Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xymmax 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Xymmax

[edit]

Final (talk page) (56/7/2); Ended Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:21:36 (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)[reply]

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 written So let it be done 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first registered with Wikipedia in April 2007, and became truly active around November of that year. I enjoy reading Wikipedia, 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

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 understandable, 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 Wikipedia?
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.
Optional question from Scott MacDonald
7. Can you comment a little about your article space contributions? What articles have you written or significantly improved?
A.Some of my article work is linked above. I am not a classic content-builder, but I do interact with many articles via my AfD work. Normally, I will simply have an edit or two to those articles to add references that I may have found. One example of this is here (actually that one involved some pruning of advert material as well. Occaisionally this will result in a bit of writing, as with Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois. I became involved after an AfD resulted in the merger of another article to this one. The article had been renamed a couple of times, and I rewrote the lead, see here. I was reverted, but after a talk page discussion here we worked out an acceptable compromise. Jeremiah Dominguez is a stub. I came across it with a CSD A7 tag, and looked like this. I removed speedy tag as the article did assert notability. I then quickly sourced it and left it as a stub. Szymon Kołecki is a similar case, it was correctly tagged as unreferenced. I was able to quickly find a reference and leave the artcle as an intact stub as you can see here. Steven N. Samuelian is an article that had some NPOV/BLP issues see here, I found some solid references and rewrote it to this. I sometimes describe my article work as triage, trying to source articles so they meet our inclusion guidelines.
Optional questions from LAAFan
8: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?

I'd start with a message to the user telling them that their actions could be perceived as vandalism, and encourage them to take a break - AGF I'd assume a really bad case of wikistress or something similar. If it continues, I'd warn the user with a personalized message linking to the blocking policy. Depending of the circumstances I'd then give an explicit last chance message, then block, with the length depending on the block record.


9:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?

No, I'd block the IP (assuming proper warnings), understanding that the block length is shortened for dynamic IPs. The rationale is that if the disruption is coming from a single user, there's no reason to deprive many users of the ability to edit the article when a block should accomplish the purpose of ending the disruption.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Nom. Dweller (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. naerii 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, no reason to believe this would be anything but A Good Thing. Ironholds 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 DissidentTalk 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good enough for Dweller, good enough for me. Nick mallory (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. You are an admin already. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support per the (unusually) to-the-point nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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) I really have to shut the hell up about that AFD, just cos it's MY article. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Another solid contributor. I see nothing of concern. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Xymmax is a fine candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  19. Support, need more admins interested in deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support - meets almost all my requirements , active in XfD, not a rabid deletionist or inclusionist, balanced contribs. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 [1] [2] 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)[reply]
  22. Support Looks good, but as pointed out above, work on communication. Good Luck!!! America69 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    It's not, but this project is, among other things, about writing an encyclopedia, and it's a valid expectation of an aspiring admin to be interested in that aspect. Because, you know, some of the situations requring admin action (although not many) have something to do with article writing. Everyme 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 t|c 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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(talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  28. Support. One does not necessarily need article work to be an admin. Good luck, Xymmax. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support II MusLiM HyBRiD II 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, Most Definitely. RkMnQ (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Support--LAAFansign review 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Why not? --Flewis(talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 (speak to me) 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  34. Agree with above, seems to have clue and a level head. GlassCobra 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems like a sensible choice, no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not. Everyme 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But does that have anything to do with adminship? Personally, I don't gauge how well someone can make judgement calls and press buttons on their skill as a writer.--KojiDude (C) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyme, that is a matter of personal opinion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is a matter of opinion. Although, it's not exactly a good idea to imply that gnomish activity isn't that important, whether that's what you meant or not. In my opinion, all editorial work is appreciated. No one is better than another. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Better" and more important often have very different meanings. Everyme 05:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. There's no reason to believe that this user will misuse the tools. Declining the previous RFA showed that they're clueful, which is the most important quality in administrators. We need more admins, and Xymmax will most likely be a good administrator. This nomination wasn't very unusual. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I see no reason not to. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Great contributions.CMJMEM (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per totally reasonable answers to questions, and a good overall feeling. Also, for the record, I am totally unimpressed with Everyme's responses above. Pretty damn pretentious. Tan | 39 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gnoming is of course vitally important, but the number of people who are capable of doing such things far far exceeds the number of people capable of and willing to writing, as Julian said, 12 FAs. Saying they are just as important is belittling towards those who put in the exponentially higher effort to contribute not only on a syntactic/grammatical/formatting level but on the highest levels of evaluating sources and structuring an article to FA status. There's really nothing to disagree with me about, since what I said is not opinion but strictly logical truth. Everyme 07:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were wrong. I didn't say I disagreed with you. I said I was unimpressed with your responses, and that I think you're pretentious. Tan | 39 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support The answer to Q4 in particular is the just kind of communicative and sensible attitude that makes for a great administrator. Steven Walling (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support giving a committed editor some extra tools to make this place better is a no-brainer. Vishnava talk 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support the block in the log was only applied for a minute (hardly a block at all) and user has made excellent AfD contributions; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. He's probably capable of doing an relatively easy job (being an admin) competently. fish&karate 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like admin tools will be used to help rather than hinder the project. Peter 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support Per candidates only comment at first RfA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I like the way he researches articles at AFDs properly, instead of drive-by voting "per nom". They're a good sign of excellent judgement and thoughtfulness. -- how do you turn this on 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Conditional support: Hoping you'll have time for working on a(n) FA/GA. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I appreciate a good WikiGnome that can contribute usefully. I have no doubts the tools will be used with care. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Once again support for a specialist admin who can do useful things in specific areas whilst not touching others. Mjchesnel (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support – Good experience in admin-related areas so s/he will know what to do and good policy knowledge. Will do just fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. No evidence this user is likely to abuse the admin tools. No evidence this user is likely to be abusive or harass other editors. No evidence this user suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of any policy or guideline. Seems to me that's all that really matters. — Satori Son 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Good luck, you've been doing a great job, and I hope to see you become better with the tools. iMatthew (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - can't see why not.   jj137 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - In theory, if you were to stay at AfD and never leave that zone I would support, honestly I would. Your intentions at this point might very well be to stay there. However at some point you will venture elsewhere. Sorry. — Realist2 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not like to question opposes, but I really dislike your oppose. Your presupposition is that the candidate is only capable when it comes to AFD. To say that a candidate is immediately inept when they "venture elsewhere" in my opinion is hurtful. The candidate is absolutely capable of learning and branching out their knowledge and tasks as an administrator. Has the position of administrator come to a point where one must be at the "pinnacle of knowledge" in order to pass? If the candidate passes, are we to put a "topic ban" on their administrative actions so that they only work in AFD? God forbid. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No we are not to give topic bans at all, if the candidate succeeds we give him/her the whole package. Unfortunately I see no proof the candidate could handle the whole package. Unless the community accommodates for "specialist tolls/rights" in the future. — Realist2 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a variety of pages explaining to admins how to do this, if the user is clueful enough to close AfDs they would be clueful enough to read the help pages of a specific area before going and waving his tools around the room. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Since April 2007 this user did just ~1000 edits in the mainspace and did almost no article work (cf. answer to Q2). While I don't think there is a need to write a lot of articles and do a lot of mainspace edits, I still think there should be a bit mainspace work - what I see here is not enough, sorry. Another important point is that I don't see any experience in admin related areas besides AFD (cf. answer to Q1). Furthermore, there is no indication how this user would act in conflicts (cf. answer to Q3). From my point of view it's very important for an admin to be able to act calmly in conflict situations. Certainly, there is no need to have done tons of dispute resolution. However there should be some indication that the user has the needed calmness. Finally I don't see any evidence that this user knows the (relevant) policies. I would not oppose for one of this points alone, but altogether I have far too much concerns so that regretfully I can't provide my trust this time. Again, sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: There was a discussion regarding this vote on my talk page. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Not enough article work in my opinion. VG ☎ 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose less than a third of edits are to articles and from what I can see Xymmax has only ever created one article. Someone who wants to primarily participate as an admin in AfD, should IMO at least have a reasonable history of article creation. RMHED (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon a more detailed look at your contributions, you seem to have the most important quality; common sense. RMHED (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Only for now. Once you have more article work I will support. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A decent history of mainspace contributions, including creation of new content, can reasonably be expected from someone who asks to be trusted with the tools and the role of an admin. Everyme 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sorry, does not meet my standards yet. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I see a lack of activity and not enough article work to support. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. He seems level-headed and I've no concrete concerns that lead me to oppose. But I simply can't support a candidate with such low experience of content building. I'm not looking for FA or even GA, but the creation or significant expansion of at least a few articles is really necessary for my support. Admins have tools that sometimes worry content writers, and they should have at least a minimal level of experience of content writing, the examples here are really very minimal. If this RfA fails, I'd encourage the candidate to make some non-AfD related contributions - improve the article on his home town, hobby, school subject whatever. If he does that, I'd probably strongly support next time. If the RfA succeeds, I'd still encourage him to get that experience.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral : I dont see any concerns that push me to Oppose section,but lack of tangible contributions to mainspace is something that makes me stay neutral. I am not a fan of big editcounts but I would like to see more contributions in mainspace too from you.If everybody contributes to AFDs ( read as deleting articles) , who will write articles for Wikipedia ? . Come on, this is encyclopedia , not a recycling machine ! This neutral vote is only to remind you to work more in article writing and not bcoz of any concerns of any possible abuse of tools. Nevertheless Bestwishes and this RFA is more likely to succeed. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Xymmax_2&oldid=1258111310"