Final (170/9/3); Closed by Rlevse at 02:23, 04 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Xeno (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) – While I don't think there's a particularly pressing need for additional bureaucrats at the present time, several users have encouraged me to submit my name for consideration once again. It's been nearly two-and-a-half years since I've been
1 I became an active contributor, two years since
my RfA and seven months since
my first RfB (which was, according to the closing bureaucrat, "a borderline case ... [for which] the relative level of support demonstrated might well have justified a successful outcome").
The main points of opposition in my first RFB were the Giano and DougsTech incidents, and also a tendency to be process-bound. I've taken on board the constructive criticisms of the community as to my actions in both of those situations and have actually helped develop one essay, and written another, on the respective subjects in general - namely Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear and Wikipedia:Cowboy adminship. In terms of being process-bound, I still feel that process is important; but I also realize that a more organic and common-sense approach is needed in certain situations and no longer practice dogmatic adherence to policy and guidelines when a more nuanced approach is necessary. No one is perfect; I have made mistakes in the past, and ultimately learned from them.
I continue to be a fairly active user in the mundane bureaucratic areas (bots; username changes; and the related policies and guidelines), and I'm also an avid watcher of WP:RFA/ WT:RFA and the bureaucrats' noticeboard and the various village pumps. I recently received unanimous support at my candidacy for Bot Approvals Group membership (of course, I would not act as a bureaucrat for a matter with which I was involved in a BAG capacity, and vice-versa). I'm quite active on Wikipedia and hope to be able to help lighten the bureaucratic load.
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their comments. – xeno talk 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
decltype
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Xeno before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
decltype
(
talk) 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
reply|crat=
yes when you make your notes at CHU. I am
delirious &
lost ☯
~talk to her~ and i support xeno's nomination. 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replyFinal (170/9/3); Closed by Rlevse at 02:23, 04 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Xeno (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) – While I don't think there's a particularly pressing need for additional bureaucrats at the present time, several users have encouraged me to submit my name for consideration once again. It's been nearly two-and-a-half years since I've been
1 I became an active contributor, two years since
my RfA and seven months since
my first RfB (which was, according to the closing bureaucrat, "a borderline case ... [for which] the relative level of support demonstrated might well have justified a successful outcome").
The main points of opposition in my first RFB were the Giano and DougsTech incidents, and also a tendency to be process-bound. I've taken on board the constructive criticisms of the community as to my actions in both of those situations and have actually helped develop one essay, and written another, on the respective subjects in general - namely Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear and Wikipedia:Cowboy adminship. In terms of being process-bound, I still feel that process is important; but I also realize that a more organic and common-sense approach is needed in certain situations and no longer practice dogmatic adherence to policy and guidelines when a more nuanced approach is necessary. No one is perfect; I have made mistakes in the past, and ultimately learned from them.
I continue to be a fairly active user in the mundane bureaucratic areas (bots; username changes; and the related policies and guidelines), and I'm also an avid watcher of WP:RFA/ WT:RFA and the bureaucrats' noticeboard and the various village pumps. I recently received unanimous support at my candidacy for Bot Approvals Group membership (of course, I would not act as a bureaucrat for a matter with which I was involved in a BAG capacity, and vice-versa). I'm quite active on Wikipedia and hope to be able to help lighten the bureaucratic load.
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their comments. – xeno talk 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
decltype
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Xeno before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
decltype
(
talk) 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
reply|crat=
yes when you make your notes at CHU. I am
delirious &
lost ☯
~talk to her~ and i support xeno's nomination. 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
reply