The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn.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

xiner[edit]

Final (0/5/2); Ended 11 December 2006 21:05 (UTC)

xiner (talk · contribs) – Wikipedia editor for some time Xiner 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my own nomination. :-X

I have edited quite a number of Wikipedia articles. During my time here, I have come across issues that not readily apparent to the average user. I believe I can contribute to efforts to keep this site a valuable asset on the internet by helping others while learning even more about the procedures, organization and functioning of Wikipedia.

Edit I am withdrawing my application for adminship. I have read other apps and I see that I fall woefully short in my answers. I will submit an improved nomination in due course. Thank you for your critiques and I hope you'll support me next time. Xiner 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As a capable researcher, I will focus on article deletion debates and seeking factual verification for articles. There are huge backlogs in those areas and I seek to be an impartial resource for fellow Wikipedians. Obviously, no one can foretell the future, and I may venture into other areas as time permits. I will forever be vigilant about true vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I contributed a great deal of materials to WikiProject Buffyverse, and dabbled on the Atheism page. Both taught me a great deal about editing.
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: Indeed that is one of the reasons that brought me here. I have always walked away for a while in those controversies, which I have found really helpful as anyone that does it knows, and I am confident I have not let any personal agenda compromise the integrity or civility of the project.
I'd like to mention here an incident with User:A7X 900‎ in which I believed he was vandaling a page. I used the appropriate warning templates and maintained a civil tone throughout. Recently he messaged me informing me of a change of heart about his behavior. It was a pleasant little episode.
General comments

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I don't like your religious beliefs being displayed on your userpage. Stubbleboy 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought hard about the issue before putting up my user page. A great number of people have expressed their beliefs on their user page. That is only to be expected. The question is, what effect does it have on Wikipedia as a community? After editing the Atheism page, I realized that it is quite helpful to know what a contributor believes in and interpreting his/her edits through their lense. I have never tried to impose my beliefs on any of the articles I edited, and that is what counts at the end of the day.
    Yea, I suggest removing your nomination per WP:SNOW. Oh and you didn't sign your comment. Stubbleboy 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose Unacceptably brief self-nomination statement. Xoloz 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose. I have far too many doubts about a candidate whose user page begins with "Check out my userboxes while you're here." and then proceeds to encourage others to "Vote Halliburton-KBR." and "Fight Wikipedia administrator abuse here." SuperMachine 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose Unacceptable brief answers to questions. I'd like to know what exactly are the issues that aren't apparent to other users. User seems to suggest that they are somehow special and that administratorship would be a privilege or a reward of some sort, which it is not. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. --Majorly 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. What you're suggesting in Q1 (participating in AFDs) does not require admin tools. Many folks (myself included) don't want to evaluate a candidate on the merits if he/she is not going to use any of the admin tools. I'd suggest you expand your answer to question one (and the others, to be honest) before I would even look further into your candidacy. You might need admin tools for vandal-fighting (there are two aspects to that), but your answer is too vague to tell.--Kchase T 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If there's a time to be verbose, its in an RfA. You don't demonstrate a need for a mop, so I'm not particularly moved to give you one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category