final (98/2/0) ending 01:12 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Xaosflux (
talk·contribs) – I'm nominating xaosflux for adminship. He is a very friendly user, who has been here since October and has over 6,000 edits. He performs vandal fighting, stub sorting, page cleanups, assists in category renames and I don't know what else. He'd be an even greater asset to Wikipedia if he were given the mop. --
Latinus (
talk (el:)) 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I warmly accept the nomination.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I have seen a goodly number of positive contributions by Xaosflux, seems to have the right temperment.
Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Hayeuppp. Some good candidates coming through these parts lately...
Grutness...wha? 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I though you were and administrator. . .
Banana04131 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
So Much Support I Can't Comprehend It... Wait, you're not already an admin? How did I miss that?! --
Zsinj 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - give him the mop and the fire hose.
Johntex\talk 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
WTF How Did I Not Know This Was Here Support.
Mo0[
talk] 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Not an admin yet?!Conscious 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Pointless supportProto||type 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support in spite of the shameless and bourgeois use of userboxes. ;)
Eluchil 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Late "how did I miss this RFA??" support I have appreciated the contributions I've noticed from this editor (particularly working with brand new pages). With what he does, it seems he needs admin tools, and he will make a good janitor in my opinion. --
W.marsh 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I seem to be late to the party as well, but I can find no fault in this user. Will make very good use of the mop! --
PeruvianLlama(
spit) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I can see no potential for abuse here.
Hidingtalk 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, yet another user who I honestly believed was an admin. --
Jay(
Reply) 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good editor, should be good admin.
FloNighttalk 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose is this the guy that nominated
WP:BJAODN for MfD? In that case I'm not sure if he understands how Wikipedia deletion process works.
Grue 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I had nominated a subpage of BJAODN for deletion (non-speedy) at one time, mistaking it to be a
fork of BJAODN. I think the BJAODN section has merit, and have nominated pages on deletion debates to be BJAODN'd as recently as 02-FEB
shown here.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 16:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
The reason you gave in the
nomination of the article, which was "This project has nothing to do with making an encylopedia" seems to me to be different from the reason you just gave us (that it was a fork). Am I misunderstanding something? --
Malthusian(talk) 21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
During that edit I made a mistake and had not examined the article well enough, and somehow missed the large nav template at the top of the page. This version of the page when I nominated it
[1] came across when I was doing RCP, and the latest entry seemed like nonense (the section on F.H.F.), that I took as a potential parody of the BJAODN section. When this came up on Village Pump later that day I realized the error, and was going to withdraw the nomination, but it had already been speedily kept. As the debate was closed, I posted an apology and a much shorter version of this explination on it's
Talk Page.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Pjacobi 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Too many userboxes)reply
er, if your oppose reason was too many userboxes, could you clearify on how having too many userboxes will affect his adminship. Thanks. --
Ichiro (
会話|+|
投稿記録|
メール) 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Congratulations for having missed that one. It was really discussed ad nauseum on wikien-l and everywhere else. I'm really not interested in giving a complete summary. Just start at
[2]. --
Pjacobi 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Why are you opposing? —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Especially in light of your impoliteness to Ichiro, I must also ask: Why are you opposing?
Xoloz 13:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I also read the mailing list. The issue discussed there is not about the number of userboxes. It's about what these userboxes say. If you speak 120 languages, it's perfectly fine to have 120 babel userboxes on your user page. -
Liberatore(
T) 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
In this user's case his userboxes show that he knows 7 programming languages, what he uses to contribute, the wikiprojects that he is a member of, the number of times his page was vandalized, his number of edits, and about 6 silly ones. Other than the silly ones, all of his userboxes are directly relevant to contibuting to wikipedia - the silly ones only show that this user has a sense of humor and don't seem to align him politically. I don't see a problem here, I actually think we need more admins with a sense of humor. -
Trysha(
talk) 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
#I'd love to support, but I'll go neutral leaning support - Main talk seems a bit little, and remember, the ultimate goal is to build an encyclopedia - and of course, one'd have to discuss changes to articles on talk pages (usually in the main space, of course). You also have been contributing actively for just a little over 3 months, while I can't oppose in good faith for this (my own RFA passed at two and a half months), I'm slightly concerned. You're a great editor, and you probably do deserve the mop, but at this moment I don't think I can support outright.
NSLE(
T+
C) 01:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
NSLE(
T+
C) 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A. I would use sysop tools to assist mostly with clean-up's needed to keep the encyclopedia in good order. I would accomplish this by reverting and communicating with vandalistic editors, and placing blocks if needed. I frequent
WP:AIV, and would be able to assist there in a much greater capacity then I do now. I also regularly visit
WP:MFD,
WP:CFD, and
WP:TFD, and would be able to assist in closing nominations after consensus is developed there. I would also be interested in assisting with changes to the MediaWiki namespace, while understanding that the needs for caution and consensus in that area are great. --
xaosflux
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not authored any Featured Articles, but a large number of my edits are project and/or maintenance related. I am pleased with the rework I helped implement for
MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext. I have also helped add to policy sections, such as
WP:NAME/non-alphas. --
xaosflux
2.1. I have looked into your recent contribution - there is a quite an impressive display of vandal-fighting activities, but could not find any contributions to the mainspace beside tagging, reverts and occasional categories. Can you show us a contribution to the main space you are particulay proud of?
abakharev 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
While most of my editing is cleanup related, as I mostly follow
Recent changes / New Pages, when working on Newpages, cleaning and and categorizing articles swiftly often keeps then from getting deleted or lost. I believe there are all types of editors that make this a great project, some create stubs, some design templates, most all add content; all of these editor types contribute to the goal. Here are some samples of non-vandal reversion edits that a quick search turned up:
I hope this is a sufficient answer to your question
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. I try to avoid any edit/POV warring at all times. I have had quite a few vandalistic accounts personally attack me as a result of cleaning up after them, but that comes with the territory of doing clean-up. I have been blocked one time (quickly rescinded by the blocking admin) related to high volume editing of a current event (see details
here). Under most circumstances if something needs to be reverted more than once, it should be taken to discussion pages first. --
xaosflux
4. Given that
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, could you explain your lack of any "real" contributions to the mainspace (ie, encyclopedic contributions over reverting vandalism, copyediting etc)?
NSLE(
T+
C) 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. That is a good question, and one that I thaught over before accepting this nomination. I do believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but for an encyclopedia to be useful to the immense number of readers it has to be in a well presented format. All the brilliant prose housed in Wikipedia becomes less useful when covered with vandalism. Similiarly, without: references, indexing, classifications, intralinks, and attractive displays, our readers will likely go elsewhere. In the end I believe we are creating this encyclopdedia to share knowledge with the readers, not just for the Wikipedians, and that we need to keep presenting accurate, well presented articles to them.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
final (98/2/0) ending 01:12 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Xaosflux (
talk·contribs) – I'm nominating xaosflux for adminship. He is a very friendly user, who has been here since October and has over 6,000 edits. He performs vandal fighting, stub sorting, page cleanups, assists in category renames and I don't know what else. He'd be an even greater asset to Wikipedia if he were given the mop. --
Latinus (
talk (el:)) 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I warmly accept the nomination.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I have seen a goodly number of positive contributions by Xaosflux, seems to have the right temperment.
Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Hayeuppp. Some good candidates coming through these parts lately...
Grutness...wha? 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I though you were and administrator. . .
Banana04131 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
So Much Support I Can't Comprehend It... Wait, you're not already an admin? How did I miss that?! --
Zsinj 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - give him the mop and the fire hose.
Johntex\talk 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
WTF How Did I Not Know This Was Here Support.
Mo0[
talk] 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Not an admin yet?!Conscious 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Pointless supportProto||type 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support in spite of the shameless and bourgeois use of userboxes. ;)
Eluchil 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Late "how did I miss this RFA??" support I have appreciated the contributions I've noticed from this editor (particularly working with brand new pages). With what he does, it seems he needs admin tools, and he will make a good janitor in my opinion. --
W.marsh 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I seem to be late to the party as well, but I can find no fault in this user. Will make very good use of the mop! --
PeruvianLlama(
spit) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I can see no potential for abuse here.
Hidingtalk 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, yet another user who I honestly believed was an admin. --
Jay(
Reply) 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good editor, should be good admin.
FloNighttalk 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose is this the guy that nominated
WP:BJAODN for MfD? In that case I'm not sure if he understands how Wikipedia deletion process works.
Grue 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I had nominated a subpage of BJAODN for deletion (non-speedy) at one time, mistaking it to be a
fork of BJAODN. I think the BJAODN section has merit, and have nominated pages on deletion debates to be BJAODN'd as recently as 02-FEB
shown here.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 16:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
The reason you gave in the
nomination of the article, which was "This project has nothing to do with making an encylopedia" seems to me to be different from the reason you just gave us (that it was a fork). Am I misunderstanding something? --
Malthusian(talk) 21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
During that edit I made a mistake and had not examined the article well enough, and somehow missed the large nav template at the top of the page. This version of the page when I nominated it
[1] came across when I was doing RCP, and the latest entry seemed like nonense (the section on F.H.F.), that I took as a potential parody of the BJAODN section. When this came up on Village Pump later that day I realized the error, and was going to withdraw the nomination, but it had already been speedily kept. As the debate was closed, I posted an apology and a much shorter version of this explination on it's
Talk Page.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Pjacobi 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Too many userboxes)reply
er, if your oppose reason was too many userboxes, could you clearify on how having too many userboxes will affect his adminship. Thanks. --
Ichiro (
会話|+|
投稿記録|
メール) 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Congratulations for having missed that one. It was really discussed ad nauseum on wikien-l and everywhere else. I'm really not interested in giving a complete summary. Just start at
[2]. --
Pjacobi 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Why are you opposing? —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Especially in light of your impoliteness to Ichiro, I must also ask: Why are you opposing?
Xoloz 13:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I also read the mailing list. The issue discussed there is not about the number of userboxes. It's about what these userboxes say. If you speak 120 languages, it's perfectly fine to have 120 babel userboxes on your user page. -
Liberatore(
T) 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
In this user's case his userboxes show that he knows 7 programming languages, what he uses to contribute, the wikiprojects that he is a member of, the number of times his page was vandalized, his number of edits, and about 6 silly ones. Other than the silly ones, all of his userboxes are directly relevant to contibuting to wikipedia - the silly ones only show that this user has a sense of humor and don't seem to align him politically. I don't see a problem here, I actually think we need more admins with a sense of humor. -
Trysha(
talk) 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
#I'd love to support, but I'll go neutral leaning support - Main talk seems a bit little, and remember, the ultimate goal is to build an encyclopedia - and of course, one'd have to discuss changes to articles on talk pages (usually in the main space, of course). You also have been contributing actively for just a little over 3 months, while I can't oppose in good faith for this (my own RFA passed at two and a half months), I'm slightly concerned. You're a great editor, and you probably do deserve the mop, but at this moment I don't think I can support outright.
NSLE(
T+
C) 01:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
NSLE(
T+
C) 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A. I would use sysop tools to assist mostly with clean-up's needed to keep the encyclopedia in good order. I would accomplish this by reverting and communicating with vandalistic editors, and placing blocks if needed. I frequent
WP:AIV, and would be able to assist there in a much greater capacity then I do now. I also regularly visit
WP:MFD,
WP:CFD, and
WP:TFD, and would be able to assist in closing nominations after consensus is developed there. I would also be interested in assisting with changes to the MediaWiki namespace, while understanding that the needs for caution and consensus in that area are great. --
xaosflux
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not authored any Featured Articles, but a large number of my edits are project and/or maintenance related. I am pleased with the rework I helped implement for
MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext. I have also helped add to policy sections, such as
WP:NAME/non-alphas. --
xaosflux
2.1. I have looked into your recent contribution - there is a quite an impressive display of vandal-fighting activities, but could not find any contributions to the mainspace beside tagging, reverts and occasional categories. Can you show us a contribution to the main space you are particulay proud of?
abakharev 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
While most of my editing is cleanup related, as I mostly follow
Recent changes / New Pages, when working on Newpages, cleaning and and categorizing articles swiftly often keeps then from getting deleted or lost. I believe there are all types of editors that make this a great project, some create stubs, some design templates, most all add content; all of these editor types contribute to the goal. Here are some samples of non-vandal reversion edits that a quick search turned up:
I hope this is a sufficient answer to your question
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. I try to avoid any edit/POV warring at all times. I have had quite a few vandalistic accounts personally attack me as a result of cleaning up after them, but that comes with the territory of doing clean-up. I have been blocked one time (quickly rescinded by the blocking admin) related to high volume editing of a current event (see details
here). Under most circumstances if something needs to be reverted more than once, it should be taken to discussion pages first. --
xaosflux
4. Given that
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, could you explain your lack of any "real" contributions to the mainspace (ie, encyclopedic contributions over reverting vandalism, copyediting etc)?
NSLE(
T+
C) 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. That is a good question, and one that I thaught over before accepting this nomination. I do believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but for an encyclopedia to be useful to the immense number of readers it has to be in a well presented format. All the brilliant prose housed in Wikipedia becomes less useful when covered with vandalism. Similiarly, without: references, indexing, classifications, intralinks, and attractive displays, our readers will likely go elsewhere. In the end I believe we are creating this encyclopdedia to share knowledge with the readers, not just for the Wikipedians, and that we need to keep presenting accurate, well presented articles to them.
xaosfluxTalk/CVU 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.