Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search 
Username:	Xeno
User groups:	sysop
First edit:	Jul 14, 2006 20:05:42
Unique pages edited:	24,880
Average edits per page:	2.84
Live edits:	67,110
Deleted edits:	3,556
Total edits (including deleted):	70,666

Namespace totals

Article	14521	21.64%
Talk	7241	10.79%
User	5132	7.65%
User talk	20939	31.20%
Wikipedia	11161	16.63%
Wikipedia talk	4135	6.16%
File	100	0.15%
File talk	25	0.04%
MediaWiki	62	0.09%
MediaWiki talk	53	0.08%
Template	2639	3.93%
Template talk	768	1.14%
Help	29	0.04%
Help talk	43	0.06%
Category	184	0.27%
Category talk	58	0.09%
Portal	16	0.02%
Portal talk	3	0.00%
	
Namespace totals pie chart
Month counts
2006/07	16 	
2006/08	6 	
2006/09	0 	
2006/10	0 	
2006/11	0 	
2006/12	0 	
2007/01	0 	
2007/02	0 	
2007/03	0 	
2007/04	0 	
2007/05	0 	
2007/06	0 	
2007/07	0 	
2007/08	0 	
2007/09	0 	
2007/10	0 	
2007/11	0 	
2007/12	0 	
2008/01	164 	
2008/02	1629 	
2008/03	449 	
2008/04	2148 	
2008/05	2862 	
2008/06	3785 	
2008/07	5448 	
2008/08	3025 	
2008/09	427 	
2008/10	1115 	
2008/11	287 	
2008/12	38 	
2009/01	750 	
2009/02	2120 	
2009/03	2364 	
2009/04	3885 	
2009/05	2834 	
2009/06	3268 	
2009/07	8209 	
2009/08	3272 	
2009/09	1289 	
2009/10	2063 	
2009/11	659 	
2009/12	1236 	
2010/01	1681 	
2010/02	3410 	
2010/03	3723 	
2010/04	2644 	
2010/05	2303 	

Article	76 edits	26.48%
Talk	19 edits	6.62%
User	7 edits	2.44%
User talk	141 edits	49.13%
Wikipedia	32 edits	11.15%
Wikipedia talk	5 edits	1.74%
Template	5 edits	1.74%
Template talk	2 edits	0.70%
Top edited articles
Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources, Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.

Executed in 1.50 seconds

From X!'s counter at 02:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Last RfB

Just noticed that 2 of the opposers last time were socks (of the same banned user). Honestly might have passed last time were it not for that. Just found it interesting (I was looking over the last RfB to see what the problem was) Hobit (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's Oppose

  1. Oppose. Concerns regarding questionable promotion of a user to WP:ROLLBACK rights with a significant controversial history; which were later removed due to misuse. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to you, Cirt, but the granting of rollback was almost a year ago... --Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate, Xeno, also promoted another user who misused WP:ROLLBACK, and has since been indef blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I respect your opinion, you are completely entitled to it, but that was also one year ago. Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When confronted on the misuse of WP:ROLLBACK by a user Xeno had promoted, there was a certain lack of concern shown, and neglect to take initiative [1]. This is indeed concerning in a candidate the community is considering to allow to promote others to administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe an admin is responsible for the actions taken by a rollbacker after he in good faith has granted rollback. I see no suggestion that there was anything in WebHamster's record that should have given Xeno pause before he granted rollback. I think I've granted three or four rollbacks in my time, if another admin came to me months after the fact and asked me to take it back, I'd probably say "You're more familiar with the situation than me, you should deal with it or ask a third admin if you feel you are too involved."--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) With regard to your original comment, I do not understand how that is Xeno's fault. Does someone gain control over a user's mind when he or she changes the user's flags? Furthermore, did you even read Xeno's log comment? "per prior userrights / prolific article-writer on the autopatrol list". Restoring user rights someone had previously been given on a different account by a different admin definitely involves a lot of thought. I cannot believe you actually brought that up as a "concern". With regard to WebHamster, Xeno granted him the flag on 23 May 2009. Although WH had been blocked for edit warring in the past, on 23 May 2009, it had been more than a year since he had been blocked. Why should Xeno have denied his request? J.delanoygabsadds 06:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate had repeated prior interactions with both users that he chose to promote to WP:ROLLBACK. It would have been best, to avoid an appearance of impropriety, to recuse from promoting users where there has been repeated prior involvement. Unfortunately with this candidate, that has not been the case in these instances. -- Cirt (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You surprise me. If I interact with a trustworthy user, and it seems to me that he could use rollback, then I may discuss it with him and may grant it too him. Rollback is generally noncontroversial; "trusted user" being all that is needed as an explanation. This is the first time I've seen someone claim COI comes into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Outdent. I'm not very familiar with the history of the users concerned except for what I have been looking at. Firstly I'd like to note that the two justifying examples are somewhat old and would not be an accurate reflection on Xeno's current level of judgement. That being said, in the case of GiacomoReturned it would seem this was a user who was trying to start on a clean slate and who had been relatively well behaved on his new account up until and including the time the rollback request was made. Given this I applaud Xeno's judgement here, although it didn't work out in this instance he granted rollback with the best of intentions. Rollback is in no way a dangerous tool so this was, by my interpretation, a case of "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile", He was either going to be a constructive editor who felt that he could gain some credibility back OR Xeno just gave him enough rope to hang himself with....Either way a win-win situation (refer to WP:ROPE). In the case of the second (and even older) link by Cirt, I can see that the decision to grant rollback may concern some, but one must keep these concerns in perspective: Rollback is not more dangerous than Undo.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano is not an edit warrior, and he has not misused rollback as far as I can tell (I received a link to the removal discussion). Cirt, it is best to decide this candidacy on the merits, rather than personalities. Request that you reconsider the rationale you provided. (Otherwise, I recuse from voting. Don't take this as positive or negative.) Jehochman Talk 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the issues with giving an individual WP:ROLLBACK is an assumption that they will know how to use it, and know when it is or is not appropriate to leave an Edit summary, and what type of edit summary is appropriate. The account promoted to WP:ROLLBACK by the candidate Xeno, has demonstrated poor judgment, indeed in this specific area. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really Cirt, you are pedling a non-story, that no one, but you seems particularly interested in. You are startting to look foolish, why not find a page to write.  Giacomo  14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can already see that this will end badly. Can either one of you agree to stop responding? NW (Talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As is my custom, when others start dragging me into their mires, I explain. Here is the terrible and official reason rollback was removed [2] I reverted an editor who was adding errors. I also rolled back Cirt who was antagonising Bishonen by adding cite tags to her work in an FA we had written together. Which was th real reason, rollback was removed [3]. The official version is here [4]. Which means don't use rollback to remove errors or Cirt. End of story - no story. Nothing to do with at all Xeno unless his surname is de Rothschild.  Giacomo  15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the issuance or revocation of rollback was correct, the over-riding issue is a history of bad blood between Cirt and these other editors. I'd much prefer that the waters of Xeno's RfB not be muddied by such issues. Let's please stick to the merits, and otherwise strenuously recuse from any involvement where personality issues might be, or appear to be, the motivations. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the suggestion from NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), it appears that this will unfortunately not occur, due in part to repeated response from the other party. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest moving this entire discussion to a subpage and strenuously resisting attempts to continue that discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be fine with me. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    and I am sure this out of the way hole in the corner suits Wehwalt too, so fine with me also. One boxing rink is the same as another, now Wehwalt what exactly is your issue with me, that you are so keen to pursue at every opportunity - as an admin are there not other fish for you to fry - or am I the biggest and most public? 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    So I both want to fight you out of the way and also want it to be very public? Darn those contradictions. Wrong forum, my friend. Happy to talk on my talk page if you like. I won't again here, this is Xeno's RFB.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt is, himself, an editor who's shown questionable judgment and received various sanctions, and then returned under his now-current username as a reformed character. Issues a year in the past are exactly that: in the past. If they were recent issues I'd agree with Cirt, but as it is, I don't.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:S Marshall, I had never received "various sanctions"; I had been blocked 3 years ago for edit-warring. The issue with Xeno is a possible responsibility of promoting others to administrator; past history of questionable promotions of users to WP:ROLLBACK is indeed relevant and merits examination. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, whilst I appreciate you might view this as bad blood from me, given your recent RFA, I assure you it is not. Please do not poison the well with comments like Cirt is, himself, an editor who's shown questionable judgment . Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Pedro, much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure it is appreciated; bad blood seems to flow in torrents around Cirt. So unless he and Wehwahlt wish to make any further unwise comments pertaining me here, I shall leave them to stew in their own sauce being a sideshow here.  Giacomo  21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have hoped that the words "in the past", and "reformed character", would show that my opinion of Cirt is now positive. I had no intent to poison anything, just to show by example that people can change and beyond a certain point, it's best to let bygones be bygones.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted S Marshall, as was your edit summary, and I make no further comment - in the interest of minimising drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think that we're comparing apples and oranges when it comes to rollbacks and administratorship. Knowing Xeno, I'm certain that they would do a much more comprehensive review before promoting a user to administrator, than for giving an account rollback rights. I think it's demandinding an absurd standard of perfection in the first place, to oppose Xeno because one user misused rollbacks after being granted them by Xeno. But even assuming that Xeno erred in that case, it's a huge leap to assume that they would carelessly promote a user to administrator.Mk5384 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is Cirt talking about?

Xeno didn't give Giano rollback - he transferred the prior rights from the older user:Giano II account to the new User:GiacomoReturned account.

This can be seen here: 16:57, 22 June 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:GiacomoReturned from (none) to Rollbackers and Autoreviewers ‎ (per prior userrights / prolific article-writer on the autopatrol list)

The rights were given to the Giano II account by Doc Glasgow: 09:09, 10 January 2008 Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Giano II from (none) to Rollbackers ‎ (user request) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk • contribs)

Offtopic discussion

  1. The comment was meant to infer a complete lie peddled by Wehwalt. Who now that he is challenged has not the common decency to retract and admit his lie. It is nothing short of a personal attack, yet none of the Admins monitor this spage have the balls or the wish to remove it. How interesting is that? This from an admin who is free to attack me and does not feel "cock sucker" is an insult. You lot really are something else altogether.  Giacomo  13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, Giano, I withdraw any lie that I've told and admit that the lie wasn't true. Satisfied?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all satisfied. I see nothing withdrawn and only you back-peddliing and using schoolboy ambiguities to save your skin. You are deceitful and unfit to be an Admin.  Giacomo  13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Giano has made it clear he will only be satisfied with my head on a platter, and I don't have a spare platter, I'm going to end my involvement in this unproductive conversation. Xeno has made it clear that at the time, Giano had requested a fresh start and that his grant of rollback was routine, since the old account had had rollback. I accept that and do not feel Giano's later difficulties, which, among other things got him stripped of rollback, are indications of poor judgment on Xeno's part. That is all my comment meant to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never requested a "fresh start." Ever ever ever. I have always been me and that has been widely known by everyone!  Giacomo  13:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, whatever the action was that caused the account not to have rollback (I know, unrequested, unwanted, unvalued) for a time until Xeno readded it. Ah, I see. You retired and then came back with a new account.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you only se what it suits you to see Wehwalt.  Giacomo  14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we do it?

Even I was guilty of it. Why do we write Support, Oppose or Neutral in our posts? We're already listed in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's convenient, and this discussion would almost certainly be better placed at WT:RFA. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of thankspam

Two years ago to this day, the community saw fit to make me an administrator and I was humbled; I am once again humbled by the comments offered at my 2nd RFB. I look forward to putting this wrench to good use: continuing to work behind the scenes of this great tome of knowledge keeping the cogs greased, and I'll do my best not to drop the spanner in the works. =) –xenotalk 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what crats get, a spanner. :) Gratz, xeno. Hey, it actually makes sense- crats do a little more tooling around than mopping up. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just tightening bolts and stuff =) –xenotalk 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Xeno_2"