Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xnuala - Wikipedia


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

(38/2/0) final Andre (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xnuala (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedian since December 2006, and have decided to remove my hat and toss it where it shall fall (preferably well within the ring!) and submit myself for adminship. To me, Wikipedia has fulfilled a need to be productive and contribute to society through the disemmination of information, and I now feel comfortable offering my services for the increased responsibility of adminship. Please do not hesitate to respond to me with any concerns you might have, as I feel that the breadth of my shoulders is sufficient to the task. In advance, I would like to thank the community for any input and I will endeavor to use it to improve my contributions to Wikipedia. --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 05:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, as it is a self-nomination.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My name is Xnuala, and I am a backlog junkie. My intention is to seek out neglected and unloved areas and see what I can do to remedy the matter. I tend toward preferring to have different options available to me, so will happily pick up more than one project at once. I have some ideas regarding unwatched pages, and intend to make that a regular haunt. Expired prods are also an area where I would like to contribute, as well any area in need of assistance with the caveat that if I need experience and education in the area I will take the time to become educated before I take any action.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most happy with the success of my cheerleading efforts regarding Articles for creation. I communicated with editors that were involved with this page, and through the wonders of community effort we now have a WikiProject as well as a backlog drive! Articlewise, I put some effort into Bridlewood as it was identified by the Ottawa WikiProject as needing attention. There are still definite areas where this article can be improved, but I believe it has evolved significantly from the earlier version.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Actually, I haven't experienced any conflicts that have caused me any sort of extreme stress. I am a fairly even-tempered person, with a rather long fuse and a subdued follow through upon detonation! I prefer, and even enjoy, the communication involved in resolving disputes when the need arises, and have had significant success in meatspace by remaining civil and dealing with behaviour rather than personality. There is some evidence of conflict in my editor review if anyone wants a more thorough examination.
You will not be able to avoid stressful situations if you are active as an admin. What is the closest to such a situation that you have encountered on WP, so we can see how you dealt with it?DGG (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diff referenced below by The_undertow, and its follow-up[1] is one example. Another example is the situation where I tried to help a new user bring an article he clearly felt very strongly about in line with Wikipedia values, which you can take a look at here:[2]. Of course I expect the possibility of stressful situations, but I consider myself to be lucky enough to be resilient in the face of difficulty. I intend to deal with stressful situations by communicating with others, of which Pedro has been kind enough to reference an example as well, located at [3].--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Xnuala before commenting.

Support

  1. I think this candidate looks quite good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support(edit conflict) This editor shows that he is very dedicated to improving Wikipedia especially since he is tackling one of the most backlogged areas on Wikipedia (WP:AFC). My interactions with this editor have shown that he is knowledgeable about policies and should do well as an admin. --Hdt83 Chat 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think quite good understates it. This user is very well rounded in both main- and project space. Yet one more very high quality self-nom. Trusilver 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. + Good spread of edits, interest in backlogs, steady six month history, civil talk page. Three edit conflicts to boot, I was #1 :) Keegantalk 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see nothing to suggest that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be other than quite positive. Joe 07:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A very good editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Contribution review back to March backs up the candidates claims and intended areas of interest should they be granted the buttons. Stunning and dedicated work at AFC. Civility and thoughtful review of their own contributions demonstrated by a specific reversion of comments on an RFA. Understanding of policy looks great. This completes it for me - a level headed and reasoned comment in something the candidate feels strongly about would indicate no misuse of the tools will be forthcoming. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  07:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Four words: Me see nothing wrong :) Just don't do anything silly, and the request will be a breeze... --Dark Falls talk 09:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Seen them around, looks to me like they'll make a great admin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I trust that you won't abuse the tools. But did you need to bold your answers to the questions? New England (C) (H) 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All jokes about being bold aside, I can't believe that I didn't notice that I did that! There have been some recent experiments with display setting going on with my home computer and it didn't actually jump out at me. Sounds like time for some more display experiments!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support - The user is very trustworthy and as per DarkFalls " Me see nothing wrong".. good Luck...--Cometstyles 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support- Excellent editor + kind user = great candidate. As DarkFalls said, "Me see nothing wrong". --Boricuaeddie hábleme 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent editor; friendly fellow-"X" :) Xoloz 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support excellent user. Acalamari 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. A great example of a user with a specialized contribution history who is an excellent candidate for adminship. The extensive work at WP:AFC shows a great dedication to the nuts and bolts of building an encyclopedia. --JayHenry 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, changed from Mild Support.. You seem like a good editor, but there's something that doesn't seem right. It's probably just the chinese food I had for lunch. Addendum: see below comment for link to comment that I find to be exceptionally well-put. J-stan Talk 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Consistency right from the get-go. (Did I really say 'get-go?') This makes me happy. the_undertow talk 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Backlog junkie, eh? Excellent! ck lostsword•T•C 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Lots of experience in Wikipedia space, interaction with other Wikipedians, and at least two significant article 'works'. Wide variety of tasks performed, including AfC (predominantly), removing vandalism and repairing dis. links. Looks good. Lradrama 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I recall seeing this user doing a good job. Seems prepared for the admin tools.--Húsönd 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Absolutely. I know how tedious it is to work through some of those AFC logs, particularly the ones with few good suggestions. You're doing a great job. Mop wisely. - KrakatoaKatie 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - No worries here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Yeah, we need more backlog junkies. —Anas talk? 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Definate support, this user understands what it's about. These are the people who we need to be admins. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. My name is Giggy, and I am a Xnuala junkie. Giggy UCP 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I honestly have no qualms about giving Xnuala the mop, and the backlog needs some help as usual. Jmlk17 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Extremely strong support Xnuala is experienced with interaction with other users as mentioned earlier, and also done other work making use of wikipedia's features.--Hirohisat Talk 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. While this editor perhaps has less of a breadth of experience than I'd generally prefer in an admin, the commitment to the AFC project shows dedication to encyclopedia building, interactions with new users and experience in determining notability, and also bodes well for dealing with admin backlogs. Espresso Addict 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. STRONG SUPPORT Started a campaign to get WP:AFC cleaned up pretty much single handedly. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Per above. Good editor. Good contributions and history. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being dedicated to Wikipedia, furthermore I have looked up what prima facie means and I don't think it really applies in this context. ~ Infrangible 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support That diff [4] cited by Pedro & mentioned by Xnula in reply to my question, certainly shows a willingness to assume responsibility even when it becomes difficultDGG (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Miranda 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Peacent 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. WjBscribe 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand that. Self nominating could easily mean that the individual wants the extra functions to improve wikipedia and is aware that having them would help them improve wikipedia. I don't see how that necessarily means "power hunger". You're jumping to conclusions and not WP:AGF. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If his true motives were indeed benign or beneficient then he would have the patience to wait for someone else to nominate him. Self-nominating is sufficient evidence of bad faith. Kurt Weber 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain that. Why does someone have to "wait" for someone else to nominate them before they can get the extra editing abilities to improve Wikipedia? That makes no sense. Wikipedia needs more admins with such abilities and it's only harmful for people to wait for someone else to nominate them if they truly believe being an admin would benefit the project of wikipedia. Due to this fact and the numerous other possibilities of self nomination, You are NOT assuming good faith by labeling this person "power hungry" simply for self nomination. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I'm not assuming good faith--because I have sufficient evidence that the user in question is not acting in good faith: the fact that he nominated himself for adminship.
    Also, Wikipedia most emphatically does not need more administrators--Wikipedia needs sufficient good administrators and no bad ones. Supporting a self-nomination is a risk I am unwilling to take. Kurt Weber 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt this is bloody stupid, you dont even know the user, just look at your contributions, you !voted in loads of RfA's within a a few mins, you even !voted in two in one minute, if you think the user nominated themself in bad faith and they wont do good as an admin please provide some diffs, you dont even know the user so if you're going to oppose at least make it actually about the user and now your silly little power hungry crap. Rlest 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, let him do what he wants to do, calm down. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - minimal article writing. Only article is adding about 1k to Bridlewood (Kanata). Apart from that, the article edits are 80% machine edits or vandal reverts and the rest and typo fixes (possibly mechanised).Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the only automated tool I use is Henrik's AFC helper script. I fall on the side of gnomish, but wouldn't rule out more intensive article writing in the future. However, I'm not interested in writing for the sake of writing, or to impress others, so I will wait until I'm either recruited or sufficiently inspired. Thanks for your input though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair enough answer. You gotta admit, Blnguyen, the other requisites for adminship are met. After all you nominated me after I asked if you'd consider it even though I'm not a writer :) To each his own but I am impressed with "either recruited or sufficiently inspired" because the user knows that is what drives article writing even before participation. As long as they know what it takes, I say. Keegantalk 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.