysha (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

#I'd love to support, but I'll go neutral leaning support - Main talk seems a bit little, and remember, the ultimate goal is to build an encyclopedia - and of course, one'd have to discuss changes to articles on talk pages (usually in the main space, of course). You also have been contributing actively for just a little over 3 months, while I can't oppose in good faith for this (my own RFA passed at two and a half months), I'm slightly concerned. You're a great editor, and you probably do deserve the mop, but at this moment I don't think I can support outright. NSLE (T+C) 01:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to support NSLE (T+C) 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Xaosflux's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would use sysop tools to assist mostly with clean-up's needed to keep the encyclopedia in good order. I would accomplish this by reverting and communicating with vandalistic editors, and placing blocks if needed. I frequent WP:AIV, and would be able to assist there in a much greater capacity then I do now. I also regularly visit WP:MFD, WP:CFD, and WP:TFD, and would be able to assist in closing nominations after consensus is developed there. I would also be interested in assisting with changes to the MediaWiki namespace, while understanding that the needs for caution and consensus in that area are great. --xaosflux
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not authored any Featured Articles, but a large number of my edits are project and/or maintenance related. I am pleased with the rework I helped implement for MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext. I have also helped add to policy sections, such as WP:NAME/non-alphas. --xaosflux
2.1. I have looked into your recent contribution - there is a quite an impressive display of vandal-fighting activities, but could not find any contributions to the mainspace beside tagging, reverts and occasional categories. Can you show us a contribution to the main space you are particulay proud of? abakharev 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
While most of my editing is cleanup related, as I mostly follow Recent changes / New Pages, when working on Newpages, cleaning and and categorizing articles swiftly often keeps then from getting deleted or lost. I believe there are all types of editors that make this a great project, some create stubs, some design templates, most all add content; all of these editor types contribute to the goal. Here are some samples of non-vandal reversion edits that a quick search turned up:
I hope this is a sufficient answer to your question xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I try to avoid any edit/POV warring at all times. I have had quite a few vandalistic accounts personally attack me as a result of cleaning up after them, but that comes with the territory of doing clean-up. I have been blocked one time (quickly rescinded by the blocking admin) related to high volume editing of a current event (see details here). Under most circumstances if something needs to be reverted more than once, it should be taken to discussion pages first. --xaosflux
4. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, could you explain your lack of any "real" contributions to the mainspace (ie, encyclopedic contributions over reverting vandalism, copyediting etc)? NSLE (T+C) 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
A. That is a good question, and one that I thaught over before accepting this nomination. I do believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but for an encyclopedia to be useful to the immense number of readers it has to be in a well presented format. All the brilliant prose housed in Wikipedia becomes less useful when covered with vandalism. Similiarly, without: references, indexing, classifications, intralinks, and attractive displays, our readers will likely go elsewhere. In the end I believe we are creating this encyclopdedia to share knowledge with the readers, not just for the Wikipedians, and that we need to keep presenting accurate, well presented articles to them. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.