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

FINAL (57/3/1); ended 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) - I've gotten to know Xavexgoem as a volunteer in MedCab where his clueful and cheerful nature has been very helpful and much appreciated. For some examples of his mediation efforts, he did an excellent job with Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-23_Harley-Davidson, provoking a thankful comment that echoes my opinion of him. For a current case, please review Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-31 List of Turkic states and empires where he is handling a difficult case with great skill. Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 and 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations are good examples of his mainspace work skills, where he worked with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) to improve the articles. However, he often focuses on "wikignome" work, for example changing this to this. He has also responded to third opinion and editor assistance requests. It should be noted that he has the rollback tool and has not abused it. He clearly understands the content standards, has been in the trenches in dispute resolution and has demonstrated a cool head filled with clue. He would be a wonderful addition to the team of administrators, particularly at a time when there are so many disputes and so few admins. Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Xavexgoem (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Almost entirely dispute resolution related tasks. I admit that AIV and XfD are not my areas of interest or expertise, although in the case of the latter I believe there are many cases where hot discussions could be made cooler. I'll take part in ANI on a regular basis, particularly those incidents that I believe can be resolved peacefully. I believe that nearly half of all disputes marked as "behavioral" can be overcome by refocusing the discussion towards content. I have experience in transforming behavioral conflicts into content-based ones. Contributions, not contributors.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Informal mediation, definitely. I believe that there are few things more important than nurturing harmonious editing in any reasonable way. The 2007 Venezuelan articles above were my learning ground, and for those I'm particularly proud (although my contributions were rather minor, but I learned so much). I'm a competent copy-editor, and enjoy that task highly.

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: I donned a certain suit over a userbox I had on my page which read "I recognize the right for Iraqi's to resist occupation". I got in a big discussion at the ensuing MfD request. In the middle of the discussion, it became apparent that the userbox was actually inflammatory (the length of the discussion is probably a testament to that). I was pretty new, so I wanted to dot my userpage with all my beliefs and personalities; in hindsight, I think that such proclamations can serve to distract ourselves from "editors" into something like "believer of X, believer of Y", which is often the bane of harmonious editing. I never contributed to the topic in mainspace, and the MfD proved in large part how much of an effect perceived bias can have on editing neutrally.

Optional questions from jonny-mt

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: A block is technical; a ban is social. An indefinite community ban is accompanied by an indefinite block. A topic ban prohibits someone from an area without imposing a technical limitation, but may be enforced by blocking.

5. Please summarize (a sentence or two is fine) Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

A: Articles about living people carry real world impact, including legal and ethical implications. Be accurate, fair and treat the subject with basic dignity. Contentious information with no sources or unreliable sources should be removed immediately. When in doubt, we should do our best to "do no harm".

6. When should an article be semi-protected against editing? Fully protected?

A: Semi-protect in cases of continuous vandalism. Full protection in cases of continuous edit warring, particularly if folks need to actually sit and discuss, instead of talking past each other in edit summaries (although I'd feel duty-bound to help out on talk).

Optional question from Bobet

7. What are you going to do with the admin tools? Reading the answer to question 1, you don't intend to get involved in any processes that would require the tools; you can resolve disputes and find peaceful solutions for ANI discussions just as well without them. From this, someone could draw the conclusion that you're only seeking adminship for the sake of being an admin, which isn't really a good reason.

The tools will help in dispute resolution, particularly protection and disruptive editor blocking. In my experience, I've seen protection used to good effect during fierce edit wars, when discussion needs to take place among the participants. Editors can sabotage dispute resolution through disruptive tactics (personal attacks, for instance), even when a reasonable voice is trying to cool things down. In such instances, a well-placed cluebat can be very helpful. I intend to wear the mediation hat far more than the admin hat, but together they can be useful. To be honest, the best case scenario is never having to use the tools at all.

That all said, my interests do vary, although DR is my calling. I seem to enjoy what others find tedious (minutia can be relaxing), so I intend to go on a backlog spree every so often (but will do so only if I am well-informed about the process).

• See Xavexgoem's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Xavexgoem: Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

• Looks good. We need more calm, levelheaded users to be admins. I trust him to do a good job. Maxim_(talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious, but do you intend to support? Enigma ^message 06:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Obviously, as the nominator, I support this clueful candidate. Vassyana (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support It certainly seems that this user has an excellent grasp of WP:CIVIL, something that is exceptionally important for an admin. I'm also fairly certain that the lack of AIV / XfD experience should not be an issue here, as the user's contribs show that he is mature enough to know when he does and does not have the knowledge or ability to act using the admin tools - I seriously hope there are not many opposes based on experience or - dare I even mention it - editcount. CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. At first glance I see nothing of glaring importance wrong. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support for this bright fella. dorftrottel (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support - Great contributions, good community involvement, solid answers to the questions (not that I expected anything less, of course). --jonny-mt 07:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Shows a high understanding of Wikipedia and is generally a calm person with few mistakes who learns fast. Excellent dispute resolution work and many helpful edits to mainspace. Seems like a good guy to me. --Tombomp (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Good editor. Can be trusted to use the tools well. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - despite only being around a short space of time, this user has achieved a lot in that time. And the answers to the questions are also impressive. If this user becomes an admin, I'm sure he'll be a useful one. Lradrama 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - trustworthy editor and mediator. PhilKnight (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, absolutely no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
11. Support per many good arguments above. A cheerful, helpful, constructive editor who seeks the tools for a a specific purpose (Mediation Cabal) where he can benefit the project. Nevertheless, does not show likelihood of abusing/misusing the tools in other areas. (I see Mediation Cabal work as a plus at RFA

    • Thoughtful editor who goes beyond bot-like edits in communicating. able to communicate in a reasonable and supportive manner (without a template) to coach a new contributer. added personal note to a templated welcome to thank an anon. Knows how to collaborate.
    • Appropriate rollback use here, here, and here. Although issued "final warning here," under the circumstances, it could just as well have been "only warning". The user was subsequently blocked. ( I would have fully templated, but I'm less bold than some.)
    • Wikignomes constructively here, here, and here show understanding of article building policies. Dlohcierekim 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support - per the directly above! --Cameron (T|C) 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I see no reason for this user not to have the tools. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong Support. Mediation skills are a huge bonus. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, after research, candidate easily meets my criteria. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Good user. Keepscases (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yep I have been working on a medcab case with him (which I sort of ditched), and he is one of the most civil editors I know. He has kept the potentially-fiery case very calm.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  14:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. I have seen him in action at MedCab, very good indeed. Rudget (Help?) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support- Nothing here would suggest intentional or unintentional abuse of the tools. WP:CLUE. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, a mature and thoughtful member who seems to do a great job at dispute resolution and wouldn't abuse the admin tools. I don't see the fact that 'a good-dispute resolver rarely needs admin tools' is a good reason for him not to have them for when they are useful. ~ mazca ^talk 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support A good mediator, and user. Stays civil which is good. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Reasonable argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Supercar. While we disagreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination), the candidate responded to the discussion maturely, civily, and constructively. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination), I obviously agree more with the struck out argument; however, it is good to see someone who is open-minded and follows the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support he comes across a bit green about the whole thing (based on his answers), but that will be addressed soon with a little more experience and responsibility. Vishnava _talk 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Absolutely: Xavexgoem has excellent communication skills, and has a knack for cooling down heated disputes. His time on Wikipedia, and the time for which I have known him, has been one in which he has consistently impressed me with his knowledge of Wikipedia, its policies, and operations. I have no doubt he'll be able to function successfully as a project administrator, and I confidently offer my strong support. Best of luck, Anthøny 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Simple, no issues, terrific guy, yes. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support On second thoughts I really don't anticipate any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Although editting your comments after you've made them grinds my gears (as evidenced on my talk page) I don't think that alone can garner an oppose.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. I like his calm demeanor. He's a good editor and he knows what he's doing. A little low on the mainspace edits, but I'll let that slide. Useight (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support A fine candidate for the job. --Ecoleetage (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Editor seems to be worthy of community trust and does not seem to engender worry about tool abuse. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, sure. - Bobet 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, for one year (the typical duration of adminship on most other wikis). We have very few Dispute Resolution capable admins anymore. Such people are precious. After one year, see if you've learned enough to be able to hand in the bit, and still be able to do most admin work. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The admin role is important to learn about, it makes you more effective at dispute resolution, but it makes you cynical and grumpy, so don't stay an admin longer than you have to![reply]
33. Support a trusted user, whose likelihood of tool abuse tends toward zero. --Stephen 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Trustworthy user. Soxred 93 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Looks like a goody. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support I'm seeing good contributions in several areas, and a calm demeanor - as noted by Useight and others - is absolutely an asset to an admin. Full support. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. I do not have a problem with someone who is not completely sure of how they want to help out with their administrative tools. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per the answer to Q7. This user is very civil and his answers to the questions show that he has a grasp on the policies needed by administrators. Razorflame 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Everything appears to be in order, will be a fine addition. MrPrada (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Looks good to me. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 05:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Believe editor will use the tools with good judgment and to the benefit of wikipedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support No reason not to, and opposes aren't convincing. GlassCobra 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Per GlassCobra. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Excellent mediator, and I see no reason why he would misuse the tools. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Have confidence in the user, after his Mediation in Gilad Shalit dispute. --Kaaveh (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong support. I've worked with this candidate very recently and he knows what it's about — more tools in his hands will be a bonus for the encyclopedia. — Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - excellent candidate. DKNY89 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Good editor and mediator. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. YahelGuhan (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Sure. Acalamari 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - (my first rfa vote here though I have read dozens) I find it refreshing to see a candidate who knows what makes angry and frazzled editors tick, and likes to help them calm down. I am baffled as to why someone would come here to listen patiently to users fighting about minutiae, and to know so much with such a small edit count. But all of this applies to Xavexgoem, so a good reason for my 'me too' post. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. SupportBravo for dispute resolution. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Excellent work in Dispute Resolution and in the Med Cabal. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support excellent editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak oppose Whilst I can appreciate all of the good points regarding Xavexgoem as raised above by my fellow !voters - I am left with a feeling that he is not quite ready at this time. Specifically I note constant changes to his edits such as the one commencing at this diff and the 4 or 5 edits that follow on from this point, which only occurred at the end of March. I do not mean to offend or insult (we all make changes to things we write about) - but my view is that some more time is needed for this editor to get to a stage where he knows his thoughts and mind more keenly.--VS ^talk 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Personally I think correcting grammatical errors in your own talk posts is a good thing, that he then acknowledged it shows openness which is probably a good quality for an admin to have. Guest9999 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I admit I have a tendency to find the best wording possible, and sometimes neglect the show preview button (or go back and say this wording was better than that wording, and I was just laying on the couch but it was really, really bugging me, so I had to get up and change it). I've been doing better, though: generally changes to my talk contribs won't span more than 3 diffs, 2 being the ideal maximum. I don't think it's a matter of not knowing where my thoughts are (I usually know where I'm going, at least) more than it is nitpicking of my own contributions. And between small tags are where I keep my insecurities, so I suppose you have a point ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   [EC] Yes I can appreciate and agree generally with your point Guest - my concern (in terms of knowing his own thoughts and mind more keenly) comes upon reflection of the 6 or so posts to make the correction in this circumstance. My best wishes to Xavexgoem but my thoughts, from my perspective still seem relevant.--VS ^talk 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Xavexgoem seems to be violating this policy in those 5 diffs. Changing other user's comments seems to be frowned upon. I'll have to agree with VS here. But it may not be too strong enough for me to oppose. -- RyRy5 (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   He was changing his own edits, not someone else's. Refactoring someone else's comments is a whole different can of worms and not relevant here. Enigma ^message 06:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed - at no time was I suggesting for a moment that he had changed another editors comments - and I have gone out of my way to say that I have vast amounts of respect for Xavexgoem, and that fact remains.--VS ^talk 06:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ack, sratch that. But the policy does mention changing you own comments after other's have replied to the original one is frowned on. --RyRy5 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Editing my own comments after they've been replied to has stopped. At any rate, I've never edited my own comments after someone replied to change the context of the reply (I'm usually trying to be more concise, perhaps too exactingly). But yes: my nitpicking needs to stop. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose This user has no user page. For that alone I do not trust him/her with the tools. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a user's preference to not have a userpage? What about not having a userpage makes them untrustworthy? I'm quite curious, as when I was at RfA myself, I didn't have a userpage for about the first three days. It was about 50/0/0 at that point... Maxim_(talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I like to see a person's philosophy, one way or the other. The user page often shows that. The content or slant does not make much difference to me; I've supported conservatives. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My userpage only lists the articles I worked on: User:Maxim. Does that mean I have a bad userpage? I personally see userpages as purely optional; I don't think lack of a userpage affects an admin's judgment. Maxim_(talk) 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Bearian, frankly, I'm surprised at this oppose. Your Supports and Opposes are often sensible, but I just don't see the logic here. There is nothing about a non-existent userpage that would suggest mistrust with the tools. Not going to challenge you, but I'd definitely like to see you reconsider and perhaps move to at least neutral. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My userpage has a history; it's just a redirect, now. I honestly have nothing to put there. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Bearian, as I'm sure you're aware, we have numerous admins who either have no userpage at all, a userpage that redirects to their talk page, or a userpage with nothing significant about them on it. I'm not an administrator myself, but my userpage, while it does exist, says very little about me and my personal philosophies and points of view. Enigma ^message 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This is everything that needs to be said about the issue, far better than I could word it. dorftrottel (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Wow. You're an excellent contributer here. I love the fact that you're into dispute resolution and helping other editors. Thats something I'll always admire as I too once used to help out over there back in 2006. But sadly, you say that this will be what you will be doing once you're an admin. Right now, I think we need more admins to do admin work. And I can't really tell how good of an admin you'll be since the last few months in WP-mainspace only show mediation related edits as the majority. I can see you'll most likely pass (going on the current tally), and I hope you understand why I cannot support you at this time. Good luck. — _Maggot^Syn 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I for one don't understand it. Is there anything that would indicate likely misuse, inadvertently or otherwise, of the admin tools? dorftrottel (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   We often oppose for lack of admin related areas. As far as I can see, this is the same oppose, just a better candidate. — _Maggot^Syn 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't think the candidate would abuse the tools intentionally but dispute resolution with peaceful solutions doesn't usually require them and whilst the answer to question 6 is - in practise - correct for most cases it doesn't show the best understanding of when and how to protect pages. Guest9999 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Changing to support. Guest9999 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that, actually: Xavexgoem's answer demonstrates a clear ability to gauge whether an article warrants protection, and under what circumstances. No? Anthøny 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of his answer states "Semi-protect in cases of continuous vandalism" - what good will that do if the vandalism is coming from registered users? Guest9999 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a vandal is autoconfirmed, a semi-prot won't protect the article against them. But nearly all registered vandals are either quickly blocked (one would hope) or not yet autoconfirmed. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I chose those questions because I personally think that all administrators should a) have a good working knowledge of WP:BLP and b) demonstrate that they can effectively use the tools in the areas where they intend to work. As someone who works closely with dispute resolution, Xavexgoem is going to have a natural inclination to use the tools when dealing with contentious topics or tendentious editors, which means a lot of blocks and protections.

To that end, I was less concerned with his understanding of when to use semi-protection (which, let's face it, is kind of vague to begin with) and more concerned with his understanding of when to use full protection. That being said, I think his answer immediately above shows a solid understanding of how to deal specifically with semi-protection as well as with vandalism in general. --jonny-mt 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral While I have no doubt that the candidate will not intentionally abuse the tools, I do not see enough time or breadth of experience to be certain they may not use it improperly through error - which amounts to that I cannot trust them with it, even though I am sure of their good intentions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (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.