Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 8 October 2008

Xymmax

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/6/0); Scheduled to end 10:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax (talk · contribs) - This is an unusual candidate, further to the post I made at WT:RFA offering to nominate unusual candidates.

Xymmax is a gnomish contributor, working predominantly at AfD.

The user is civil and we need more more admins.

NB the user sensibly declined an attempted RfA a few months back as premature. Hence the "2" at the end of this one. Dweller (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you Dweller for the nomination, and thanks to everyone for taking the time to consider me. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I first registered with Misplaced Pages in April 2007, and became truly active around November of that year. I enjoy reading Misplaced Pages, and often would fill down time by chasing links across interesting articles. Eventually I began to reach for the mouse to click the “Edit this page” button, and as you know, it’s all downhill from there. Once I discovered project space, I began to get involved with AfD. For me, this is an area in which I can have a genuine impact (positive I trust!) on the project by helping to save articles that can be made encyclopedic within our policies and guidelines, and removing articles that fail policy. It’s an area that I think allows for some nuance, and I try to apply the policies and guidelines a way that furthers the goal of writing the greatest encyclopedia in history.

In my case, the "unusual" in unusual candidate is a euphemism for having a bit more than 3000 undeleted edits and no GAs or FAs. I have made non-trivial contributions to this article on its way to GA (note there are 2 intervening edits in there) and this one after it all ready made it there, but they are far short of what fairly should be considered "significant" contributions.

I do not envision making much use of the block button, but I am familiar with the policy. I have had rollback since it was made available to non admins, give or take a couple of days, and have not encountered any issues with its use. I do not do a great deal of speedy tagging, but I am familiar with the criteria. My other main space contributions tend to be gnomish – adding project tags, adding references I’ve found, and the like. I do look out for BLP violations, and will act on such articles when I see them.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I will continue to participate in AfD. With the tools, I would be able to perform merges that require combining article histories, and of course deletions. I’ve closed some AfDs, and as best I know none of my closes have been questioned. Still, given the fact that I’ve seen some editors express the opinion that only admins should close AfD, in recent months I’ve chosen to limit my closes to speedy deletes or obvious snows.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My AfD work, for the reasons I laid out above. I'm particularly gratified when I can help save an article, such as here or here, among others. In addition to participating in the discussions, I help tag AfDs so that projects or those who view the appropriate page are alerted that an article in which they are interested has been nominated.

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: No. I’ve received the odd unpleasant message from an editor that I’ve warned about vandalism, but it’s always quickly been reverted, and not distressed me. I edit Misplaced Pages because I enjoy it and feel it’s important. I have no problem with walking away from an unproductive conversation; it’s been my experience that such matters work themselves out over time as emotions calm down.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. While the "hangon" tag has no binding authority, in the majority of cases I would consider it rude or perhaps even a failure to assume good faith to delete an article on which it had been placed without attempting to contact the article writer first. Obviously, attack pages and vandalism so obvious as to qualify for speedy deletion would be deleted despite the presence of the tag. Otherwise, I would look to both the article talk page and the article creator's page in an effort to see if there might be an easy fix for the article. If the article's author has not provided an explanation, then it would be appropriate to delete, and perhaps userfy if the article's content is appropriate for user space.

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. As rollback is a vandalism fighting tool, I would look to see that the editor had been performing anti-vandalism work. I would want to see that the user has been accurate in the vandalism work that they have done - mistakes are understanding, and not problematic if there is proof that the user learned from them. As rollback permits the rapid reversion of content, I would want to see a history free of edit warring. I also would like to see some evidence of familiarity with WP culture - perhaps two months of regular activity should be plenty. Removal would occur for misuse such as in content disputes.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?

A. Almost never. The strong presumption is that it will be possible to obtain a free photograph of a living person, and therefore a non-free photograph should not be used. Exceptions still would have to meet that the fair use guidelines.

General comments

• See Xymmax's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/Xymmax
• Requests for adminship/Xymmax 2

• Links for Xymmax: Xymmax (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Xymmax before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom. Dweller (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Before anyone squeaks the block was an accident although not fully clarified in the unblock summary. Yes, I like the refreshing approach here. Sensible user page, a browse of the archives indicates a civil and thoughtful editor. Nothing wrong with specialising at WP:AFD when all your edits seem to me that you won't go crazy with a block or protect button or more importantly make decisions you're not sure about. Sound, calm, sensible, pragmatic and communcative. Seems like a net positive with the extra tools. Pedro :  Chat  11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
3. naerii 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Good contributions, civil, careful and helpful? Count me in! Who cares that the candidate does not have many edits? 10 good admin actions a month are better than none after all. I suggest, if I may, the candidate, if already AfD interested, to broaden their horizon by contributing at WP:MFD and other deletion related areas to help out there as well. SoWhy 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
5. I wouldn't really say this was an unusual candidate - he's got experience in a number of admin areas and clearly knows his stuff. He'll be just fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, no reason to believe this would be anything but A Good Thing. Ironholds 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
7. And I said: "What about ‘Breakfast at Tiffany's?" She said, "'I think I remember the film, And as I recall…’" uh, is this the Deep Blue Something Karaoke festival? Oh, sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who hits all of the right notes! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Can't see any problems here. Area-specific admins are no bad thing. George The Dragon (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
9. As dweller notes, we do need more admins. This user seems like they will do a fine job if given the position, and so I have little hesitation in offering my support. —Anonymous Dissident 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Good enough for Dweller, good enough for me. Nick mallory (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
11. You are an admin already. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support- I've seen a lot of Xymmax on AfD, and I have never had cause to doubt this user's intelligence, reasonableness or civility. Reyk _YO! 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Support per the (unusually) to-the-point nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support He's been on a lot of AFD and would make a great admin. He also voted Keep on the Robin Simon AFD. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Another solid contributor. I see nothing of concern. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. Xymmax is a fine candidate. Axl ¤ 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Weak Support. Not as communicative as I'd like nor as much mainspace work as I'd like, but he seems civil and knowledgeable enough, especially in the AFD realm, and we need more admins in that area. Not to mention we need more admins whose username begins with "X", we only have 6. Hmm, there's only 7 of us starting with "U", another small crowd. Useight (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, need more admins interested in deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong support - meets almost all my requirements , active in XfD, not a rabid deletionist or inclusionist, balanced contribs. -- Logical Premise 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - Going through the user's contributions, I see a strong grasp of policy from within AfD arguments. Article work, although not as much as I like, extends beyond the remit of vandalism reversion, with examples of copyediting in amongst article cleanup, wikification, spam removal and so on. Entries at WP:UAA are also sound as well, displaying a grasp of username policy. user has also contributed in policy discussions on WP:N, exibiting a willingness to help shape policy as well as understand it. Deleted contributions reveal sound CSD tagging, as well as a couple of examples of trying to cleanup and wikify articles as well, before they were ultimately deleted. Although the candidate talks at length of his AfD work, I think his contribs at UAA and CSD, as well as a degree of gnoming work, helps to round this candidate off. No problems with supporting. Gazimoff 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Looks good, but as pointed out above, work on communication. Good Luck!!! America69 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - per the opposes below, specially because of the "not enough article work". For the people who opposed: Adminship is not article writing :P. --macy 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Support, Pretty much every AfD contribution I've seen from you has been not just okay, but excellent. You really seem to understand the process and policies well, and I can think of few, if any, better people to be working that area as an admin. And given that, you appear to have enough clue that I don't think you'll be wading drunkenly into other, unfamiliar areas waving your admin tools around. ~ mazca 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - Seems like this user would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, adminship is not all about how many DYKs, FAs and whatever else you can get, and nor do I believe that this candidate is not adept outside of AfD. Why the hell not? — neuro 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Civil and very thoughtful, great AfD work. The tools are not needed to write articles. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, will be a very useful admin in AfD and this careful rewrite of the lead of a controversial article on Lyndon LaRouche convinces me that Xymmax has a reasonable handle on article-writing. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. One does not necessarily need article work to be an admin. Good luck, Xymmax. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
29. Support II MusLiM HyBRiD II 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
30. Support, Most Definitely. RkMnQ (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
31. Weak Support--LAAFan _review 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - Why not? --Flewis 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, no evidence that user would abuse the tools, and declining the prior nom in my opinion showed good judgement. We need more admins with good judgement. Lankiveil 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC).
34. Agree with above, seems to have clue and a level head. GlassCobra 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Seems like a sensible choice, no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
36. Support I like that he declined the first nom. Also, AfD is always in need of good administrators and your contributions there will be great. Lack of article edits is a bit concerning but as I usually state the main thing is trust and willingness to learn. --Banime (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
37. Support per WP:WTHN. Sure, more article work would be great, but the gnomes are just as important as the people with 12 FAs. :-) –Juliancolton 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

    No, they're not. Everyme 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

    But does that have anything to do with adminship? I don't gauge how well someone can make judgement calls and press buttons on their skill as a writer.--KojiDude 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)