Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xerocs2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Xerocs

Bureaucrat removal at 23:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC) by Cecropia with (2/22/1). Original end time 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Xerocs (talk • contribs) – Friendly User, open minded, out going, not afraid to speak the truth or say when something needs to be changed, has ideas for reverting vandalism, not afraid to do the chores... good all round candidate xerocs 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination xerocs 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. moral Support, and suggestion for withdrawal of nomination. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Sympathy Support. Well, what can I say? You need more experience but do not lose hope! Continue doing more edits, making more useful contributions and reapply after 2 or 3 months. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 302 edits, 139 of which were on user/user talk pages. A little over a month spent here too. Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm but you've not been here long enough or gained enough experience. I don't like the answers below either. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Sorry, fellow X, but I do have bare minima for edits and time editing, and 300 edits/1 month doesn't meet that basic threshold. There are so many things to learn when editing the wiki -- give yourself time, and don't expect so much, so fast. Xoloz 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
3. This user is in a huff because they got caught in an auto-block, holds User:Curps personally responsible for that particular software feature/bug, and is nominating themselves for adminship in order to "change things". See User talk:Xerocs#Curps. Jkelly 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
   1. Read on further while you are on that user talk page... This is not my first nomination, pry won't be my last and it has nothing to do with me being "in a huff". Although when I am eventually elected, I will change things... don't fear the change, it will be beneficial. Thanks for being open minded and taking all the points into consideration. xerocs 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC) +
4. Oppose sorry but as said above you don't meet the basic threshold. Don't feel bad, work on getting some more quality edits especially in the Wikipedia area (AfD,etc.) under your belt, and try again in a few more months. I suggest you withdraw your nomination especially if what said just above by JKelly is true. RfA is not the place to voice your opinions on Wikipedia/other users. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Needs more experience editing most areas of the Wiki, adminship is mostly enhanced editing and cleanup tools, but they don't do any good if your not familiar with all of the standard editing methods, as well as processes and policies. You may want to look in to joining a WikiProject for some experience. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Pretty much per several users above. Not enough edits, espcially in the Wikipedia namespace. Stick around another 2-3 months, and become active in the various namespaces, and I'm sure you'll gain more support. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Edit count notwithstanding, I'm particular unhappy with the responses to the questions. The confrontational tone demonstrates a disdain for the Wikipedia community and lack of respect for other editors and admins. Even if that isn't the intent, it certainly comes across that way. --Alan Au 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Meets none of my standards. --maru (talk) contribs 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Doesn't meet minimum criteria, not by a long shot. Insufficient time here, insufficient demonstration of writing/editing, insufficient participation in other areas (AfD, etc.)... The self-nomination looks a little strange as well. Please withdraw and let some time go on to let us judge your work. Ifnord 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: very premature. Suggest the nominee withdraw and just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now. Jonathunder 23:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Jonathunder NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Not to pile on the abuse or anything, but it's not endearing to be belligerent in your answers to questions. Don't do that next time. –Joke 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose- I'd say you've not been here long enough. You fail to meet requirements that I generally set for other users. Can't vote support in good conscience, I'm afraid. I really didn't like the way you answered the questions below- you seem somewhat naive when it comes to Wikipedia. Deskana (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose for insufficient experience.--Jusjih 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Very strong oppose without intention of pile-on - Your attitude to answering question 1 is way off line, it is not an admin quality. I'll also advise you to withdraw, or a bureaucrat will likely do it for you. NSLE _(T+C) 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per NSL. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose, sorry, based more on volume of edits. Keep on making good contributions, get some experience, and try again. Thanks. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
18. STRONG Oppose. This is not about editcount for me, this is about the completely unnecessary hostility and the mention that this isn't your first and won't be your last RfA. That just screams "I'm going to keep screaming about this until someone listens", and we don't need that attitude in an admin. Changed to STRONG oppose after reading the mailing list. This makes the second completely inflammatory message you've sent to the mailinglist in a relatively short period of time, and both of them have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and a refusal to understand that. You are not admin material. Hands down. Mo0[talk] 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. just plain oppose. pschemp | talk 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose and suggest withdrawal, too few edits, and answer to question #1 reads like an attack on other admins. JIP | Talk 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Needs more experience. Note that I agree with several of your points, especially the one about editcountitis. However, you seem to be far too confrontational; I very much doubt you would be able to effect any positive change with that attitude, admin or not. I did not find the examples on your talk page encouraging. --Ashenai 12:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose Per all of the above; will reconsider a future nomination. Moe ε 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I think this editor is well intentioned. Could support in the future after he acquires some more experience. No Guru 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 69% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 49 major and 54 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Xerocs's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Xerocs' previous RFA. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I am going to go out on a limb here once again... I know that many "Admins" have expressed that I am too new or don't have enough edits to request but I firmly believe that my acceptance will be beneficial to the wikipedia. Regardless of the number of edits I have made, that should not be a measure of my worthiness... If you need my edit count to go up I can easily stop using the preview button for every edit I make... to quote User:Cecropia, "Some editors have racked up multiple thousands of edits in weeks by not using the preview button and making very minor edits. Someone who wrote a complete scholarly article off-line would get one edit for it." I believe that because I am an open minded, civil, friendly, wise person with good judgment, I can see everyone who uses wikipedia equally, vs. a few of the current "Admins" who will delete hard work for the sheer pleasure of deleting it or who are too lazy to specifically block a vandal instead of an entire IP range or who won't take the time to answer user on questions that need answering. Basically, I want wikipedia to be a nicer place for the user and I want to be able to mediate with the Admins on behalf of the user. I know that you don't need Admin powers to do reverts, I have even dabbled with Lupin's Tool, but the rvv by hand and the other edits that I have been making would be faster and a lot more productive with this added responsibility. It would also allow me to mediate between User an Admin... and this will lead into my answer at question #3. So I guess short answer in long form, I will continue to hunt vandals and use the admin tools that are granted to better help in that war, I will help the users out and the main sysop chore that I would help with is to regulate the sanctimonious, self-righteous, power tripping Admins, maybe bring them down a notch, maybe help them open their eyes to the state of wiki, help them use proper judgment and just all round pick up the slack from the sad state of affairs that the few have left for the many. I plan on moving things forward in a positive way, I will ignore the rules, and I am going to make changes...

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I will be short with this answer for your reading pleasure... I am particularly pleased with both of these articles listed below, reason being I believe they show well where my interests lie and what I am wholly capable of as an editor and contributor.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_Air_Force_Base
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviano

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. Two Conflicts in the past, not necessarily over editing. I have tried to be as open as possible with both of the conflicts and they are both displayed on my talk page with great detail of my handling of the situations. It is funny, this question, because both of my problems were with the exact kind of "Admin" that I refer to in question one. This is something that needs to be addressed in the very near future... the effect that closed minded lazy Admins have on the wiki-community as a whole... it just brings a big negative vibe to the whole project and I know that is not what Jimbo had intended. In the future I am sure this will not be a problem as I will be able to do the exact same things as an Admin and quite possibly my being an Admin might actually persuade the unsuitable Admins to listen to what I have to say... In turn I will be able to act as the voice of the User and speak with the Admins, the Users will be able to come to me with a problem they may be having... Thus in a very offbeat way making me the voice of the people.

Either way, thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say. Thanks for your consideration either way you vote. Let me know if there are any other questions or concerns I can address.

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.