Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Xeno 2

Final (170/9/3); Closed by Rlevse at 02:23, 04 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

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 been1 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. –xenotalk 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Of course. Bureaucrats must keep a finger on the pulse of the RFA community as well as the community-at-large, and as such I have been following both WP:RFA and WT:RFA for quite some time (mostly as an observer, sometimes as a commenter), and would continue to do so as long as I were participating in the RFA process as an acting bureaucrat.
To promote a candidate, one has to be sure that they enjoy the trust of the community. The toolset has expanded quite a bit and adminship is a very nuanced role. They must possess the technical competency to not muck up the encyclopedia with them, but also require the ability to connect with the community and act as a conduit for consensus: pressing the right buttons for the right reasons.
The same is true for the bureaucrat - who is entrusted with taking in what the community has to say about the candidate and making an impartial determination from the discussion. I think the fact that corner cases often result in a bureaucrat chat is a good thing, so one person does not have to make the call on their own.
Adminship should be "no big deal" but they are powerful tools and even unintentional misuse can have far-reaching effects, notwithstanding the countless other concerns we have to take into account. Typically, the RFA process does a fairly good job of highlighting areas that may be of concern. Before pressing the promote button, a bureaucrat should give all aspects of the discussion a careful and thorough examination.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Bureaucrats must ensure they are delivering the will of the community. They cannot impart their own predispositions, indeed they should recuse if any exist. Ultimately bureaucrat chats should be encouraged wherever there is sufficient community disagreement, this way all concerns raised in the RFA are given full consideration. Being that the "promote" button comes without an "unpromote" one, one must be thorough in their assessment of the discussion. While I doubt I would be the one to close a 'contentious nomination', if I did, I would be sure to provide a thorough closing statement indicating how the conclusion was reached.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. For better-or-worse, I am quite the "metapedian"; that is, I tend to spend most of my time doing work on the administrative and maintenance side of Wikipedia. I am always willing to receive constructive criticism at my talk page, and appreciate the same. I've got over 375,000 edits among my two bots [1] [2] over nine separate BRFAs, having done work for nearly 50 individual WikiProjects ... all with little to no complaints as to how the bot operation was carried out. I have acted as a mediator in a number of disputes and have been generally well-received by both sides of a particular dispute in that role. My advice is often sought from fellow Wikipedians on how to deal with sticky situations, and I do my best to provide guidance that is both accurate and de-escalatory.
Additional optional question from Wehwalt
4. Can you address the concern in Oppose #3, your grant of rollback and autoreviewer rights to Giano? I am interested both in your thoughts at the time and subsequently.
A: As Giano rightly notes, he had the rights before he retired his account so I restored them it to his new account when he returned. As he did not retire to "evad[e] scrutiny of their actions that could have led" to rollback or autoreviewer being removed, it seemed entirely uncontroversial to restore them it. I actually wasn't aware that the rollback right was subsequently removed from him: while I typically do watch the user talk pages of those I grant rollback, I do not do so indefinitely.
Clarify: He had rollback when he retired; on his return autoreviewer was available and he met the criteria in place at the time.
Additional optional question from decltype
5. Would you mind briefly summarizing your language skills in "Babel"-format (E.g "en-N, es-2, de-1")? The reason I'm asking is that your writings can be a bit difficult to understand at times. For example, your nomination statement reads: It's been nearly two-and-a-half years since I've been an active contributor (...) Is that really what you intended to write?
A: I've never had a formal assessment of my written English, so I'm not entirely sure where I would fall on the en-scale: I'm a university-educated native English speaker. I don't really see much of a problem with the sentence you highlighted (perhaps explain at my talk page?), but if I were to rephrase it: "Nearly two-and-a-half year have elapsed since I started actively contributing to Wikipedia". I'm not proficient in any other languages, but I might be able to ask you where the bathroom was; or if I could have some breakfast; and subsequently express my gratitude, in broken French.
Yes I see it now =)
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
6. Can you provide some links to the previous issues that ended your last Rfb you discussed? Doc Quintana (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: The incident with Giano began here, continued here and then finally here. For DougsTech, the relevant thread is here. The ED issue can be reviewed here and here.
Additional optional question from Nsk92
7. Could you give some examples of RfA oppose arguments that you think it would be appropriate for a closing crat to discount? In particular, what do you think about opposes based on self-disclosed under-age status of an RfA candidate?
A: I don't think that opposes should be summarily discounted except in the cases of obvious trolling, abusive sockpuppetry, jokes, and the like. For example, if someone opposed a candidate for having no Mediawiki namespace edits, I would likely ignore that one.
While I don't have strong personal feelings as to whether 'under-age' individuals are (un)suitable for adminship, I understand the arguments against and would not summarily discount votes on this basis - but I would probably weigh them in light of whether or not they provided clear examples of why the individual lacks the maturity to hold the mop and bucket over-and-above their chronological age, or otherwise provide a rationale for opposing on this basis.
8. Are there any relatively recent (say the last year) RfAs that you might have closed differently? If yes, could you explain why?
A: Nothing immediately came to mind, so I looked over the last year or so of candidacies. While I don't think I would've necessarily closed the borderline Kww 3 differently (as there was an awful lot of of opposition; also taking into account the bureaucratic chat), it is interesting to look at it next to the subsequent, and successful, Kww 4 six months later. Long story short, no: I didn't find any RFAs in the past year that I would have closed differently.
Questions from seresin
9. In your first RfB, you stated that you would not close an RfB until "[you] had substantial time on the job." Do you still stand by this?
A: Yep.
10. a) Do you stand by your assessments of the RfXs you were asked to hypothetically close in RfB1? b) Also, how would you close User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate14. ÷seresin 20:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: a) Probably. b) This appears to be a trick question: there's over a day left on the RFA (unless I am to believe that the most supported RFA in history simply went silent from 22:30 3 Dec 2099 to 05:11 5 Dec 2099). As I recall, a somewhat alarming concern was raised in the discussion section that caused the candidate to withdraw. If you absolutely want an answer as to how I would've closed it at the time shown (pretending that the 7 day period had elapsed), I would say 'no consensus' or 'extend the time', but really and truly this is something that would've needed to go to bureaucrat crat as there are too many factors at play in this RFA for one person to reasonably sort out.
Question from Pedro
11. At this recent RFA I initally supported the candidate then moved to oppose [3] over his use of the word "vote" and his collapse of discussion. Subsequently the candidate withdrew, despire significant support, citing my "personal attacks". This was generally met with a highly negative response by many members of the community, generaly endorsing the view that I was wrong, and that I attacked the candidate - specifically endorsing the view that my subsequent comments [4] actually breached our policy on not making commentary personal - as seen here. You actually un-collapsed the debate. [5]. Assuming the RFA had progressed, and assuming you had not had any interaction in the RFA, what weight would you have given my comment in determining the outcome, had you been the closing 'crat?
A: Unless there was further evidence brought forth that indicated the candidate feels that RFA and other !vote processes are a strictly by-the-numbers game, I might've given slightly less weight to the "missing negation in the word vote" part (to be honest, I've mostly stopped putting the blasted "!" before "vote" as well, just because I think it's a tired relic and people know what you mean anyway - this doesn't mean I think !votes should be decided numerically). As far as the candidate collapsing a section at their own RFA: I agree this is a legitimate concern to raise (though personally I think the candidate was just doing the wrong thing for the right reasons), and that aspect of your comment would've been weighed normally.
Additional optional question from Cirt
12. In what type of instance(s) would you recuse from an RFA and promotion of a candidate/closure of RFA, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and why?
A: I would recuse from an RFA in any case where I have had significant interactions (positive, negative, or otherwise) with the candidate, or if there was some aspect of the RFA in which I had strong personal feelings (e.g. the candidate is very anti-foo and I am very pro-foo, or something like that).
13. In what type of instance(s) would you refuse to recuse from acting as a bureaucrat in an RFA if asked to do so, and why?
A: I'm not sure that requests are often or ever made to bureaucrats to recuse from an RFA; but if someone asked me to recuse from acting as a bureaucrat, I would probably do so without question - even if I thought their concerns were not legitimate. There are enough bureaucrats such that no one bureaucrat needs to close any particular RFA - so there's no sense arguing and the ideal course of action is to avoid the appearance of impropriety (even where none exists).


General comments

RfBs for this user:
  • Links for Xeno: Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Xeno can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support I supported last time and don't think anything has gone horribly wrong in the meantime. —Soap— 01:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Xeno has always struck me as being an outstanding admin, and I think would be an outstanding Crat as well. Resolute 01:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Supported last time; haven't seen anything to change my opinion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He has shown as an admin that he can be responsible. I'm sure he'll make a fantastic crat. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Everything that I have seen of him has been positive; no reason not to support. Hi878 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very trusted and responsible admin. Don't see any reason why not. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support is all that i can say. Very hopeful for candidate. Pilif12p 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support A bit of irony to support an RFB for an admin that blocked me for edit waring once but you do deserve the extra tools and I think that you'll be a great crat. No hard feelings :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There is no doubt. Xeno really did deserve the tools last time, if not for the DougsTech issue being in the near past. That's all water under the bridge now, and I'm confident that he should have the tools. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Yes. —fetch·comms 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Hell yes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has my support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Always the voice of reason, has a finger on the pulse of consensus.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No problems from me FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – Nothing has changed since the last RFB (which I supported), and nothing is or has caused me to switch it. –MuZemike 02:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good interactions, good editor, good admin. If he wants more work, I say give it to him. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Xeno is exactly the kind of bureaucrat we need. He doesn't beat around the bush and gives his honest opinion. Plus he's very sensible, intelligent, and overall, interesting! ceranthor 02:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - great user. ---kilbad (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I continue to believe that Xeno would be an excellent Bureaucrat. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – great admin who will make a great 'crat. Airplaneman ✈ 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – I'm constantly impressed by his helpful contributions to discussions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sensible, responsive, thoughtful, able, calm, never sleeps - must be a robot! ;) Flashes of awesomeness. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – Xeno has the experience and wherewithal to be a bureaucrat. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Why the hell not, right? His reputation for being very cautious and process-oriented has always preceded him, and he's taken steps to learn and grow from his mistakes. He has experience in all the major bureaucrat areas to some degree or another. As far as I can see, he's a perfect fit for the role. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Seems to have taken last RfB to heart. Plainly qualified. Opposes don't convince me. Wasn't thrilled by his actions in the DougsTech fiasco but that water has drifted far enough downstream from the bridge that I can disregard.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am content with Xeno's answer to my question and reaffirm my support. It is no crime to be fooled by Giano.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just weighing in to verify Giano's statement below that he in no way asked or even mentioned rollback to me; I restored it to his account on his return of my own volition. –xenotalk 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Xeno, for clarifying this further and very cheap and vindictive inferral from Wehwalt. How such people can remain admins is a mystery.  Giacomo  12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Xeno for pointing this out to me. The comment was not meant to infer anything except that Xeno would not knowingly give rollback to someone who would misuse it, as Giano unquestionably did. I agree Giano did not request it and has stated that such privileges are meaningless to him. Otherwise, the comment stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic discussion moved to talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Xeno is a calm, fair, trustworthy person who is dedicated to the encyclopedia. He has extensive experience and will be an asset as a bureaucrat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support – I have seen Xeno elsewhere, and I find his contributions to be very useful. I trust him to be a sensible bureaucrat. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I have full confidence in Xeno. -- Ϫ 06:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No hesitations. Trustworthy editor with plenty of experience. Good luck! Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I feel the same as Soap, I supported last time, don't see any reason not to now. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I thought he was a bureaucrat already. I must be confusing it with X!. Highly trusted user anyway, and I received some pretty good interaction with him. Minimac (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No concerns about his abilities, experience or aptitude, and he will be a very useful addition to the crats' teamsheet. BencherliteTalk 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, an excellent candidate. All the best, --Taelus (Talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I disagree with Xeno on many of his statements, but my reasons from switching to support on his last RfB still stands. He may have a mind of his own but also recognizes when he makes a mistake and owns up to it. No hesitations. MLauba (Talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Sure.  Chzz  ►  09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Same as last time: "Xeno seems to be everywhere, all the time, doing almost everything. I'm constantly impressed with his judgment, knowledge and dedication. I'm certain he could handle CHU/USURP/SUL, he seems to be Bot-savvy, and I trust his judgment in determining consensus in tricky situations." --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Sure. Per this and the general impression since that Xeno is a responsible wiki-citizen. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. About time! For me Xeno has always been a pleasent person to talk to and interact with on a whole range of issues, even when I had made a mistake. He is in my opinion an extremely honest and trustworthy person, open to critism and always willing to help a user who needs help. I wish him the very best of luck in his 2nd RfB.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support—abundantly helpful, pacific, level-headed and sensible. Would be an admirable addition to any group of users with any special responsibility to be exercised with care, diligence and discretion. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Filled with clue. Hipocrite (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I normally ignore this type of vulgar circus and popularity contest, but seeing as through no fault of his own Xeno is being blamed for giving me rollbackers, or whatever it is called, for the benefeit of those below trying to troll up a shitstorm, allow to to clarify. I was given rollback years ago by Doc Glasgow (I did not request it or particulraly want it) when I quite legitimately changed my user name (as is my perfect right) it appears Xeno perchancd and happened along and transferred the rollback thingy over (I was not aware he had done so, or that it had not followed me - I would certainly never degrade myself by asking for anything from the Wikipedia community) now that others in their wisdom have chosen to remove it, bothers me not one jot - tools are for tradesfolk and the like. So that clears that up - "The great Giano/rollback scandal" is a non-runer. Xeno was just doing run of the mill dull admin mopping and chores, something so many other Admins, keen for their magic tools, seem reluctant to do. At least Xeno does seem inclined to work, so he might as well be a Grand-Arch-Admin or whatever this circus is for.  Giacomo  12:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the precise title is "Grand Arch Admin with Sprinkles on Top". --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was "Sprinklers". <goes back to drawing board for new 'crat coat of arms...grumble...grumble...have to redo the whole thing...> ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Even if there was some substance to "The great Giano/rollback scandal", which I don't believe there is, rollback is just about the most useless tool imaginable in any case; even when I had it I hardly ever used it as Twinkle is so much more convenient. Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Candidate is a longserving admin who I've had good encounters with. I'm confident Xeno will make a good crat. ϢereSpielChequers 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. He's fine and the Giano rollback thingimajig is so over the top as to be laughable. As Giano himself says, Xeno was only doing what admins are supposed to do - mop up after people. Tex (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I have great respect for Cirt and his opinions. The rollback issue doesn't give me any reason to doubt Xeno's ability as an admin or as a potential Bureaucrat. As Promethean said, rollback is about as dangerous as Undo. Easily granted, easily revoked. Giano's explanation further suggests Xeno will be a most fastidious BC, working behind the scenes with the mop (and the grout-brush? Whatever the Bureaucrat metaphor is). As for "needing another", I see it as the same as for RfA's: If he makes one good BC action a week (and no bad ones of course), then it's a net positive for the project. Lastly, at the risk of using "per Floquenbeam", he said it perfectly. ArakunemTalk 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support for the same reasons as last time. Xeno is an extremely helpful, calm, and knowledgeable admin. I have no concerns with regard to providing a few extra tools for his toolbox.Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Thoughtful, diplomatic and trustworthy admin. Would make a good crat, whether we need more of them or not. — Satori Son 14:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. There may have been a few unfortunate incidents in the past, but Xeno is a great administrator, and I've no reason to believe that he would abuse any of the bureaucrat tools. As for the language issue (which is really a non-issue)... I guess it's just me :) decltype (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Xeno has learned from a few faux pas and has become the stronger for it. He is very competent, eager to serve the 'pedia. And by the way he did not originally grant rollback rights to Giano, 05:09, 10 January 2008 Doc glasgow did. Xeno was routinely transferring existing rights from the old account 12:57, 22 June 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:GiacomoReturned from (none) to Rollbackers and Autoreviewers ‎ (per prior userrights / prolific article-writer on the autopatrol list). Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Yes, diplomatic and has good clue. I am confident this editor will fit well in this position. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support good admin and would have thought he was a crat already -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support Constantly impressed with this admin. Seems knowledgable and helpful in pretty much every aspect of the project as far as I can see and I've seen him discussing adminship quite a bit. WRT the rollback, imo only editors who have abused the rollback or are very new should be denied it. AFAICT neither user had problems when it was granted. Aiken ♫ 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per SoWhy Regards SoWhy 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support - I can say this is the first "No Brain-er" I've encountered, thought it would of been at a RfA not a RfB. Go figure :-) Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Yep ! Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I supported last time and support all the more now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. No reason not to, the opposes are unsubstantial, especially number three. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I respect the point of view of the opposition, but I disagree that these traits are a reason to oppose. When I see Xeno's interactions, I see someone who is willing to do what they think is best for the encyclopedia within the spirit of our consensus policies, even if it's going to be a controversial or unpopular action among certain influential groups of people. What I wouldn't want to see in a crat is someone who's independence is compromised by an overwhelming need for popularity or avoidance of conflict. In this way, I view Xeno's "flaws" as a real positive. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Xeno would be an excellent, thoughtful crat. I believe he's had enough experience on both sides of the admin blade, and enough singed fingers, to understand caution and rectitude. →StaniStani  18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Ucucha 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Good admin, will be a good crat. The opposes below are attempting to rebuild the Himalayas from a range of molehills. Ucucha 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - will echo the "filled with clue" sentiment above. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Trustworthy and willing to handle difficult issues responsibly. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, purely to counteract in some measure Cirt's oppose, which I believe to be badly mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - excellent admin, generally great user who is trés clueful. For reference, I fervently disagree with the oppose rationales, and fail to see the relevance of Xeno's opinions about certain rejected policies - crats do not make policy any more than non-crats. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. support. Well deserves it. Hardworking and not afraid to put some thought in and make difficult actions. Never mind "we don't need any more crats", a couple of extra tools will help the encyclopedia as a whole. I don't see any evidence in the opposes for Xeno acting in bad faith, they actually reinforce my opinion that he's trustworthy and sensible. (Plus, I thought he already was one, in due seriousness.) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I believe Ucucha makes a very good point above. I have every confidence that Xeno has both the technical ability to know what he's doing and the clue and common sense to abide by consensus rather than trying to re-write it or get round it (or indeed act as a "vote counting robot"). His input at WT:RFA and WP:BN is sensible and well thought-out and, although we're not desperately lacking 'crats I believe the project would benefit from having Xeno in the role. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. (edit conflict) Absolutely - All experiences I have had with this user are good. Excellent with bots. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Completely able. —Animum (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support -- Level-headed. --JN466 01:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I'm thrilled about this, to be blunt. —Tommy2010 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support All clue and no drama. ThemFromSpace 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I have had no issues with my interactions with Xeno. He has the projects best at heart.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per xeno's level-headed demeanor, good application of policy, positive attitude, and my observations of and interactions with him over the years. —DoRD (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Xeno is a fine admin who has helped me numerous times, both with instruction, and advice. Xeno would be a great addition!Mk5384 (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Although I opposed last time due to a bunch of incidents, through more experience Xeno has become more level-headed and suitable to the position of bureaucrat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support In the context of the extra tools on offer, I don't see a problem at all. – B.hotep •talk• 08:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Absolutely. JACOPLANE • 2010-05-29 09:06
  82. Support Trusted, competent, hard worker. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Has a clue, and works hard. Definite asset.--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support The work performed across the entire project is above and beyond what we already can expect from most editors (or even admins). Knowledge, skill, and apparently also has a clue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I can see no problem with endorsing Xeno, and am slightly perplexed with the comments re Giano and the rollback tool, someone mentions above that it is probably the most useless tool here TW far outshines it and I couldn't agree more, it appears everyone's favourite bogey man Giano is being used to some how muddy the waters and raise a storm in a tea cup. Mo ainm~Talk 15:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I honestly don't remember exactly why I gave a "weak" support last time, and I feel bad seeing that it was so close to succeeding. Keepscases (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. This is the first and probably only time I'm going to "support per opposes" ... not in the snarky sense, but in the sense that they confirm my experiences with Xeno and what people are saying above, namely: he's not the slightest bit shy about doing things that might piss someone off, but OTOH, he's not drawn to nasty conflict, either. His actions almost always meet with approval, and he does them without acting like he's the big man and with concern for all sides. The fact that he's coasting to a win at the moment puts the lie to the claim that editors with controversial edits need not apply at RfB. WTG, gang. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Thanks for the honest response to my question. I'm content with that response.Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have reviewed the issues raised by the opposers and do not find cause for concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. -- wiooiw (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I think this will work well...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Looks like he will make a useful 'crat  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I find it unusual that the three editors to pass RFB this year (if this one passes) have usernames starting with 'U', 'X', and 'X'. What are the odds of that? And with both X! and I putting down our 'crat tools for some time, Xeno's work would be appreciated, I'm sure. He's a very competent guy, level-headed, and knowledgeable. He knows policy, understands consensus, and is civil. He's one of those guys that Wikipedia is fortunate to have. Useight (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Shannon ♫ (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Sure. DollyD (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Surprised I missed the last RfB, but looking back over it I wouldn't have been swayed by the oppose concerns then, and certainly not now. TFOWRpropaganda 11:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - I supported last time, I don't see any reason not do so again. While I have considered the concerns of the opposition, I'm confident that Xeno will make a good 'crat. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, I trust him. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support: reasonable and pragmatic; not afraid of controversial areas where risks often outweigh benefits. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong support Per all the above, especially per TT and per DanK's point that they have concern for all sides, which has always seemed evident when Ive seen their contributions to discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Plenty of clue and experience. The number of RfAs where there's a real judgment call to be made is very small; the number where a single 'crat makes the call unilaterally is far smaller. In any case, controversy happens; xeno's experienced enough to handle it in the unlikely event it would come up. I have complete confidence, even if RfA promotion were the only area that 'crats handle, which of course is far from true. There's CHU and bot work to be done...and xeno knows what's going on there too. Definite plus to the 'crat corps.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Gosh, I thought he already was one. ;) SBHarris 22:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Definitely. Xeno does great things for WP and I think he will make a great 'crat. Valley2city‽ 00:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Plenty of experience - should be fine. AlexiusHoratius 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support No reason not to, exhibits a large quantity of clue. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support—V. good candidate. And we need crats with technical expertise. Tony (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, seems clueful. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - I see no reason to suspect that Xeno will be anything but a positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I see plenty of clue, no reason not to support. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Always useful, always knowledgeable, good answers to hard questions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Has the qualities and fairness when working with other editors that i respect a lot (based on my observed experiences). well intentioned. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. The big guy has never given me any trouble. He's ready for the responsibilities. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support He is doing a great job as a admin. I think he is ready to become a Bureaucrat. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Eminently capable of doing the job. Like Brad, I've reviewed the issues raised below, and find them not to be a concern. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Happy to vote for this experienced and clueful Wikipedian. I am confident Xeno will make a great 'crat. Best wishes, Jusdafax 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. DaveG12345 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Useful, competent, helpful, and trusted. --CapitalR (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - competent and clueful admin, no reason to oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support -- good answers to questions, no issues raised in past interactions that would lead me to oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Of course. Same as last time, Xeno is a trusted and competent user; I'm confident he'll perform admirably as a 'crat. GlassCobra 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support -- Luk talk 07:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Sure, why not. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - I went and re-read the DougsTech issue, and while I might disagree with what was done there by Xeno, he handled himself well in the ensuing discussion, which is what I look for in admins - the ability to discuss things calmly and not get upset if an action is overturned. Those skills are needed by bureaucrats as well, and the bot work is a plus as well. Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Graham87 09:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. The answers to the questions satisfy me. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support, as per last time. Although I am a little surprised by Xeno's essay "Don't poke the bear", which seems to imply that "vandalizing high-traffic pages" "may appear harmless or helpful". The term "vandalizing" is heavily value-laden. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support -- No concerns. Xeno has good judgment in admin matters, and making him bureaucrat is a safe move. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Quickly emerging from wikibreak to support this. The opposes are not in general unfounded, however they are highly disjointed and it doesn't look like anybody in that section agrees with each-other. As a result, they seem like mostly minor issues, and xeno's knowledge of Wikipedia's technical bits, his activity, and his all-around tendency to be reasonable lead me, once again, to believe he'll make a fine bureaucrat. Actually, whoever closes this RfB will make a fine bureaucrat! Juliancolton | talk 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support' No concerns. Immunize (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Based on my knowledge of this editor I do not think there are real problems. The more trusted crats there are the better. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Xeno is an experienced, dedicated, and trustworthy admin. Thus, I believe that he will do a superb job as 'crat. Good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. -Atmoz (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Although my personal experience with Xeno has not been one that turned out particularly to my liking - he declined my request for 'edit filter view' permission commenting that I needed to get trusted users to vouch for me - I am given to think that he'll finally one day himself vouch for me and give me the right... Some day... One day :):) On the serious side, I voted for him on BAG too, given my view of his well maintained background. His views (least of them emotional) of the past have displayed maturity, respect, commitment towards building the project, and most importantly, spectacular command over some critical policies and guidelines. I'll be proud to have him as a Bureaucrat here. My vote goes for him. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I've never seen anything wrong. The opposes just don't fully convince me. They have merit, but don't make me want to oppose this RFB.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support To me he seems like an outstanding Wikipedian who deserves this.Tetobigbro (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Wholly positive experiences pretty much anywhere I've seen him have to make judgement calls. Wehwalt very succinctly addressed the only point of contention raised which might have been a concern. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. As a WMF bureaucrat myself, I know that, except for bot approval, crathood is mostly about pressing buttons, and is a technical job with little or no additional "authority". As such, I have no worries about Xeno becoming a crat on enwiki. fr33kman -simpleWP- 03:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Xeno has strong credentials as an administrator; his bot work is clearly an asset. Honestly, I can't understand why his first 'cratship nomination did not succeed. (The support level the first time was >82%) The explanations that have been tendered herein are that some in the community felt he was too dogmatic and process driven. Personally, I like someone in a position of authority who has respect for process and follows rules...--Hokeman (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support, and happy to do so. Xeno has kindly helped me with Wiki-tech type issues on at least a couple of occasions and seemed to be a pleasant and conscientious fellow, which is a good thing in my book. More important to the matter at hand, Xeno has generally struck me an admin with good judgment/clue/capacity for rational thought and as such I don't have any concerns about him inappropriately promoting an editor to admin or flagging a bot or whatever in the hell it is these crat peeps do these days. The opposition is just not convincing. I'm sure Xeno will do well as a bureaucrat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Warning: This page is 77 kilobytes long; some editors, such as myself, may have problems voting on pages approaching or longer than 32kb. ;) While i agree that there appears to be no pressing need for an additional bureaucrat i have never been found of waiting until there is a need to take action in a matter. Don't forget to use |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]
  146. Support for a calm, cautious, and experienced admin. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Strong Support: A near perfect candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Gets my vote. Seraphim♥ 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support per my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support I've seen Xeno around and I've got no problems with his work around here. BejinhanTalk 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  151. No concerns. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. No worries. Jack Merridew 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Whatever mistakes Xeno has made(and we all make em) they pale beside...oh say...a habitual edit warrior who accumulates a block record[6] on two different accounts[7]. Yet manages to secure adminionship on a third, with the truth not revealed until afterwards[8]. Xeno has clearly made the right enemies. Good luck!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Should handle the extra set of tools just fine. — ξxplicit 08:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Overwhelming support. Even though I'm not quite sure what the bureaucrats do :-), I'm sure Xeno will do a great job!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support; great Wikipedian. I seem to be seeing you everywhere these days (That Talk:Victoria Day discussion was a hoot, huh?), and each time it's a pleasant interaction. Good luck :). — CIS (talk | stalk) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Courcelles (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support per Hammersoft. Yep. Alio The Fool 18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Not-yet-returned-from-vacation-but-think-this-is-worth-signing-in-for support ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Not been convinced by any of the opposes, seems reliable etc. Peter 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  161. ~ mazca talk 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support, respect, trust. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  163. A sensible, trustworthy, and experienced editor and sysop, and I'm convinced that he'll do equally well as a bureaucrat. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Why not? He can be a bit of a bell end occasionally, but at least he recognizes when he's pissing people off and stops to discuss it. Which is a lot more than can be said for most. Bureaucrat is a dull-as-ditchwater policy-wonk role, I really can't see how any of the issues mentioned in the oppose section relate to it. – iridescent 2 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support, no concerns about ability or trust. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Alway working towards the betterment of the encyclopedia. J04n(talk page) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Sarah 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Uber support Always seems to do things right, considerately too...just a solid chap *whot whot* 'The Ninjalemming' 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support; from what I have seen, no concerns arise. All admins and active editors encounter conflict, and I have no issue with the way Xeno has handled such conflicts. Rodhullandemu 01:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support, I find the concerns brought by the opposition unconvincing, and Xeno is generally trustworthy. No concerns here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Per previous negative interactions. Cannot support in good faith. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you possibly provide an example for those of us not aware? Thanks in advance! ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 11:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only negative interactions I can recall were in February of this year: early in the month I asked him to step down as administrator after an incident where he nearly drove a user from the project with a bombardment of licensing-related user warning templates even after being asked to stop [9], and later in the month I left them a fairly strongly-worded advisement to slow down, feeling he wasn't exercising proper due diligence and care in his actions. –xenotalk 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You failed to mention a few other things Xeno - the email included, and all of which I found very offensive. While I'm not defending what I've done, if this is how you're going to react when people make mistakes, you are not suited for the role of crat. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For those wishing to review the email I sent to Fastily, I have published it here. Whether it is relevant to this RFB is left as an exercise for the reader. –xenotalk 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't stop laughing at the way you worded that. It reminds me of all maths lectures I've been too where ridiculously complicated proofs are "trivial exercises". --Deskana (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just underwhelmed by answers and since the need for bureaucrats seems less than ever I'm disinclined to err on the side of promotion. --JayHenry (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. We currently have just 34 crats, and given the frequent need for RfA closing and user renaming, I see no reason why you feel there are enough crats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunize (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    34 is a rather large amount, compared to the history of the bureaucrat permission. I believe this is what JayHenry refers to, and it's easy to see his point, I think. --Deskana (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Concerns regarding questionable promotion of a user to WP:ROLLBACK rights with a significant controversial history; which were later removed due to misuse. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved lengthy conversation to talk page. Useight (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Has a tendency to superimpose their own views over those of other admins. Not ideal in a 'crat. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you possibly provide an example for those of us not aware? Thanks in advance! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put words in Spartaz' mouth; but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say he is probably referring in part to this recent ANI thread to which I responded and eventually replaced his closure of the DRV for Slovaks in Hungary. –xenotalk 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose No then, no now. Good contributor, but I've too often questioned his actions as an administrator, let alone the idea of him being a bureaucrat. He's still bound to tallies (read). Apparently supports committed identity for administrators, which was thankfully rejected. "Warm(ing) up to the idea" of provisional adminship. Also, Cirt above is right; and attempting to remove the discussion about Xeno's actions is out of line. A year ago or now, the behavior speaks to Xeno's administrative ability. I've not found any reason to believe that Xeno has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How are Xeno's opinions on committed-identity and provisional-adminship in any way relevant to the responsibility needed to become a 'crat? Has Xeno ever behaved abusively in pursuance of either of those policies? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A bureaucrat is in a position to effect change within the RfA process. His support of these things are, to me, chilling in the very least. Your mileage may vary. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because he mentions the word "tally" doesn't mean he closes debates like that. If he said any other word I bet you would have not used that rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the diff. Obviously the tallies are important to him. Why even bother with the tallies after an RfA is closed? The last thing we need around here is a vote counting robot. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the tally updating was added almost as an afterthought. Xeno gave his reasoning for moving the !vote (i.e. that it's being in the oppose section made it less clear that the user was joking, and made it look like they were actually opposing frivolously. Xeno then mentioned that he had updated the tally at the same time. Are you saying we shouldn't be allowed to use tallies at all? That any users who want to become bureaucrats may never edit the tally? That seems like nonsense to me, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can safely be disregarded as speaking nonsense. Thank you very much. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, just trying to come across as disagreeing with you, didn't mean to seem uncivil. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Accepted, and thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support recommending administrators set up a Template:User committed identity (you realize this is different than requiring them to actually reveal their identity, right?), but not as a requisite. I indicated I was starting to warm up to the idea of provisional adminship, that doesn't mean I support it or would actively campaign for it. It means I would give the arguments-for serious thought rather than blanket opposing the idea as unsuitable on its face. –xenotalk 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per my general outrageous standards for RfBs. Prodego talk 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on your standards a bit? Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard is oppose everyone. If I am so impressed by an editor that I'll break that standard, then they get my vote :) Prodego talk 03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you supported my RFB so did I just dazzle you at that time or have your standards gone up? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My RfB voting behavior has not changed - so you can assume I am suitably dazzled. Which is why I would have supported you in the arbcom election as well, if not for concerns about how active you would be. Concerns which you've proven were unneeded. :) Prodego talk 03:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Less than 10 days ago, Xeno made a unilateral change to a core policy in order to more closely align with his personal position in a policy discussion. While I genuinely like Xeno, and agree with many of the supporters' comments about his helpfulness, that sort of gamesmanship is incompatible with my trust. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to disagree, but I think that first diff was perfectly acceptable (not to mention relatively minor in point); in fact, that seems to make quite a bit of sense. –MuZemike 07:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent an ongoing discussion in which I'd pretty much painted him into a corner for his interpretation disagreeing with policy as written, that would be a perfectly fine change to discuss, or even a fine BOLD edit. To make a change in the middle of a discussion, and not notify the other administrator (I saw it on my watchlist) of such a change is not aboveboard. One can call it a mistake, but the proper thing to do is say "You're right, that doesn't say what I think it should say--Let's see if consensus favors a wording more in line with what I understand it to mean." That didn't happen, and after the fact consensus on the talk page was that the change wasn't supported. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Perhaps his wording made sense to me more than your wording. But then again there are things that community consensus cannot override, material on BLPs being one of them. I think that is why I support Xeno's change there. –MuZemike 08:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "my wording": there's the consensus text that's been part of the policy since July 2007... and then there's Xeno's unilateral and undiscussed change from last week. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, I hope you're not implying that Wikipedia is certainly the place to spread such titilating claims about living people's lives. –MuZemike 07:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Read a little bit more closely. The change would have had the effect of making well-sourced negative material BLP-deletable if its presence in Wikipedia had any contribution to such purient interests--that's an unreasonably stricter standard. We're not a tabloid, but neither do we "speak no evil" of living persons: we do report negatives that are thoroughly and properly sourced, as we should. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair point, but allow me to clarify: I made that change to the policy page 45 minutes after I thought the conversation at my talk page was over [10] (it went on much longer than I expected [11]), but actually intended to self-revert the next morning after further thought. I was not making the change to try and win the argument: when I made the change, it seemed to me that we shouldn't be a vehicle at all for the "spread of titillating claims" (that part should probably be reworded as "titillating" is somewhat ambiguous, and also fairly subjective - and I'd say we may record the claims - if they are notable - but not try to spread them except insofar as our role as an encyclopedia), but later realized sometimes such claims are notable and widely reported. Someone made a section on the policy talk page called "Agree with Xeno" and I actually opined that I disagreed with Xeno [12] =). –xenotalk 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (slightly expanded 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  8. Oppose: I can only echo the concerns stated above. mono 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific about which ones you're concerned with please? In other words are you concerned about all of the opposes, or just some of them? Minimac (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per same rationale as the previous bid for RfB. Xeno is a policy monger. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering if you could clarify in terms of "policy monger"-ing. Does that mean wikilawyering or does it mean anti-rougeness? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a bit like a fish monger, but with policy. For the record, I like fish, and game, undecided about mongering. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, leaning towards Support Per the diffs in my question. They weren't huge deals IMO, but they were concerning enough that i'd have to think about supporting, despite the time since they happened. My two cents is in flux, but for now it is here in neutrality. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NeutralJust not really sure, each side has convincing argumentsAcather96 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Still evaluating. Neutral for now. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (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 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_bureaucratship/Xeno_2&oldid=1145854367"