User talk:Xoloz/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] {{User GWB}}

Nice to know my work is appreciated! :D --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No desire to be an admin"

Sigh. There I was, working on vetting you for a possible RfA and then I ran across [1]. You sure you don't want to be an admin? --Durin 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry to hear you don't want to be an admin. I think you would be excellent. I would like to say that despite your general despair, that being an admin is important even if you find yourself in such a situation. This is in fact part of my underlying reason why I decided to stick it out. There are plenty of people in any sufficiently large group with whom you are going to radically disagree. I found one in KM. That's easy enough to understand and accept. But, if that group that radically disagrees with you makes attempts at controlling whatever it is the group is doing, then there is an underlying fundamental philosophical question that needs to be addressed. That question can't be satisfactorily addressed by having those who disagree with the radically disagreeing subset leave the project. So, then the question devolves to; is satisfactorily addressing the issue(s) a worthy goal? That devolves even further; is Wikipedia itself a worthy goal? I think the answer is yes; and I think you do to, since you're still here despite your reservations.
• In particular on your points:
  • I don't think you'd have to worry about reputation if you became an admin. I used to be concerned about it. Now, I'm not. I really don't care what my reputation is anymore. What I do care about is upholding the highest ideals of the project as best I see and can do. I can not reasonably expect everyone to never find fault with my actions. All I can do is act in good conscience, and to heck with reputation. I think you could find the same.
  • In specific regard to the outside view you mentioned; note that of the current 12 who support the view, fully half of them are administrators themselves. Your sentiment is obviously one that several people share. How do we best go about solving the problem? As noted above, not by leaving the project. Instead, we become *more* involved and seek advice from each other and discussion among everyone to help foster a more positive project. These are wiki-growing pains. We can't get past them by having the very people who could solve these problems walking away.
  • Anonymous support staff? :) Well, to be bluntly honest...I have no friends here. I've never desired friends here, and I don't look to others to gain support. See my comments about reputation. I don't need anonymous support staff. That's not arrogance, it's just recognition that I can't please everyone all the time. So, I go about doing the best I can all the time, and that's the best I can do. If some more anonymous people agree with me, so be it. But, it's never been a goal. So, if you became an admin you would not be depriving me (or, I think, really anyone else) of an anonymous support staff. In looking through your edits, I was frankly surprised to see you'd contributed to my RfC. I got curious to see what you said. You were largely supportive; but I didn't remember that.
  • Yes, your use of edit summaries is now 86.6% over the last 500 edits :)
• One of the things I like about you as a potential admin is that you'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar to say "I do" :) I don't nominate people who are actively seeking adminship, or who heavily flaunt themselves. In your comments, I've found you to be a thoughtful, reasonable person. These are great qualities! I've also seen your distribution in admin appropriate areas is radically different then others I have nominated or reviewed; 161 edits to WP:MFD, and 206 to WP:DRV. That kind of participation in those areas is rare. My only concern on you so far is whether you're too much of a deletionist for my taste, but your comments on your user page about saving articles from the brink speaks volumes on that count. 1051 edits to WP:AFD? Good lord. You're an AFD machine! Wikipedia *needs* you as an admin.
• So, tell me again you don't want to be an admin :) But, think it over first. You've already admitted you have a need for the priviledges inherent in being an admin; ability to see deletion logs. With admin privs, you'd be a lot more effective at WP:AFD and WP:MFD as well. I won't continue my review of your contributions until you say "yes", but everything I've seen so far is very, very promising. Come on! Say it! The priest is waiting...two little words..."I do" :) Holding a ring (or is that a ball and chain? :)) and tapping my foot, Durin 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hullo

I did have a good break, thanks. You appear to have edited throughout Christmas; I hope you got some relaxation time in too! I wonder what will happen with the ArbCom elections; I'm not even sure that I am prepared to vote in them if they are going to be a public ballot. I think, though, that the damage a poor Arbitrator can do is limited by the fact that the Committee's actual power is pretty limited in terms of the menu of remedies available to them. The Foundation will take your money at any time of the year, so hang in there and hope for a good ArbCom election.

As for DRV, I find it quite a stressful place to work some of the time (you can guess when) but I think it serves a useful purpose as well as it can be expected to. I've been a little concerned that I've been handling nearly all of the closures at times (it can only lead to idiosyncracy), and so was pleased that you and others gave it a good seeing-to over the holiday. -Splash^talk 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateralism

Kelly was deleting copyright problems. That is the purview of admins, and to question that is to question our committment to keeping Wikipedia copyright-free. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to read that

I had Nandesukas's page watched because I left a comment earlier today, and I wanted to say (1) sorry to read that and (2) did you intend to put that on their talk page and not on their userpage? All I can say on the matter is I'd rather see good people stick around and continue their work so that people can say 'there are those who exist outside the cliques there'...but I can understand. So, best wishes. If you want to move the comments to Nan's talk page, either let me know or do it yourself. :) --Syrthiss 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that Xoloz. It's surely better by far to continue doing good work where you can to push back the damage done by episodes such as these, even if they have been handled very poorly. -Splash^talk 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to sit idly by and do nothing. Take a break, eat some cheese, throw bread to the geese. But please do come back. We fight the good fight, for reason and compassion and fraternity, and it will be a little bit harder without you. My favorite bomb-throwing anarchist with a heart of gold took two years off, but I hope we'll see you sooner than that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see that my cryptic comment below is not so cryptic. Oh well :) So, let me echo uncryptically...what Brenneman said is absolutely spot on. As I noted to you previously, there is something wrong with the project. The core question is; is the project worth finding an answer to that problem? I still feel that you do think it is worth fixing. Correct me if I'm wrong. The project is doomed when the people with the answers...such as yourself...choose to leave. It isn't doomed by it's current situation. It's doomed when we choose not to act. --Durin 18:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

[edit] Userboxes

Do you remember that debate we had over schools? Do you think as I'm starting to that it's basically starting to apply to these userbox things?

It seems so eerily similar to me....

Ryan Norton

[edit] Saddened

Being intentionally cryptic, and hope you get my reference:

I just read something somewhere else regarding you. I am... depressed.

--Durin 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I read that too... I wanted to thank you for raising the level of discourse here. I'm very depressed too... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

I want to thank you for helping me stop Quadell's power grab. That son of a bitch belongs in jail, not as a bureaucrat! Crimes against nature should always immediately disqualify all nominees for Bureaucratiship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.12 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout! - FrancisTyers 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

[edit] Rfa thanks

[edit] My RfA

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todah rabah l'Xoloz!

Xoloz, shalom v'todah l'kha! Ha-RfA sheli gamar, v'ani admin! So thank you very much for your support, I appreciate your willingness to re-evaluate my RfA this time around. I will do my best to be a good and useful admin, and never to forget who makes Wikipedia work: the general population of editors, not the admins. If I can do anything to be of assistance, please do let me know! See you around, Babajobu 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A belated thanks :)

I've been so busy with wikicrap, I haven't taken the time to drop by your page and say thank you for the barn star. It was very kind of you -- and much appreciated. Peace 2 u. :D deeceevoice 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 09:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Election

I understand that you voted oppose on me in the ArbCom elections, and I respect that, but I would like to ask for you to elaborate on your comment Record of unsound judgment. Just out of curiosity, to which record are you reffering, as I would like to improve my behavior in the future. Thanks —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry about how you feel about the situation and that you are leaving. I respect your opinion, and thank you for replying. —Ilyanep (Talk) 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed to address your question ?

Woah! I thought I did! My apologies.

Even so, another take can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#Change_proposal, as the last reply in that section.

Possibly all wikipedia actions might start out as ignore all rules (a blank slate), and then get tempered as you think and research on what the best course of action really is. Does that cover the ground you wanted to see covered?

Kim Bruning 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also reread your question and replied on the questions page Kim Bruning 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh! That's a very tough question to answer.

"An admin justifying a deletion on grounds of IAR, as different from a user editing an article," you say. Hmmm

indent to make typing easier

It actually turns out that I disagree with the premise you base your question on, but let me try to answer as best I can.

Just to quickly list the premises I disagree with:

• I don't think that having the sysop bit set is sufficient grounds for a user to behave any differently or be treated any differently.
• I don't think that permanent deletion should be done as a matter of routine.
• Were you aware that users without a sysop bit can also effectively delete pages? They can do this directly by simply blanking the page (though this is strongly discouraged); they can do it directly by turning the page into a redirect, while perhaps doing a partial merge (this is encouraged); they can do it by listing the page on articles for deletion and getting an admin to remove it; and they can do it by putting a speedy tag on the page and getting an admin to remove it.

Barring vandalism, I think that deletion should always be considered very carefully beforehand, and preferably be done only in situations where not deleting would hurt the encyclopedia.

There's a number of odd and interesting situations where Ignore All Rules has been applied correctly to delete things. For instance; during the Siegenthaler affair, certain revisions of the article were removed to prevent a lawsuit and/or a media feeding frenzy that might have killed the wikipedia entirely.

Most situations are fortunately more mundane. For instance when a bot runs out of control (by accident - or deliberately, in the case of a spambot); or when someone decides to vfd the vfd about a discussion to vfd a vfd about a vfd discussion. (Really happened! Story is fun to tell, but too long to fit in this margin ;-))

So in the end, sure, people should be able to delete things under Ignore All Rules if they can't think of any other way to protect the encyclopedia, be they an admin or not. But at the same time, they should be very very careful to try to at least stay as close to guidelines and consensus as is practical and possible, and to clearly document their descisions so that other people can learn from them and improve on them for the next time something unusual happens.

I think that covers most of it. Is there anything you'd like me to add? Kim Bruning 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The wait...

while is percolates through the various servers is going to kill me.

What do you think of the voting so far? Want to place some bets on outcoms? ^_^

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback ref. my RfB

Thank you for your answer. Maybe it won't address your needs for this, given what you said, but you could review my deletion log, as a testament of my judgement.
Also, thank you for the heads up, but I know of the reservations to the responding-to-all-votes-other-than-support thing. I have no intention of doing that. It was just that, of all the oppose votes that I have gotten thus far, it seemed to me, none were challenging my capacity to do the job (although I see you probably have your reservations about that now), rather they were based on the feeling of "we don't need more Bureaucrats". Since I feel that I've made a solid case to negate that, I thought it was worth addressing those votes, even though it is not that common for someone to change an opposition vote to support, or even neutral. It is a completely different ball game if someone were to say something like I don't think you can do this job because of this and that.
On a side note, I am considering copying our exchange into the talk page of my RfB, so that it is completely transparent. Would you oppose to that? Thanks a lot for your feedback. Regards, Redux 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptre ^(Talk)

[edit] RfA???

Oh dear... I still would like to be an Admin, but feel I could better serve the community if I just hold off like one more week. I was recently sysopped over at Wikibooks, and am learning the Admin tools. Would it be possible to hold the nom for just a little longer? I appreciate your kind words on the page though. Thank you for thinking of me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"More aggressive action"... that actually made me chuckle. It was just so funny... no one really talked to me too much for a little bit and then I was approached by a couple of people right in a row wanting to Nominate me, or saying that I should be an Admin. It is all so humbling. Thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, now I feel bad about declining. I hope you will reconsider. I haven't gotten the time to go to the aforementioned talk page, but intend to do so shortly. Maybe we both just need a little wikibreak? Although I doubt I'll take one, work is boring, to be blunt. Oh well, I will be sad to see you go, but can totally understand if you do. If we don't speak again, I hope you have a wonderful, blessing-filled life. Cheers, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I do feel better about declining then. Thank you for your serious sentiments regarding Wikipedians who may have died. Some people think I am joking, but I am not. And I suppose you are right about the whole subject matter. It is just weird to think about sometimes. It's like you said to Nandesuka about leaving quietly, I wonder if people would actually notice one missing editor, and if so, how long it would take. While I wish you to stay and work out these problems, I won't go alerting Esperanza or anything. I will respect your wishes about keeping it, at least, semi-private. If you do decide to leave, don't be surprised if a ways down the road, you receive an email checking up on you. :-) See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Xoloz, for your support in my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. You called me trustworthy, and I hope to prove you right. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 12:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Can't Sleep, Clown will... RfA

First of thank you for your comment, i am not to up on the ideas of Mr Plumer so i will have to examine that further. As for dissent, i have always belived that dissent, or at the least a devils advocate, is an important role in any community in which community opinion is requested to form matters of policy and direction, i cant say thay i am the best at it, and i find it disturbing that their is not more of it here, but have my own opinions in why that is the case. I would not say i was strongley upset, even if he had not made the comment i would have still opposed on the basis fo that i do not belive that 3.5 months is a long enough time for any user (regardless of the number of edits) to quailify as a admin. More so i was distressed at the comments, made by this user. Why, well first off this person is a admin, regardless of the age of the user, all admins need to be held to a higher standard of user conduct, which i belive also includes comments made about other useres in a open setting such as a talk page. Secondly this usere on both his user page and talk page quotes dont be a dick as being one of the creeds that he belives in, while he does not exactly say that the box infers that, yet makes a comment that is very much dickish. Basically i find his comment, which based upon the the WP:NPA that i have been blocked on, also could be considered a personal attack as well. As for MassiveEgo, i can not say one way or their other, prior to the incident i was not aware of any user called MassiveEgo nor am i aware of his conduct, but i will say that in the context that the user used in his comment, it could be infered that the user is making me out to be a sockpuppett of MassiveEgo or visa versa, which i will state is not the case. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you, Xoloz/archive4
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. Thank you anyway for your vote. If you have any comments, please say so here.

[edit] Hi

Hello. Base on what you just said on my RfC, you might like to know about this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. Not spamming or asking for input or anything like that, just letting you know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My lack of response in the RfC was based mostly on my view that the whole thing was unnecessary, and I had made my views on the whole thing clear elsewhere. Nevertheless, I have succinctly summarized my stance on the RfC page. Thanks for your comment there, too, by the way, as it hit the mark exactly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | ^Θ 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for your supporting vote! With a 71/1/0 vote, I've been given sysop privileges! Just like any admin, I'm open to suggestions about backlogs or areas to look at.

Now, to go about disrup—improving Wikipedia...

heheheheheh...

Ashibaka tock 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More thank yous

For your kind support of my Rfa, which, as you know, passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Hope you get back soon)

[edit] Your comment

Is replied to on my talk page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You know why. >Radiant< 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice to see you back around

Even if it is only for "five minutes". Your contributions are always thoughtfull, and usually a good deal more temperate than my own. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Xoloz/archive4, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)