Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xoloz

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] Xoloz

Final (144/4/1) ended 17:29, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz (talk · contribs) – User:Xoloz has been with us for quite a while—his first edit to the encyclopedia was made in May 2005—and in that time he has demonstrated a passion for the project, insight into its guidelines, policies, and norms, a steady hand, and an unmuddled mind. He participates actively and intelligently in discussions, and in these I have never known him to be anything but considerate and courteous. Xoloz is especially knowledgeable about content policies on Wikipedia, and is a regular at the many fora where their application is discussed, e.g., WP:AFD, WP:DRV, and WP:MFD; his considerable interest in the moribund also extends to the Main space, where he has made substantial contributions to the "Deaths in _" series. Xoloz speaks French and Latin, and does his bit to help rid Wikipedia of its infamous systemic bias by translating articles for us: see for example Jacques Lacarrière and André Pousse, both from the French. I believe Xoloz will make an excellent administrator, and hope you will agree with me that it is time we placed the fasces in the hands of this Cincinnatian Wikipedian. —Encephalon 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Encephalon's nomination. I first met Xoloz on an AfD page, and in that haven of attacks and incivilities he gave me a polite and complete summary of his position, and that precedent is one that I've never seen him drop. Whenever I see his voice on *fD or DRV I'm pleased and turn to listen, for his clear, concise, and polite manner is a welcome sight wherever it is. He understands policy, is intelligent and level-headed, is thoughtful and caring, and is as fine a Wikipedian as any other I've seen. His mop will be one wielded with good sense, and the sooner the better. Snoutwood (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, I saw a recent rfa which someone opposed due to the number of co-noms, and I know me and User:Syrthiss would have been honoured to nominate the user too, but because people may oppose simply because of the number of nominators, we're not going to. At least, that's the position at the moment, as I understand it. I would love to have nominated Xoloz, I asked him about it a while back and he turned me down, and I think he will make a good admin, but I don't want to prejudice the vote in any way by adding myself as a co-nominator. I have taken the liberty of speaking for User:Syrthiss here, although User:Syrthiss may well contradict this view and is welcome to do so. Hiding Talk 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I third Encephlon's nomination. I first met Xolox on an RfA page and was astounded at his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. He is also the most civil user I have ever met. Raichu 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept, with great gratitude to my overly-kind nominators. I'll briefly follow the example of my friend Lord Voldemort, and make one extended remark in this space. Only the patience and persistence of committed colleagues have brought me to this point. I accept because I do think I can be of good use to Wikipedia with a mop, but I remain uncomfortable with some elements of adminship. No one should ever have reason to mistake a janitor for a general: sometimes, adminship is treated is if it carried real power, and I truly dislike that notion. If the community should see fit to invest me with its trust at this RfA, I promise to resign speedily, happily and without reservation or grudge, if any Wikipedian (non-newbie) ever suggests that I have substantively abused admin "powers." I am a servant, and my dismissal should be easy, if I mishandle the community's trust. Xoloz 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Support

  1. —Encephalon 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Snoutwood (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Thank god he finally accepted a nomination support -- Tawker 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Rama's Arrow 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, his record speaks for itself. Rje 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support -- very good and trustworthy editor. -- No Guru 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. (edit conflict)Extreme "Oh my God, not another "Oh my God" support" support - Just, like, Oh my God! --Celestianpower háblame 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not to put it too bluntly, but could you stop with the persistent "OMFG" responses and explain what qualities made you think the user was already an administrator, and therefore why you think they should be one? Rob Church (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. This-is-a-great-place-to-use-{{Rfa cliche1}}-but-I-already-used-it-a-few-RfAs-down-then-I-edit-conflicted-after-typing-all-that-out-support! --Rory096 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Dr Zak 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Cliché support (quadruple edit conflict) Xoloz has demonstrated good judgement and knowledge of Wikipedia policies & procedures in a variety of Wikipediaspace pages. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Cliché or not, I really didn't know Xoloz wasn't one already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. YES (ec) Kimchi.sg 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Resort-to-oldest-cliché-in-the-book support! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support With a note that he better not keep that promise about resigning, because it will happen almost inevitably and we need him as an admin. JoshuaZ 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I was going to say the same thing. Snoutwood (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Me three. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per great answers to questions. --Elkman - (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. More candidates like this one, please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Ghirla -трёп- 17:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Oftimes I disagree with your comments, but they are always well-thought out and wise. Quite a bold workhouse too. Just stay away from the law-books please. --Doc ask? 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support-but-not-as-a-co-nominator as mentioned above by my esteemed colleague Herr Block. I'm not quite sure what to say now that I'm not writing an extended paragraph extolling Xoloz' virtues. He made quite the impression upon me in my days as a newly minted wikipedian, and continues to uphold his thoughtful approach that I noted back then. From the morbidity of Recent Deaths to XfD and DRV discussions, I've found his comments well reasoned and insightful even in the cases where I disagreed with his view. --Syrthiss 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Invaluable member of the community. Should be a terrific admin. --TantalumTelluride♪ 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Edit-conflicted-Meg-Ryan-in-the-restaurant-booth(-except-not-faking-it) Support (no comments, please [grin]). RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. His work so far has been great. --Tone 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Edit-conflicted strong support. I was really surprised to see the nomination, {{Rfa cliche1}}. Conscious 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. double edit conflicted supportBenon 18:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. I could not agree more with Encephalon's nomination. ×Meegs 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support with pleasure. —Whouk (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. I had always assumed that Xoloz was already an admin </cliche>, not least because of the high standards that he consistently exercises in this forum. How many of us have read a Xoloz and thought "wow! he's tough!"? Those high standards--which he voices regardless of the popularity of the candidate--are why I enthusiastically support. Bucketsofg✐ 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Strong support CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Ingoolemo talk 19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - cleared for takeoff. Grandmasterka 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Over-the-top Support!!! --Slgrandson 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, no doubts, honestly thought he was an admin already. feydey 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Pavel Vozenilek 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Tony Sidaway 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Good chap. Courteous and reasonable. I can't say I agree with his general outlook, but I trust his judgement enough to hand him a mop.
  37. Get Christopher Parham to RFA and then I won't ever have to do history-only undeletions again. :P Yes, that is a support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Good user, would make an even better admin. Royboycrashfan 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oh good lord yes Strong Support, excepetional editor Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Massive Support I've assumed he was one already, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support Exceptional wikipedian: fair, cool head, great policy knowledge, Oh, and a bonus point for the humourous self-summary on his user page. MartinRe 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support: An excellent editor wanting excellence for this project will make an excellent administrator. --hydnjo talk 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support.  Grue  21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support: not already? Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support avec cliché and three edit conflicts. Thryduulf 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Robert 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Well, I usually oppose anyone with edit summary usage at less than 92.02%, but I'll make an exception here. In all seriousness, Xoloz is eminently qualified, and I pleased to offer my strongest possible support. Joe 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 22:13 UTC
  49. Support. More than fantastic user. DarthVader 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. A fair and balanced editor :) Haukur 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. XSupportX XforX XaX XgoodX XeditorX. — xaosflux Talk 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support, solid contributor to AFD and not afraid to weigh in on the more difficult ones. Will be a great admin. Kuru talk 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, he is got less than my requirements on the mainspace contributions, but I have had a very positive personal experience interacting with him, also a pile-up support per the votes above by people who I trust. abakharev 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support has clearly demonstrated he'll be a good and fair admin. Gwernol 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Strong support.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Well reasoned responses to AFD/DRV/whatever, but I wish he would include a link to the discussion when he closes DRVs. Kotepho 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Uhhhh... if you could see my face right now... This whole time, throughout my nom, etc., (and I've never said this before) I thought he already was one. Xoloz has all the positive characteristics of an Admin. Patience, wisdom, the ability to compromise and get get along with difficult people, and perhaps most important of all, a shout out to me in his acceptence!!! ;-) As well as many other great qualities. This guy should have been an Admin long ago. He was just too damn awesome for his own good (who would have thought that he wasn't already an admin with the way he handles himself?). Please, I urge all to join with me and the many others already by voicing your support for this most-qualified contributor. And to think, he almost slipped this by me on my limited wikibreak... Sneaky little Xoloz. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Weak support - I'm a bit concerned about "Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.5%", which means only 177 real article edits, but he seems experienced enough to be given the mop. —Mets501talk 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Good work at AFD. Also great to have history and law experts around. --Allen 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support plenty of evidence he'd make a good admin. Low article edits in April hardly mean he'd misuse admin tools. --W.marsh 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Seen the user work on AFD's &....pretty much everywhere. Great admin material. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support He'll do just fine. ~MDD4696 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support Joelito (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support I had some reservations about supporting initially; your addendum at the top has won me over :-) --HappyCamper 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. See no problems here. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support, naturally. A benefit to the project. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Very fine, sensible, careful, and responsible contributor to the project. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. I'm shocked to see that Xoloz has only circa 5000 edits. The impact that he's had upon the areas of the project that I frequent has been profound: His commentary is always careful, compassionate, and incisive. He is patient, civil, and appears to understand the spirit as well as the letter of the wikirules, such as they are. I was going to encourage him to back down somewhat from allowing any single person to pull the plug on him, but of course this hypertrophied sense of fraternity is why I value him so much as a contributor. - brenneman{L} 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Excellent candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. You've got my vote. Speed graphic
  73. Support I think "S'about time" sums it up. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. Strong {{Rfa cliche1}} support. Will make a great one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Elf-friend 13:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. --Bhadani 13:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. Per above Bastique 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Hope-this-gets-on-WP:100 Support. Great participation in the areas where decent admins are most needed (ie the various deletion-related discussions), and always gives logical explanations for his opinion, rather than simply a one-word vote.Cynical 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. Thought he already etc etc. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support per noms, co-noms, and co-co-noms.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support Yes, because I was waiting eternally to see if Durin's and others' words would have effect and make him stand for RfA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurubrahma (talk • contribs) [1]
  83. Very strong support, a model Wikipedian. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support -- Canderous 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  85. Guettarda 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support Wiki-gnome support! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support - an admin for all the right reasons. -- DS1953 talk 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support, this guy has a way with words and everything else to boot. Deizio talk 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support --Aldux 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support. Didn't realize he wasn't already. Sarge Baldy 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. I thought he already was one! No, really! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  92. Per Tony, to be honest. Not 100% sure I agree with the user's take on everything, but I agree with the way he conducts himself and I don't think he'd do anything batshit insane. Rob Church (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support VegaDark 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support Definitely. --Jay(Reply) 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. It's about time. Please reconsider your promise, however. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 04:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support--Jusjih 07:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support Answered questions quite well. Very well spoken. Comparatively low edit count no problem--perhaps he is after quality over quantity. :) Dlohcierekim 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support. Obviously. jni 11:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  100. WP:100 Support No hesitation for this fine candidate, will be an excellent admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  101. Stopping in from wikibreak support. Great candidate. Dragons flight 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support With this being such a close vote, I better add my seal of approval.--MONGO 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support I've only seen good things from this user. will make a good admin.--Alhutch 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support Thoughtful, level-headed editor. Shows attention to process. Oddly, I find the promise in the acceptance over-humble: someone can suggest something in good faith and still be wrong. Marskell 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  105. Suppose. Thought he was one, think he should be one. —Nightstallion (?) 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  106. I would justify my support, but I can't think of anything that isn't redundant with what's already been said. Good user. Well-rounded. It's all in there. Redux 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  107. Weak Support, weak only because there are 2 1/2 nominators. Otherwise, I came to support. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support Per any number of reasons given. Sandy 00:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  109. Strong Support - Xoloz would be a great admin for Wikipedia. Mr. Turcotte 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support, of course. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support for the record. Piling on in a positive way. Tyrenius 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support. Excellent user, active in every area that I can see. I have no reservations. --Danaman5 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support without reservation. Xoloz is one of the users whose voice I listen for in AFD discussions, and whose edits I can rely upon to be of good quality. I'm also impressed by Xoloz's insistence on seeing the job as that of a janitor rather than a general. --BrownHairedGirl 08:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support per all above. --Andy123(talk) 09:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support trustworthy, civilised and polite. Tim! 11:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support Joe I 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  117. Strongest Possible Support I'm sorry I did not nominate you myself. It's just I thought you were a sysop already. Raichu 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support with pleasure. I don't always agree with him, but he's kind and fair. AnnH ♫ 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support I disagree sometimes, but (s)he has extraordinarily sound judgement. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  120. Didn't-bother-reading-which-clichés-have-already-been-used-support. Xoloz THINKS. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  121. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC). Xoloz has, in my experience been insightful, diligent and unfailingly polite. I have every confidence in his abilities.
  122. Support please bring the diamond-encrusted ivory-inlaid mop for Xoloz. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support. -- Tangotango 06:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support Wikipedia will benefit greatly from this promotion. GizzaChat © 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  126. Strong Support a wonderful user all around and has the support of many fine editors, as seen in his nomination, whose opinions I highly value. - Patman2648 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support, although at this point I'm just piling on...:) --Deville (Talk) 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support: has high standards for adminship, as do I, and I'm confident they will be met. Jonathunder 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support. Great guy who'll do an amazing job (hell, the page is 45 kb already) -Mysekurity [m!] 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support very civil, experienced editor. Mopper Speak! 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support Proto||type 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  132. Super support per all above. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support - Good candidate. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support per the plurality of comments above. Give the man a mop already. -MrFizyx 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  136. Strong Support obviously. Eusebeus 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  137. Support - Richardcavell 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  138. Go get 'em! I've seen his work, he's civil enough.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support--A Y Arktos\talk 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  140. Strong Support. Will make an excellent administrator. Also, editor seems not to be intimidated by the anti-userbox boo-hoo brigade, which probably explains Kelly Martin's opposition. Having someone who can think for themselves is very important. --Dragon695 06:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  141. Strong Support Its high time Xoloz got the mop, a fine example of a level headed wikipedian. -- Banez 06:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  142. Strong support.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  143. Supporting, strangely, for almost the exact reason Masssiveego oppose, namely, all the above users and comments Xoloz has attracted in his stead. Hiding Talk 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support with bells on!!! BD2412 T 17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This comment was received after the closing time listed above. :/ Syrthiss 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. [2].--Sean Black (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    ? Hiding Talk 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think he's opposing because I have fewer than 2000 article edits, or perhaps because I haven't written any voluminous articles (self-admitted wiki-gnome, here.) In either case, he's correct, and welcome the criticism as accurate. Xoloz 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    He may also be commenting on your dearth of edits during much of April and relatively low per-day edit count. (That, at least, is what immediately stuck out to me.) I suppose it could be a valid concern. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs;), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 22:13 UTC
    He could also be trying to get a name for himself as the solitary opposer on one of the most well supported RfA I've seen. :) MartinRe 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Excuse me? I commented the way I did soley in the interests of this encyclopedia, not to "make a name for myself". Please do not suggest otherwise.--Sean Black (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    No offence was meant, sorry. Please note a) the smiley (:)) at the end of my sentence and b) your comment was simply a link to the last 2000 article edits, which makes it difficult to see that your objections actually are. Less than 2000 edits? Some bad edits? Overall quality of edits? Regardless of the result of this Rfa, it is difficult for anyone to fix problems if you don't know what they are. Regards, MartinRe 01:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well didn't all of those just get pointed out, giving Xoloz the knowledge to fix all of them, instead of just one (assuming Sean only meant one)? It seems that the manner in which he presented it is actually better than just pointing out one problem (at least he didn't use cite.php this time). --Rory096 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm obviously thick, because I still don't understand why you are opposing, Sean. You say your comment is in the interests of the encyclopedia; perhaps it would be helpful to that cause if you outline your reason rather better than through an external link to the user's article space contributions. Namely, could you illuminate me as to what you mean to say by provising that link. Hiding Talk 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Above comments made uncalled for. --Masssiveego 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    ?? Are you referring to the comment made by Xoloz below Sean Black's oppose? If so, how are they uncalled for? Looks to me like Xoloz made a genuine good faith attempt to clarify the meaning of the link provided for the benefit of Hiding. He then went on to graciously accept the percieved criticism as accurate. I don't understand how that can be grounds to oppose. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    Massiveego has been opposing all RfAs recently with very little in the way of explanation. Grandmasterka 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    If the above user wants an explaintion, they can leave me a message on my talk page. Explainations should be short and brief as a matter of manners as these pages are too long. "it would be helpful to that cause if you outline your reason rather better than through an external link to the user's article space contributions. Namely, could you illuminate me as to what you mean to say by provising that link. "
    WP: Civil The request for clarification seems too wordy, and requires a better tone, as this comment boarderlines WP:personal attack, as if the user has taken the vote way too personally. This reflects badly on Xoloz for attracting and allowing for such a comment. --Masssiveego 00:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose (not that it will matter). Xoloz has a long history of process wonking, not to mention a fine talent for what I call "civil rudeness": saying extraordinarily rude things in a manner calculated as to not be objectionable enough for people to actually call him on the carpet. A fine talent in a lawyer, I suppose, but I consider him unfit to be an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    I hate to 'process wonk', but accusing Xoloz of deliberately calculating his comments to offend without being challenged is against WP:AGF. Cynical 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose He ought to wait until sometime in 2007~2008 for nomination. Only 1 year or less. That's too short. Remember that adminship is a privileged position (I myself am not an administrator). (Wikimachine 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
    Uhh, he been here for exactly one year. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral only because this section is lonely - but secretly Support :) --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note to closing bureaucrat: Please note when making the final tally that the good Hiding formally voiced his support in the nomination section only (hence it should be valid supports +1). Kind regards —Encephalon 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I have deleted this comment based on my voting, which nullifies the point of the comment. I hope one and all appreciate the simple reason of the striking, and I also thank Encephalon for his comment. Hiding Talk 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Stats.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
--Viewing contribution data for user Xoloz (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 303 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 10, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 12, June, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 54.78% Minor edits: 89.62%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 61.21% Minor article edits: 93.35%
Average edits per day (current): 16.52
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.5%
Unique pages edited: 2402 | Average edits per page: 2.08 | Edits on top: 11.26%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 36.34%
Minor edits (non reverts): 28.22%
Marked reverts: 3.2%
Unmarked edits: 32.24%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 31.04% | Article talk: 4.72%
User: 2.98% | User talk: 9.86%
Wikipedia: 50.06% | Wikipedia talk: 1.02%
Image: 0.02%
Template: 0.02%
Category: 0%
Portal: 0.16%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.04%

- Total: 5082 -
Main: 1570
Talk: 221
User: 73
User talk: 482
Wikipedia: 2673
Wikipedia talk: 51
Image: 1
Template: 1
Portal: 8
Portal talk: 2

Total edits: 5082
Minor edits: 549
Edits with edit summary: 4676
Edits with manual edit summary: 3226
Percent minor edits: 10.8%  *
Percent edit summary use: 92.01%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 63.47%  *

* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.


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 firmly believe that administrators are servants first, and I would never apply my mop in an area of policy in which I was not very familiar. I was convinced to apply for adminship, in part, by the backlogs at DRV and MfD, where I do feel qualified to close discussions impartially; I have ample past experience at AfD too, so I can be trusted to help there as well. My longtime wiki-mentor, the now-absent Splash, was known for his involvement in protection policy: I'll never be as active as he, but I am willing to be helpful in that area. I have no background in images, and little interest in blocking policy, so I won't be involved in those absent an enormous emergency. My legal education left me with a view of the fair use doctrine that is apparently somewhat more liberal than the Foundation's, but I can certainly confront egregious potential infringements with reasonable explanations.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm just a Wiki-Gnome, a clean-up man without great article contributions, but I am particularly fond of my listing in the ancient AfD 100 days. Why? The break-down demonstrates that my "keep/delete ratio" was closer to even-keel than almost anyone. I feel this epitomizes my wiki-philosophy: I try to take every article I see seriously, and if a way can be found to demonstrate its encyclopedic merit, I'll work hard for it. At the same time, I have little patience for "point-of-view warriors" and vandals: those who clearly demonstrate that they are here only to damage Wikipedia and its integrity deserve to be dismissed, and to have their "pranks" discarded, with alacrity.
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: Well... some time ago, I was known for occasional conflicts with administrators I felt were ignoring all rules a bit too liberally. I hope they agree that we all maintained civility during those sometimes heated discussions. In general, those tensions have eased more recently; I think everyone is ready to leave that unhappiness in the past.

In any event, I treat Wikipedia as a quasi-professional endeavor. Though there are many editors here I like and respect, ultimately, this project is work: I don't edit to make friends or enemies, but because I believe in the principle of open scholarship available to any reader. I also believe it is especially important to show every kindness to new editors: whatever their reason for being here initially, I know that they can be won over to Wikipedia's noble mission, if someone takes the time calmly to familiarize them with our policies and standards. In almost every situation, friendly discussion is the key to resolving conflict; whenever that (rarely) fails, the solution is to consult others (informally, or through mediation processes.) If I can't find a way to have a friendly discussion with a particular individual, someone can, and I will leave the matter in the hands of that person, who is in a better to position to judge any difficulty.

4 A few months back you nominated Sam Spade for adminship. Do you still feel that was a wise decision? Why or why not? ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
A: Very good question. I nominated Mr. Spade because, in my time here, he seemed to have conducted himself well; he also had always been kind to me, and my userpage discloses many reasons that might make a politically conservative person a bit wary of me. I think my opinion of his record at that time is somewhat confirmed by his RfA. The most recent major episode of incivility mentioned there was an inappropriate image insertion in July 2005, seven months prior to his second RfA. As I have said before elsewhere, I believe in giving a person many "second chances" so long as I see signs of improvement. Mr. Spade had contributed enormous time and effort to the project, and hadn't been nominated for an RfA since 2004. Based on his clean recent record at the time, I felt he deserved a another fair chance at an RfA; I was afraid he had been overlooked on the basis of his bygone mistakes, and that others had shied away from nominating him because of his past contentious nature. I don't regret nominating him, as I still feel he deserved that chance at the time.
I am aware, however, that since the RfA, Mr. Spade has become the subject of a new RfC and RfAr. Without suggesting that I know all the facts, it is unfortunate that his actions most recently have caused many fine editors to lose faith in him. Given my own conservative philosophy at RfA, if Mr. Spade were nominated today, I could not support that nomination, a fact that makes me very sad. While I don't regret giving Mr. Spade his nomination in February, it is likely that the faith I placed in him was, at the least, premature. Thank goodness neither I, nor anyone (save Jimbo), can promote an editor to administrator by his or her choice alone. That's why we have RfA, a system that generally works. I had faith in Mr. Spade, and I don't regret that; but, the community (wiser than I) made a choice that has been confirmed by subsequent events. If anything, this only increases my confidence in the wisdom of "rule by consensus."
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.