Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Xoloz - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MartinRe (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 10 May 2006 (→[]: +support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:07, 10 May 2006 by MartinRe (talk | contribs) (→[]: +support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Xoloz

(40/0/0) ending 16:56, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Steve block Talk 16:02, 10 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 Misplaced Pages 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 17:04, 10 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 Misplaced Pages 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 - 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. More candidates like this one, please! Support ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Ghirla 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 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --lightdarkness 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 ). 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  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 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 205.188.116.10 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Anons don't have suffrage in RfA, can a crat strike this? (Or if this is a user, can you sign while logged in?). --Rory096 20:31, 10 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)

Oppose

  1. .--Sean Black 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Stats.Voice-of-All 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 Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 31.04% | Article talk: 4.72%
User: 2.98% | User talk: 9.86%
Misplaced Pages: 50.06% | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.02%
Image: 0.02%
Template: 0.02%
Category: 0%
Portal: 0.16%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.04%

Edit counts courtesy Flcelloguy's tool 

- Total: 5082 -
Main: 1570
Talk: 221
User: 73
User talk: 482
Misplaced Pages: 2673
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 the matter in the hands of that person, who is in a better to position to judge any difficulty.