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

Xyrael[edit]

Ended 11:31, 2006-09-02 (UTC)

Xyrael (talk · contribs) – Let's see, Xyrael is civil [1], friendly while editing [2] and helpful [3]. He has made good contributions to [4] (more than one edit) and removals from [5] from articles. Gives sensible third [6], afd [7] and rfa [8] opinions. Trusted as VandalProof moderator [9] and makes good use of it to revert vandalism [10], and welcome users [11].

Incidentally, in case anyone was missing the checklist - I have checked all the basics are okay. I've also given some fairly extensive admin coaching sessions on IRC, and will continue to make sure Xyrael knows what to do as an admin if any help is needed. So, if you agree let's get another admin to help clear those backlogs, keep the vandals in check and smooth the editing process. Petros471 11:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to be nominated and I accept with the same thought. —Xyrael / 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on my userpage, knowledge is indeed power, and I strongly believe that by empowering people with information the world can be made a better place. Wikimedia exists to bring the sum total of human knowledge to the world and every person in it and this is a most honourable goal for everyone here on the projects. However, power can be reckless and through our community I see us bringing wisdom to it and this we can then spread as the organisation grows. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and feel that as an administrator I would be able to do more to develop the information here and build on the community structure already established, and I feel that I have enough experience of working here to be productive and trustworthy. But I leave that up to you to judge, of course - I will appreciate all comments made here. I would like to thank all those who have got me here, and my nominator who considers me worthy of the tools. Thank you. —Xyrael / 11:25, 26 August 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, 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: Unfortunately, I foresee using blocking powers most as part of my fight against vandalism. I don't particularly look forward to cutting people off from editing, but I accept that it can be necessary and would use it to stop vandalism when warnings have been given out by myself or others to a sufficient degree. I should imagine that removing obvious CSD candidates during new page patrol will also be a handy skill. I would also like to take part in closing xfDs and working with WP:RFPP et al. As a metapedian, I should think I will have a lot to do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Aside from trying to play a role in AfD and 3O I have helped with the wikification and general improvement of a small number of articles, and started the Awareness WikiProject which is making progress. PolyHeme was almost entirely a copyvio and through other work I became involved in adding an image and organising the information, as well as rewriting it and then citing the page it was lifted from. I have added information to the freenode article on the server technology of the network and am working on the philosophy; it doesn't look that great at the moment but the information is there. I have some interest in the Discworld series of books and in libraries, and have made significant contributions and improvements to the article on L-space (before, after - I believe I have prompted renewed interest in the article as there have been several edits since mine that build on what I have written). Additionally, I correct spelling and grammar all over the place and have uploaded several nice images for articles. However, my biggest achievements have been with maintenance; as said before I am primarily a metapedian and I have put a lot of work into fighting vandalism, primarily with VandalProof of which I am a moderator. I also try to be a friendly and useful face around many of the IRC channels where I can be found giving advice where possible and I am a member of Esperanza.
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: There are three links that in my opinion solve the vast majority of conflicts around here, as shown at the top of my talkpage: catalysts, civility and assuming good faith. I solve conflicts with words rather than reversions and I don't think I've ever had to revert more than once consecutively (with the exception of vandalism). I think I can fairly cite the most involved events here: a dispute over civility (one, two) involving several other wikipedians and a complex mediation (one (scroll around for some more on that page), two) that spilled over onto user talk pages. Conflict is always going to be around on a project with so many folk involved, but I firmly believe that we can make a difference by using our common sense and thinking about what is best for everyone for building the encyclopedia, keeping people contributing and thinking of our eventual goals.
The notion of catalysts as a useful sort to have around is one not mooted here very often, but it is a powerful idea, when you look at many things here, you can, if you look for them, find the catalyst folk behind the scenes. Can you give some examples of where you have been a catalyst for change or for getting things done? ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope to be a catalyst in every non-templated communication I post on talk pages, but I feel that my greatest successes have been on IRC. 'OnkleAdolf' was attacking #wikimedia-commons a month or so ago and by talking to him over a /query I was able to get him to leave for another network where his talk would be more appropriate, thereby freeing the channel from harassment. As far as I know, he had been kicked (and possibly banned) but I feel I wrapped the situation up nicely. Another incident occured when the English Wiktionary was being attacked by a rogue sysop. I was in #wikimedia-stewards at the time (I often am to try and help out where possible) and I started asking polite questions to work out what was going on. Users were contradicting each other but I was able to dig through and find the truth. By this time a developer had removed the sysop's access and a steward had arrived on the scene; I tried to help him with the information I was gathering and the situation was eventually resolved. I hope that I've shown the power of catalysts, for I feel that they are something that can be applied to many aspects of life. —Xyrael / 14:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ As always all additional questions are completely optional.

1 First three interelated questions Could you give examples of *fDs where you have gone against the consensus at the time of your edit? Second, could you give examples of AfDs where you cited a specific policy for your reasoning? Third, how would you address concern that your AfD involvement has not involved any "borderline" cases?
A: The opposing concerns are perfectly valid and I hope to take the criticism as positively as possible and explain myself in further detail here. First, I found that I was against consensus (although there wasn't much of one) in The Medaille Trust where the final result was one of no consensus reached. A similar situation occured here. I changed my view in one debate after the article was improved over the course of the debate and I was against consensus here and along with another, here. With this discussion I made a suggestion of a merge which was taken up by users below me, and this happened again here. For the second question, I'm afraid I must admit that I cannot find any examples of myself citing policy (except for noting my reason in terms of 'as neologism' or 'nn'). Although when voicing opinions on xfDs I do refer to policy as I go, I have thought to actually link to or quote from one, and I understand that this was probably a bad idea. Quoting policy is not something I'm fond of as I feel it can inhibit the work of a catalyst because it can make people feel threatened by the voice of authority coming from the policies and I prefer to give my reasoning as other words. However, I can see how it's better to be more precise in my comments and I will try to do this in the future; I will put what I am already thinking onto the page. It it ever more important that I learn from this than anything else. Thirdly, I must say with complete honesty that these concerns are perfectly valid and can only offer the assurance that I will try to improve myself after the nomination has completed, and will seek help from more experienced users and my nominator when closing xfDs that are in the borderline because this will indeed be something I will have not to much experience with. I hope my answer here has explained things to you some more, and I thank JoshuaZ for bringing up this issue so that I may comment on it out in the open.
2 You also mention in your answer to standard question 1 page protection. What prior experience do you have with the protection policies?
A: When I first registered my account and was only an occasional contributor, I found that my page was being vandalised repeatedly by a trollish user of another website. They posted attack messages on my simple userpage and at the time I don't think I noticed since I didn't log on very often, but other users were kind enough to revert. As time went on the attacks got heavier and I put in a request for full protection. I realise now that it would have been more appropriate for semi-protection, but at the time I was still relatively new. An administrator was kind enough to deal with the request very quickly and my page was frozen. A month or so later I asked for it to be unprotected as it was getting out of date. On reflection, I realise that perhaps it would have been better to post the request on WP:AIV and ask an admin to warn the user; I was not aware of this process at the time. However, I feel that by looking back on it like this I am able to learn more about the policy. If I had been an admin then or if a similar situation were to arise again, I probably would have semi-protected the page and then spoken to the user about what they were doing, and I should have done the latter at least back then. Additionally, my nominator has discussed various situations where protection would or would not be appropriate and I believe I responded correctly every time.
3 Could you expand on your answer to default question 3 above with specific examples of conflicts and how your mentioned philosophy helped resolve them?
A: I would first cite my response to Lar's query above where I gently nudged the trouble-makers in the direction of improving their situation using kind words and suggestions rather than insults and orders. I can also link to myself attempting to explain policy to a user without giving up. First, I confirmed what the policy said so that I was able to express in my own words to the user what the situation was. It started when I reverted a !vote on a article move debate that was made by an anonymous user when the policy states that this is not permitted, only comments may be made by them. The user took offence at the edit summary which contained 'VandalProof', and I regret that I didn't think to switch to my browser and revert manually. However, I do not think this was the root of the problem. The user responded to me on my usertalk and I tried to explain myself on his talkpage. Unfortunately, that ip's talk doesn't seem to exist anymore and I would appreciate help in finding it to link to here, if anyone is able to. However, the responses of that user can be seen on my talk and eventually I was assured when another editor got involved to confirm what I said and quoted more literally from the policy. Although there is unfortunately little evidence left, I feel that I worked hard to be polite and courteous to the user and that we were eventually able to impress the relevant policy on the user in the politest possible way. Dispute resolution is an important part of Wikipedia and is something that I wish to get more involved in, whether this nomination suceeds or not.

Question from Chili14 What, in your opinion, compels people to look at admins as these people who are high and mighty, and why do they never realize that admins don't really have such special powers? What would you do to fix this?--Chili14 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've brought this up as it is something that I think needs to be tackled by the community because I feel this could potentially stop a lot of disputes from occuring. When I was discussing my upcoming nomination with someone in real life recently, they made the obervation that 'online communities work because everyone at the bottom wants to be at the top'. While I can understand how in conventional communities (such as message boards and online games) this works, here on Wikipedia we are very different and this statement I believe holds no meaning; the word administrator takes on it's literal meaning of an organiser, a maintainer rather than someone with authority. However, because other places see this word differently I see new users coming to Wikipedia and finding that administrators exist and that there are quite a few of them, and thinking that it is something like sites they have come from before - and I don't blame them themselves, of course, because they are only acting from their experience. Because administrators on sites like those I have mentioned above are often the founders and financiers of them, they hold a different degree of social and technical power: (benevolent) dictators and developers if compared with our power structure. So we have a psychological issue with people subconciously seeing administrators as those with higher levels of influence and power, even after reading their technical abilities. The document WP:ADMIN explains to some degree the way in which administrators are treated by the community as a whole and how they are expected to treat others, but this doesn't seem to sink in - and as I say, this is an issue that we need to tackle. To deal with this myself as an administrator, I would try and ensure that I didn't mention I was a sysop unless it was obviously necessary; for example I may note on a talkpage that I fight vandalism, but then not mention that I block repeat offenders unless it was specifically asked. If the user is then surprised that I am a sysop, that's not necessarily a bad thing - they will hopefully have gained an idea of how an administrator should be presenting themselves from my behaviour and will hopefully treat others in the same way as they continue to contribute. However, I think that sometimes administrators can be too eager to flex their abilities when being a catalyst will help. I know I keep mentioning this in this nomination, but it really does help; one point mentioned on the page I link to on it is that catalysts don't use or wear authority when they don't need it, which is demonstrated in the guideline of dropping ops on the freenode network and only regaining them from ChanServ when required. This is the approach I would hope to use in order to show that I'm the same as everyone else, but I'm just a bit more experienced and trusted by the community.
Comments
Viewing contribution data for user Xyrael (over the 3828 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 348 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 26, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 13, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 14.47 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 139 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3828 edits shown on this page and last 2 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.1% (4)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.94% (36)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 6.48% (248)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 15.73%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Deletion pages: 7.97% (305 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.03% (1 edit(s))
"Copyright problems" pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0.52% (20 edit(s))
FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 1.7% (65 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.55% (19 support vote(s)) || (2 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.26% (10 edit(s)) (5 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.03% (1 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User warnings: 17.27% (661 edit(s))
User welcomes: 0.68% (26 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2590 | Average edits per page: 1.48 | Edits on top: 21.39%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 51.31% (1964 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 24.74% (947 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 23.88% (914 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 0.08% (3 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 24.87% (952) | Article talk: 0.84% (32)
User: 14.89% (570) | User talk: 44.85% (1717)
Wikipedia: 12.8% (490) | Wikipedia talk: 1.07% (41)
Image: 0.21% (8) | Image talk: 0% (0)
Template: 0.1% (4) | Template talk: 0.16% (6)
Category: 0.16% (6) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0.03% (1) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0.03% (1) | Help talk: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)
Final tally: (54/6/4)
Support
  1. Support, of course. — FireFox (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2006
  2. Support at last! ;-) Misza13 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was too busy trying to clear out a backlog to support first... Petros471 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, I've a good impression of him from AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I note in your upload log a fair use image that was tagged as an imagevio and deleted, but I think you've learnt from that by now. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for noting that; for the record that was in December 2005 when I was a casual contributor. —Xyrael / 11:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Duh. --james(talk) 11:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Of course. Iolakana•T 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Explains himself well. Agathoclea 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. clared Cleared --Pilotguy (roger that) 12:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good spread of edits, well-spoken and edits show representation in a good spread of areas.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Despite relatively low edit count, The oppose section is (currently) empty for a reason.  Jorcoga ETC. 13:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, good and friendly user. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak support due to low WP edits and didn't really like A1. Other than that, they'll do.--Andeh 14:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support As a person, Xyrael is kind, altruistic, and always tries to do the right thing. As a Wikipedian, he has contributed around the board. We need more administrators, and Xyrael has shown a commitment to Wikipedia and a strength of character that indicates that he is more than ready for the job. -- Where 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Should be a fine admin now and even better as he matures into the job. The catalyst thing is a concept we don't hear enough about, it's so true, you find catalysts everywhere if you know to look for them. Support ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merovingian - Talk 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support My own experience with Xyrael is limited, but I like how he has played a major part in getting the Test Wiki up and running, as it gives Wikipedians and others an expanded playground to try stuff out, rather than relegating all tests to the sandbox Wikipedia provides. The candidate also as a nice track record of vandalism prevention, as well. Having said that, Xyrael has spent very little time creating and writing articles, which is the primary purpose of a Wikipedian. Also, a close look at his *fD participation indicates that the candidate brings little to the discussion. If the candidate did not seem to exude such an excitement about wikis, a trustworthy nature, a level-headed demeanor, and an eagerness to help make Wikipedia a better place, I would firmly oppose the request, but I cannot in good faith do so with the aforementioned character traits so visible in the candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must note here that Where originally configured and started up the test wiki, and that I just provide the hosting at the moment and act as a steward. —Xyrael / 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I didn't mean to give a skewed description of your involvement. I'm aware that Where started the Test Wiki, but I am impressed that the Test Wiki community has entrusted you with stewardship (even though I think you advocated for Where) and also that you are hosting it with your own resources. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for making that clearer. For the records and benefit of other visitors to this page, I cite a small discussion over the issue here and notes on a destewardised user here. —Xyrael / 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support High-standard user and firmly deserves a place in adminship. Agree with Lar, when matured even more will make an excellent administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 August 2006.
  18. Support Good responses to questions. I'm pleased with your experience in time and in edits. --Db099221 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Ixfd64 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I just missed a support number ending in 0 support. GeorgeMoney (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support As Vandalproof moderator, he gets my vote, but the edit count is quite low for adminship standards. --Ageo020 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Of course. G.He 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Civil, fairly experienced, even-tempered, and interested in tasks that require the tools. Mike Christie (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - good answers to questions and would make an excellent admin, as evidenced by his VP moderatorship I honsetly thought he was already an admin! Martinp23 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per above. Michael 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. —Khoikhoi 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per above also Hello32020 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support We need more guys like him that are willing to take care of the mundane tasks Appleboy Talk 00:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Has the experience and capability of being a fine admin. --Nishkid64 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - good balance of experience, and shows maturity. Metamagician3000 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support He deserves to be an admin, always Assuming good faith in every situation, and also works a lots on Vandalproof. Daniel's page ☎ 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I find no evidence that he will abuse or misuse admin tools. He is also a kind and civil user. And I have to agree with Where's statement as well with regards to the oppose comment by Wafulz. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support—I foresee Xyrael using blocking powers most as part of a fight against vandalism. I foresee this as an appropriate thing to do. I see the Wikicommunity never regreting this adminship. Do it. Do it now. Williamborg (Bill) 02:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportJoshuaZ 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - friendly, and I assume that he knows the tools well, from being on the test wiki. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has satisfied my admin req's. Can only get better.--Chili14 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good editor, although I would prefer more thorugh explanations of xfDs.-- danntm T C 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yar bugger. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support because Xyr is a great user, polite, and he's done well on The Test Wiki. »ctails! =hello?=« 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per nom Anger22 01:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per nominator!--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Somewhat odd distribution of edits, but still gets my support. -- Steel 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nominator; helpful, productive user, strong history. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support in view of the candidate's conception of adminship (viz., that admins are not infallible and in any event ought to act, in almost every case, to interpret discussions so as to ascertain for the completion of what actions a consensus exists and then to undertake those actions) and inasmuch as, consistent with my RfA criteria, I am confident that Xyrael will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools. Joe 03:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. VandalProof Cabal Support :) 'nuff said - GIen 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - why did nobody tell me this was here? :P. Great user: kind, civil, helpful and active. Give him the mop! Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 10:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Ugur Basak 08:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. First-RfA-edit-in-two-months Support on wheels. I've decided that RfA has improved, and am now willing to return in order to support fantastic candidates like Xyrael. More candidates like this one please. — Werdna talk criticism 13:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per nom _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support [insert glowing praise] — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 02:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. This is admin No 1,000. --Ligulem 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, for now. You might not necessarily do harm, but there's really no way to know based on your edits. I browsed through your article edits and it seems that you did indeed list every one of your larger article contributions in question 2 here. The rest are automated reversions and adding templates. In your wikipedia space contributions, I looked at around 30 comments in (afd) discussions and they were ALL in the vein of "delete per nom" or "keep per above", with nothing added to the actual discussion. Based on that it would lead me to believe you would close any discussion based on a 'vote' count, and since there's no evidence to the contrary, I must oppose. Please take the time to edit the encyclopedia and try again in a few months, thanks. - Bobet 13:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose largely on the stuff above. When I look at AfD nominations and opinions, I like to see whether or not users actually give their reasoning. I also noticed a distinct lack of actually quoting policies, or basing decisions on them, and little engagement in "borderline" AfD discussions where an opinion would have to be well-researched and well thought out. This leads me to believe you aren't entirely familiar with the policies. The lack of normal edits also bothers me- I don't believe that a user should have full administrator privileges unless they have made hundreds of edits to a variety of articles. They should be fully exposed to revert wars, edit wars, user conflicts, etc. --Wafulz 19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a good point to raise. However, almost nobody knows all of the policies in all areas of Wikipedia. For instance, a minority of Wikipedians probably know all of the nuances in fair use policy. What is important is that Wikipedians know the policies relavent to what they do, and that they will be careful to research the policies relevant to any new area that they decide they want to enter. Xyreal's main specializations are vandal-fighting and dispute resolution, and I believe he knows the relevant policies quite well. In addition, he seems like the kind of person who would carefully research policies related to a Wikipedia activity before engaging in it. I asked Xyrael and he said he is quite dilagent in doing this. -- Where 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Bobet and Wafulz. Singopo 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per above and review of unhelpful, "per nom" AfD contributions, I am convinced that Xyrael does not understand that AfD is meant to be a discussion to reach consensus and not a poll. The already disastrous AfD process cannot afford an admin who doesn't understand this, and that he doesn't already realize it it makes me question his knowledge of other areas. His AfD experience seems to be contained to a few binges where he went through and quickly mass voted on, at times, several pages per minute. These "binges" were on August 11, June 26, June 18, June 14, and June 1. The biggest flaw AfD has in my opinion is that most of the "votes" are entered by fly-by voters like Xyrael who think that it's better to vote on 101 AfD's in 3.5 hrs (June 14) rather than keep to those where he can offer meaningful input. I looked and couldn't find any meaningful AfD contributions at all; most were simply "Delete per nom" but even the rare instances where he decided to say something further usually wasn't very helpful. Here he votes on a borderline case as "Weak delete" and rather than explain why he thinks it ought to be deleted, he says "things like this have been left before I believe" -- not even bothering to find any specific examples, as apparently he feels his time is better spent doing fly-by votes on some more AfD's rather than committing any sort of time to one of them to provide meaningful commentary. But at least he actually said something in this one; the vast majority of them are "Delete per nom".[12] Sorry to be so harsh but this looks like it's going to pass pretty easily, unfortunately. — GT 22:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose 1. Very few article space contributions per Bobet. 2. I cannot find a single AfD where the editor provided evidence of own research. This one (listed above in the answer to JoshuaZ) is especially puzzling: "Possible merge into area's main area, if this exists". The "main area" was in fact bluelinked in the nomination (as is the suggestion to merge for which Xyrael takes authorship). This leaves a very poor impression of Drive-by-AfDing and a general lack of interest in what this encylcopedia is built on: Research, Research, Research. Kudos on the vandalfighting activities though. With more established interest in researched contributions I'm more than willing to support. ~ trialsanderrors 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Bobet, I don't see much in article writing Jaranda wat's sup 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral A great editor with good contributions, but I cannot ignore the reasons listed by both Bobet and Wafulz. Improving these will gain my support. --WillMak050389 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral A great editor, although I am concerned by the reasons stated by Bobet, especially in AfDs where it isnt really a vote, but more of a discussion. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good answering of questions, but a lack of significant contributions. Most mainspace edits are minor and very few article talk edits. May lack experience against vandalism. Aran|heru|nar 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning twards Weak Support. Looks like Xyrael would be a good vandal fighter. I believe this candidate wouldn’t abuse the tools, but there are some things this candidate can improve. Per, points mentioned by Bobet and Wafulz, I would like to see more interactive discussion in AfD’s. Also, more substantial edits in the main space would be good. If the decision was mine, I would be willing to give Xyrael the benefit of the doubt and trust ‘em with the mop. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:17, 31 August 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