Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xiner (2nd nomination)

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] Xiner

Final: (64/5/2); Ended 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner (talk · contribs) - I am very pleased to introduce a model of a modern Wikipedian, Xiner. Xiner has achieved a good 9381 edits as I am writing this, for those afflicted with editcountitis. To start off, Xiner is a very active participant in XfD's, where I first met him. He is also very active at the help desk, as well as having contributed to WP:ANI. This background of participation gives him a good place to exercise the self-control he would need as a sysop, and he's even written a subpage on the issue of editing conflicts. Also worth reading is his Thoughts on Wikipedia section. In addition, Xiner is broad in his article writing, and has worked in articles from Baiji to the Big Bang. Very importantly, he interacts with other users in a composed manner. As a role model, he has adopted 6 users, all of whom I'm sure will greatly benefit from his ways. But enough with my rant; the show must go on. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Please allow me to serve as an additional nominator. I had urged Xiner to stand in the past for Admin, but he felt that he needed more time to pass, for fear that he would not garner widespread support. Given how many people keep nominating him, I am glad that he's finally relented and agreed to stand. I have no qualms about Xiner as a Wikipedian and an Admin. He is the sort of person that we should eagerly allow to share the burden of administrative duties. Giving him the powers to "tidy-up", as it were, to delete articles, to fix improper article moves, to block vandals... it will make him all the more valuable of a contributor. I first encountered Xiner due to a (looking back on things) entertaining little "mix-up" over at the Baiji article. Thanks to some VERY shady moves on the part of a crypto-porno site, Xiner was convinced (and rightly believed, given the information that he had) that I was attempting to add a very strange link to the article. Despite my rapidly increasing frustration with the situation, he managed to keep a cool head and was able to explain his side of the story. Once we both realized what had happened, we both realized how easy it would have been for both of us to be "righteously indignant" and assume that the other person was up to no good. It is a testament to Xiner's sensibilities that he handled the whole situation with aplomb and even apologized profusely (when he really hadn't done anything wrong... which I tried to convince him about) at the conclusion. Xiner is a solid Wikipedian who has made legitimate contributions to this project and will only be able to be more helpful if we give him "the ol' mop and bucket". I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I didn't plan on thinking about RfA until April at the earliest, but it has become clear that people are noticing my work, and it would seem almost rude to turn down four and a half nomination offers. I thus accept this RfA. Xiner (talk, email) 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Optional statement: Since my last RfA, I have made a conscious effort to not only edit any article I come across, but greet new users, facilitate their growth via standarized template messages, and participate in XfD's. In the last four months, I have grown as a Wikipedian, and my edits have helped me understand what admins do, and why and how candidates for adminship should demonstrate the need for sysop tools. For example, to clean up disambiguation pages sometimes requires deleting a holder page and moving an article onto it; effective participation in deletion reviews requires the ability to view the original item; and dealing with pages under heavy vandalism requires finesse. Not to mention the large number of image discussions and simple renames. I like to help others understand the procedures and organization of Wikipedia so that they can edit the encyclopedia most effectively.

We need more admins. But what makes a good admin? I've seen numerical targets, but what do 900 edits say about the candidate? Has someone with 6k edits contributed more to the project than someone who's started 100 articles?

It's more important to consider three aspects of good candidates. First, they must have demonstrated reliability and calmness under pressure. Second, the candidate must demonstrate an open mind and understand their own limitations. Third, they must demonstrate a need for at least two admin tools. The first two requirements should establish sufficient faith in the user to wield those tools.

That's the yardstick against which I'd like my Request for Adminship to be measured. I believe I fulfill them. I've never made, and would never make, a bad-faith edit. Second, I have learned the rules and followed them. Through it all I have gained a much better understanding of Wikipedia processes. I've helped out at #wikipedia-bootcamp and the help desk - it's true that one only truly learns something when they have taught it to someone else. Third, I participate in XfD's to assess the community's heartbeat. I also do my best against vandalism, and report to AIV and request RFPP when necessary.

Finally, as an editor, I would like to be bold with edits to the main page from time to time.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Anti-vandalism work can be tiresome, but rewarding when done properly. Like any good teacher, discipline tools are not meant to punish, but to help maintain an environment conducive to learning (or editing). That means every mistake - grammatical, behavioral, or otherwise - must be noticed, even if no action is taken.
Much of an admin's job seems to be delete/undelete and protect/unprotect, though. Some users need to be alerted to their behavior, fewer be blocked. I'll visit WP:RFPP, but having watched vandalism die down after I requested protection for a few pages, I'd be careful about acting aggressively there. There's often an alternative to protection.
XFD's should be closed only after careful consideration. I know how to close XFD's, but some of them do not end in Keep decisions and I'd be more useful with sysop tools there. I will tread carefully before I begin closing more involved discussions as well as speedy nominations. The Wikipedia community seems to have a way of reaching consensus on most nominations.
WP:CSD isn't really my thing, but I have tagged nonsense and spam articles.
To be honest, a big part of my day as an admin will be at WP:UCFD, the forgotten sibling of CFD. The neglect of the page breeds more indifference in a vicious circle, and I hope to help change that. Right now, the two or three admins there are often forced to close their own nominations, an inoptimal situation to say the least.
I will venture into other areas as time permits.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with my overall contribution to the project. In my first two months, I contributed mainly to WikiProject Buffyverse, writing the bulk of many of the articles and substantially editing the rest. It taught me a great deal about the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Had the pages been deleted for fancruft, I might not have stayed. I keep that in mind when I vote to delete pages for fancruft or non-notability -a healthy dose of caution should be applied when deleting someone else's work.
Anyway, I've since fallen in love with Baiji. Not only did I help resolve edit wars and defend against anon-IP attacks, I also used my Chinese and general editing skills to clear up a few questions there while adding substantial content. Watching the article grow from little more than a stub before my eyes was one of my best experiences thus far.
My next target will probably be Manchukuo, a subject I've only heard of. The article is in dire need of citations. Anyway, my main space edits now consist mostly of copyediting, and less frequently finding references for unsourced statements. I'm no longer part of any WikiProject; my interests - the sciences, football, social sciences, literature (mostly dead authors), technology, film and music, among others - have made me a generalist.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Policy helps people stay on track, but I have also learned to walk away if the issue is not that important, vandalism notwithstanding. Emotion can escalate the situation unnecessarily otherwise. To recount specific disputes takes a backseat to the axiom "forgive and forget". Where I have wronged, I have apologized.
The key to conflict resolution is common ground. Praise the other party for something tangible, remind them of your good faith and acknowledge theirs. A sure way to lowering the heat is to assume good faith.


Additional questions from User:Clayoquot
4. Could you explain what you mean by "helping to resolve edit wars" at Baiji?
There were many revisions back and forth about the status of the animal, whether it is extinct or merely thought to be so. Every time someone made a change in the infobox, I alerted them to the debate on the talk page. I ended up refactoring the discussions, among other moves to help along discussions, and well, as a relative newbie at that time, I'm quite proud of the fact that no one complained or undid my moves. I'd like to think that showed a little finesse. I was also referring to off-topic conversations such as this one, which sometimes degenerated into name-calling and other personal attacks.
4.1 Please explain why you consider this: [1] to be a legal threat.
"...This imposter is a criminal and if you have any dealing with him we also consider you to be dealing with a criminal. Report any of such correspondence to..."
4.2Please explain why you gave this warning: [2]. What did the editor say which constituted a personal attack or an AGF violation?
Please review the comments he left on this page as well as on my user talk page.
Additional questions from User:MacGyverMagic
5. What would you do if you were investigating an article on AFD and found the subject to get less than 50 hits on Google?
I'd try to think up reasons why the subject doesn't seem to exist on the internet. I'd try to find WikiProjects that may be more familiar with the topic. I would check who created the article and when, what links to it, and who made it look so irrelevant that someone would AfD it. I would read it to determine if it is salvagable and notable. Each case should be investigated using Wikipedia's yardsticks tempered by admin experience. Now, there is WP:V, which says that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and I'd want myself and other editors to try other venues of fact-checking if possible.
6. How would you have responded to WP:HD#Bircham_International_University?
I have followed the discussion with interest, but due to a real-life event, I haven't participated in it. I did put it on my watchlist, because I will have grown that much more as an editor when this complaint is resolved one way or another.
In particular, I'd thank Mr. Martin for not editing the article directly (wait, I just did), and review the points he raised. It's true that the Oregon site no longer seems to call his institution a degree mill, but the article is sourced, and I find it very troubling that he has now released information about a former student in an apparent attempt to discredit her, when she doesn't even appear to be the a major player in the case. I agree with how it has been handled so far. Xiner (talk, email) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Eli Falk

7. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
A: An article should not be semi-protected for vandalism if it is the feature article of the day; it is leaving the main page soon; the vandalism is localized to one or two IPs; or if the vandalism isn't heavy enough - I've now set a tentative personal rule of thumb of 10 acts of vandalism in one day, or slightly less per day over a period of a week.
General comments
  • Wikipedia is knowledge balanced by responsibility. I am grounded and ready for sysop duties, and have the requisite technical ability. I look forward to serving Wikipedia with the tools that will help me serve our community.
  • See Xiner's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nominator. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Xiner is great, he is frequently found everywhere and I was surprised he wasn't one already! (so cliched, I know) He is also a great contributor. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support--Heywool 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    This was Heywool's 3rd edit to Wikipedia -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support: Xiner's a great Wikipedian. It's about time they got the tools. .V. [Talk|Email] 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Seems to have a good record, good answers to questions, and plenty of positive feedback. Besides which, I take issue with that extreme editcountitis oppose. In actuality, only about half of his edits are to various talk pages. :-) Grandmasterka 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support: Looks like lots of work at the Helpdesk and XfD and when I look at the last 500 User talk edit, I see lots of welcoming and messages about edit summaries, etc. --After Midnight 0001 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. You're almost up to 10000, fully support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong support - We could use his help at WP:UCFD where him having the tools will come in handy. VegaDark 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support: I'm shocked Xiner isn't already an administrator, and was the impression that s/he was. Judging by my interaction with Xiner, I'm sure a s/he'll be a fine administrator and continue as a fine community leader. --Iamunknown 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support well-qualified.-- danntm T C 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. G.He 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks good to me. auburnpilot talk 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support as I believe this editor will use the tools wisely. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - Anas Talk? 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Been here long enough and over 9000 Edits--Cometstyles 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, I knew this person from WP:UCFD and I absolutely trust him. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Helpful, positive, responsible editor. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support per nom and all of the above. We all started out as beginners, this user started out as a bold beginner. I see no reason to oppose any user based on some minor issues from quite a while ago. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support From the few weeks I have known this user he has always being extra polite and replies quickly to comments, I too regularly see him at WP:UCFD and I was going to nominate him within the coming months as he has shown a need for the tools and greatly deserves them, I would always trust him with the extra tools, I know for sure he would never mis-use them. I wish you the best of luck!! Tellyaddict 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. 22 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support an excellent user, who can certainly be trusted. Majorly (o rly?) 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Weak Support. Not sure what you mean by "Like any good teacher" though. Voice-of-All 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Like the Wikipedia sysop, a teacher has disciplinary tools, too, but neither should wield their power to punish, but rather use them cautiously to help maintain an environment conducive to editing in the first case, and learning in the latter. It's just a parallel I noticed as a former teacher. Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I get that. But what makes a Sysop analogous to a "teacher"? I suppose they should set a good example, but I wouldn't compare them to teachers. Voice-of-All 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Nothing but that, I'm afraid. It's not a complete analogy. Xiner (talk, email) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. I would not compare sysops to teachers. I would compare us to ninjas. Or maybe pirates. Either are awesome. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Definitely Support. However, I am leaning slightly toward neutral. I reviewed this user in his first editor review, and the only problem I could find at that time was his philosophy on Wikipedia was dedicated solely to achieve success in his RfA. This has changed tremendously, and this user has evolved from a good contributor to a great, helpful Wikipedian. The emphasis on RfA in user's userpage is a bit uncomfortable for me, but it's rather irrevelant when the user's ability overwhelmes everything else. Good luck! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong support. High-quality user doing fine job at Wikipedia and also always willing to help at #wikipedia-en irc channel. West Brom 4ever 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong support with absolutely no reservations. Yuser31415 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Dedicated, civil, unlikely to abuse tools. --Fang Aili talk 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Hendry1307 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support- Have seen him around. Great user, civil, helpful. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Strong Support, Xiner seems to be everywhere he goes, he gets around. Also a great helper! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I think we have another excellent candidate here. James086Talk 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. SupportUser:Brianherman
  36. Support 82 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Great candidate, unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Looks good and I'm not sure the oppose concerns are sufficient to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Helpful, great user. This is what admin should have. --Aleenf1 04:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support. The candidate is so kind and helpful, and very active at the HelpDesk. Arfan (Talk) 11:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. 'Support Strong and experienced user. Seivad 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Not likely to abuse tools, good user. – riana_dzasta 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support everything I have seen of Xiner's work has been good, the comments in the oppose section are IMHO too minor to stop Xiner being sysopped - though (as Xiner as already noted) they can be taken as learning points. Good job. Cheers Lethaniol 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Strong support → fine wikipedia, which has significantly contributed to XfDs. Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Good candidate, friendly fellow. Not to be overlooked is his wonderful taste in the alphabet! Xoloz 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. support --dario vet (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - very helpful at various WP:AN channels. Doesn't bite newcomers - on the contrary, smothers them.  :P x42bn6 Talk 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support I trust Xiner. Another one of those "I thought they were already an admin" types. --MECU≈talk 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Very Strong Support: Xiner is an exemplary wikipedian, who is very knowledgeable about this project, and I fail to see why people below are opposed to an intelligent editor becoming a sysop.  ~Steptrip 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Strong support per nom. > Kamope < 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Xupport ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. Michael 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - Denny 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support (but remember, RFA sucks.) Jon Harald Søby 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - As I said below, oppose for now. Don't see any real reason to oppose this user now & I don't think he'll abuse the tools. ;) Spawn Man 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - Seen him do lots of good work at the help desk — Lost(talk) 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. WjBscribe 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, obviously. Walton Vivat Regina! 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Strong support. Can we give him the tools yet?--Wizardman 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support I'd be mad to oppose, with so many good reasons to support as described above. Corvus coronoides 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support per Corvus coronoides. Acalamari 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Having looked at this user's contributions and his edit count, I believe that he fully deserves this position and all the tools that come with it. Zazzer 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - Was very helpful when I requested help via helpmes; guided my initial growth to the independent Wikipedian I am today. Will do well as Admin. Ronbo76 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Better late than never Support —dgiestc 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I generally resent wikipedians who spend 85% of their edits in talk pages. Our primary goal is creation of encyclopedia, not socializing, nor WikiLawyering. First three months them was a good contributor, and then turned into a politician. `'mikka 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Can you give examples? The talk page edits I saw myself appear entirely appropriate for creating an encyclopedia and his deletion and vandal hunting show he's not just talking, but actually working on the pedia too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    May I ask how you reached that conclusion? Over 3,000 of my edits are in mainspace and article talk. Xiner (talk, email) 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    This user has made plenty of article edits (2329), many of wich appear useful. The high talk page edits are not that much of a problem. Would it be better if he made strictly less talk edits, thereby reducing the ratio? If a user makes many valuable contributions, whether they then make a large number of talk page edits on top of that (more so than some roughu minimal level), it doesn't seem to matter. Voice-of-All 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I was also editing Baiji last December, and Xiner's edits alarmed me on several occasions. 1) There was a discussion on whether to move the page. The desired destination already had a page with history there, so I put in a request at WP:RM. Xiner concurred, but he just did not get the mechanics of moving pages. Here: [3] I have to explain to him why we can't just move it as ordinary editors. (He does say above that he understands it now, which is great.) Here [4] [5] he copies discussion from the article talk page to the Requested Moves page. 2) In this discussion, I feel he failed to distinguish scientific from political statements. He then goes on to soapbox. 3) He has probably annoyed several editors with mass distribution of canned notices to "please use edit summaries." I got one even though I nearly always use edit summaries; I think he might have wanted me to add something to the default section header when adding comments to Talk pages. Having said all this, Xiner is a very hardworking editor and I feel he is an asset to the project. I don't think any of my objections are a huge deal individually, but put together they leave me with the feeling that this is someone I'd rather work with as a co-editor than as an admin. Kla'quot 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    About the page move and the edit summaries, anyone on the help desk can hopefully assure you that 6,000 over 7,000 edits later, I have a much firmer grasp of Wikipedia. Similarly with #2, I responded to your message without reading the revision first - again, almost four months and 7,000(?) edits ago. And for all the soapboxing, I did not change your version. Clayoquot, could I ask you for a favor - could you please review my more recent talk page activities? I would love it if you could change your mind about me. I will, for my part, keep a record of everyone who has disagreed with me from now on, so that I can ask them for an editor review periodically to try to address precisely these concerns. I have undertaken two editor reviews since mid-December, and I wish I had gotten comments such as these. Xiner (talk, email) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, I've seen Xiner's work on the help desk and it shows a very clear understanding of WP policy. If this was not the case at one point, it certainly is the case now. .V. [Talk|Email] 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    The incidents I was referring to are from less than three months ago, not four. You respond to constructive criticism very graciously, and I have reviewed your recent talk page edits as you requested. Looking only at your User Talk contributions from the past few days, I see several errors in judgement which have probably offended good, new users: 1) You removed this: [6] and left a "legal threat" notice on the user's talk page, even though it is very likely to be a good-faith notification to Wikipedia about someone who may not even have contributed yet. 2) This: [7] could easily be a good-faith edit and did not warrant a level 1 vandalism warning., 3) You warned an editor [8] who had passionately-expressed some opionions at the PRC page, but I cannot see how they constituted personal attacks or AGF violations. When I asked you above to explain your reasoning, your response was basically, "look at the user's contributions to the article." When asked to explain their actions, administrators should be much more clear and explicit. The No Personal Attacks policy covers interactions between contributors; edits to an article may be POV editing but are almost never personal attacks against a contributor. 4) As you know, I had to go into damage control mode here after your inappropriate warning yesterday. I would not oppose based on a few mistakes scattered across your edit history, but these are all things from the past four days, and taken with previous similar errors such as this one [9], I feel they demonstrate a pattern of admonishing users inappropriately. And I feel like nominating {{Template:Editsummary}} for deletion. Kla'quot 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    I have reviewed WP:LEGAL again; edit warring and calling other users Communist censors stopped after my intervention, but you have provided valuable inputs which will be considered and implemented. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Xiner. OK, now I see the where you got the "communist censor" idea from. Kla'quot 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)However, the editor didn't use those words and didnt' make any blatant personal attacks. For borderline things like this I think it is better to actually write a message than to use a canned warning template. Kla'quot 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. You say you will be careful not be aggressive at WP:RFPP, which suggests you will be aggresive elsewhere. We don't need more aggressive admins. Tim! 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry to give that impression; I didn't mean to imply that. Xiner (talk, email) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that oppose vote is based on nothing except a play on words. Thedreamdied 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed. Also, the fact that Tim! is an administrator and engaging in this sort of nonsense is upsetting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please do not call other peoples comments nonsense. Tim! 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's what it was... and by the way, my comment didn't come CLOSE to being a personal attack. Please don't vandalize my talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose for now→Changed to support above↑ - Edits like this worry me, especially if this user is going to be dealing with new editors as an admin often does. He later brags about it to another user here. Although the comment was made in a good humour, more sensitive "newbies" may take offense to its sexual connotations. In his optional statement, he says he would never make a bad faith edit or comment - "...Look, I'd have had a higher opinion of you if you didn't, say, insist on referring Cremepuff as a girl. Name-calling, with all due respect, is childish..." - Xiner made this comment to myself on the 3rd of March. I consider this bad faith as I was accidentally mistaken in thinking the user Cremepuff was a girl. I have a history of mistakenly calling girls boys & vice versa, yet the user condemned me before knwoing the full story. Indeed, the user was compelled into that thread of discussion by Cremepuff himself as per WP:CANVASS. Also, over 4K of his edits are made to user talk pages. It would be no problem for me if either his Wikipedia or main space edits were higher than his user talk edits, but this is not the case - Xiner has around 2K mainspace edits. I don't care if he's warning vandals or the like, other admins manage to keep their talk edits way down & main space edits way up - we are here to write an encyclopedia. Also, the proximity of this RfA until his last is too close for my liking. What has changed since the last RfA? Has the user learnt from it? With the RfA's this close, it's too hard to say... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your concern is noted and appreciated. Xiner (talk, email) 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Mikka and others above. Xiner seems as focused on harassing people about edit summaries as actually contributing, if not more so. — CharlotteWebb 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your concern is noted and appreciated. I've been including the short edit summary reminder along with greeting messages to new users only, and have been encouraged by responses about how they were unaware of the guideline. However, your comment provides fruit for thought and learning.Xiner (talk, email) 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    To address this concern, please see this link as an example of the only kind of edit summary reminder I send nowadays. Xiner (talk, email) 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - First couple of oppose comments left me cold. I can't fully justify the adminship of someone who spends all their time arguing out changes in talk pages. I dislike that behaviour.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. My first impression of the user was not positive. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of KTVX translators, where sen nominated a page for deletion without notifying the original contributor, who is still active on the project. Debate then ensued on AfD, which would have been better suited for a talk page.) This isn't a good reason to oppose, however, and I have an open mind either way. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    (for reference, the AfD listing procedure)...As I'd explained in the AfD, I only put the article through AfD because 1) only three people had been participating in a merge discussion that'd impact multiple articles, the author nowhere to be seen; and 2) Cool Hand, you were the one who'd suggested AfD in the first place; and 3) after the AfD had started, it'd have been unwieldy to again move the discussion back to the article talk page. I'm really sorry you feel that way. Xiner (talk, email) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Moreover, there were suggestions that the AfD be dropped midway through the discussions. I believed, however, that it'd have been more beneficial to talk it through, to find a compromise, and we did. Here is the message the author of the article wrote me after the debate. Xiner (talk, email) 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    I answered you then specifically saying that I didn't blame you for nominating it, just your ongoing crusade to have it deleted even though it was easily going to be a no consensus. The end result to merge (with better format) was the original suggestion on the talk page. It's strange how personally you took the prosecution of that AfD (and continue to, apparently), but I've no doubt that you've learned from the experience which is why it's not reason to oppose. Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    You're right, I could do it again, I'd have tried harder to convince you of my good faith. I still do, and if I have to use this RfA or my talk page to convince you of that, I will. And as I said many times in the AfD, I didn't see it succeeding early on, and all I wanted was a good solution, which did emerge - based on a proposal I made. Xiner (talk, email) 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Just please don't use hopeless AfD's to force debate; I've no doubt of your good faith. Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your concern is duly noted and much appreciated. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I sought out Xiner and asked him to "adopt" me because I was impressed with the answers he provided to me and others on the Help Desk. He has been a great mentor ever since. Given our "adoptor"/"adoptee" relationship, I am not formally registering a vote of support; I do not want there to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, I do think Xiner will make a good admin.--Vbd (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    COI is really another thing, at least in my opinion. Instead, since you probably knows Xiner well and you think he would became a good admin, support him formally ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Snowolf—COI is not an issue in this case. —Doug Bell talk 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.