Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno

General user info Username: Xeno User groups: abusefilter, sysop First edit: Jul 14, 2006 20:05:42 Total edits (including deleted): 51,784 Deleted edits: 2,880 Live edits: 48,904 Namespace totals Article	12169	24.88% Talk	3895	7.96% User	4602	9.41% User talk	15896	32.50% Wikipedia	7227	14.78% Wikipedia talk	2641	5.40% File	54	0.11% File talk	9	0.02% MediaWiki	52	0.11% MediaWiki talk	28	0.06% Template	1858	3.80% Template talk	300	0.61% Help	14	0.03% Help talk	23	0.05% Category	78	0.16% Category talk	42	0.09% Portal	14	0.03% Portal talk	1	0.00% 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	1631	2008/03	449	2008/04	2213	2008/05	2915	2008/06	3819	2008/07	5463	2008/08	3033	2008/09	428	2008/10	1121	2008/11	287	2008/12	38	2009/01	759	2009/02	2134	2009/03	2387	2009/04	3914	2009/05	2895	2009/06	3294	2009/07	8294	2009/08	3299	2009/09	344	Logs Users blocked: 948 Accounts created: 91 Pages deleted: 8431 Pages moved: 920 Pages patrolled: 838 Pages protected: 268 Pages restored: 521 User rights modified: 46 Users unblocked: 237 Pages unprotected: 192 Files uploaded: 16

Aitias oppose discussion

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

*Refactored from main RfB page. Hi DrNick ! 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I'm closing this as an unnecessary discussion which has no relevance to Xeno's merits as a candidate. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Firstly, I consider all the concerns raised above to be perfectly valid. Secondly, I do believe that the candidate's answers to the questions above do not reflect neither the judgement nor the attitude becoming to a bureaucrat. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that this user's interests are far too political to be a bureaucrat; this becomes evident both from his contributions on-wiki (especially those in the project space) and those off-wiki, i. e. on wikipediareview, — where he can be considered a regular contributor. Altogether, I am under the impression that the candidate does neither possess the judgement required for a bureaucrat nor that he would act in the best interest of the community if he was to take a decision as a bureaucrat. --Aitias (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to know that the stereotype of RfA as a place where grudges are aired to spite the candidate has some validity in the real world. You come out of retirement simply to oppose Xeno. What do you think that says about your motives? Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, people, knock it off -- the badgering and sarcasm aimed at the opposers is having the opposite effect. Rather than weaken the cause for opposition, it is actually starting to make this request look suspect. If there was any true confidence in the value of this request for additional tools, there wouldn't be this constant picking apart of the oppose !votes. Let everyone have their say, please. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does "Let everyone have their say, please." conform with asking people not to reply to opposes, Theo? -- Stani Stani  01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Theo's valid criticism here is that Ironholds' reply is aimed at the person of the !voter and not at the comment they made, thus weakening his criticism by basing it on a logical fallacy. Aitias' motives are not relevant to the content of the !vote itself, so Ironholds should rather address the !vote itself rather than the person of the !voter. Regards  So Why  09:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of the mess below, I'm striking, and apologizing to Pastor Theo. You and SoWhy were correct. My support for Xeno, however, stays. -- Stani Stani  09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's just always the same. A certain group of people (1, 2, 3, and so on and so forth) does pop up and attack me (the voter) instead of addressing and weakening the actual content of my comment (vote). This is a quite common pattern, which can be found in the real world as well [please note that the following is explicitly kept general and not referring to a particular person]: If a person does not know the basic rules of argumentation (most likely due to a lack of intelligence or, rather, education) and therefore finds himself as the defeated one of a debate, he will start making argumentation errors. The one we can observe above is called ad hominem (pseudo-)argument: Instead of disproving the content of the actual argument one is attacking (and trying to discredit) the interlocutor, as he is — quite simply — not able to disprove the content of the argument. Generally speaking, this is, for sure, a very pitiful weakness of character — but, unfortunately, it can be found quite frequently on this website. Tl;dr: What SoWhy wrote. --Aitias (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You appreciate the inherent humour in saying "people make ad hominem attacks because of either a) a lack of intelligence or b) a lack of education"? I suffer from neither of those "lacks", and you should probably practice what you preach. Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa...I hadn't even participated in this discussion until now, so I can hardly be leaping on every oppose you make (and you mentioned me first!). All I can say is that if you didn't repeat the behavior that led to the RfCs/RfAR, nobody would be questioning your comments. Acalamari 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to bureaucrat: Aitias has returned after leaving following his desysopping by ArbCom. I would always take drive-by votes from people who pretend to leave with a grain of salt. Since Aitias so kindly mentioned me, I thought I'd leave a comment anyway. His vote is pretty weak. It's more WP:BADSITESesque behaviour (which relates to the final proverbial straw that ended in his desysopping just over a month ago) which is tired, repetitive and nothingy. Ironholds has every right to take to task people who pop up on RfAs when they are supposedly on a break/retired, as has any user. T Majorly  talk  13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another note to bureaucrat: Aitias may have been desysopped by the ArbCom, but he has contributed enormously to ameliorate en.wikipedia. Aitias has a right to support or oppose anyone he wants. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Majorly: “who pretend to leave” — provide evidence (i. e. a diff-link) for this allegation or remove it. --Aitias (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather not; it is obvious to anyone that you have come back to oppose this RfA based on vengance. You have not edited for over a month, and this coincidentally happened when you had your admin buttons taken from you. It is so painfully obvious, I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you. You claim Ironholds, me and Acalamari lack intelligence/education and we have a weak character, because we righfully sought your desysopping because you were a really bad admin? Then you won't have it when people state the clearly obvious? Please, stop it Aitias.  Majorly  talk  15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily I don't have the intelligence and/or education of Majorly, and can jump right in here. Evidence? Ooh, lesse. Everything recent here? Having your userpage deleted, archiving all your talkpage material, blanking those archives already existing and then not editing until a month (which coincidentally comes immediately after being desysopped, a valid reason to leave) only to then return for the sole purpose of opposing somebody at RfB sounds like "pretended to leave". You've either left or you haven't; your past behaviour indicated you'd left, and now you're back. At no point did you say you'd retired, but'.. well, quack, quack, quack. Ironholds (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said he couldn't vote. It's just when you read comments that basically say you're unintelligent, weak or uneducated it makes me want to give some background into why those personal remarks might be made. This vote is a driveby, after Aitias left a month ago, and it stinks of retaliation. I don't care if Aitias wrote 100 featured articles, the fact is it should be taken with a grain of salt because of his background.  Majorly  talk  14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, of course I am very well aware that people never want to hear the truth about themselves — but, I do know that you are (of course) not aware of that, which proves me right (once again). --Aitias (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea what you're talking about, Aitias. Maybe you should tell it to me in Ancient Greek, it might be better?  Majorly  talk  16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * “No idea what you're talking about, Aitias.” Of course not, Majorly. “Maybe you should tell it to me in Ancient Greek [...]” — I'd be perfectly willing to do so, but, unfortunately, you are not capable of understanding that language. It might help if you read the articles I have linked above; in case it does not help: Here's a short — but great — explanation which you'll probably understand. :) --Aitias (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aitias, again; you're making ad hominem comments now. So are you stupid or poorly educated? Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you like linking to the evil badsite, here is a short — but great — description of you on the same thread. :-) Maybe you should start an AN thread and get Deodand banned for making mean, but accurate comments about you. :) :-)  Majorly  talk  16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "people never want to hear the truth about themselves" - is this why you won't accept that you're here entirely out of spite? I assume that your ad hominem attacks are somehow an exception to the rule, otherwise I'd have to assume that you're either stupid or poorly educated yourself. Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aitias, Ironholds, and Majorly: please stop. Xeno's RFB is not a right place for this discussion. Aitias, you are a good vandal-fighter; Ironholds, you have written a lot about law, and contributed to multiple articles; and, Majorly, you have also contributed to multiple articles. I see a lot of positive things in three of you. As someone who likes all three of you, I would say you guys should forget about the past disputes, and move on. Life is too short to hold grudges against people. AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "that people never want to hear the truth about themselves " Aitias, please listen to your own comments and stop. You were desysopped because the same behavior you are demonstrating now. That RfC had a lot of support, and most of it would have supported a ban just as well as a desysop. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, can we just stop this drama? I personally think that all three of you are great fellas (echoing AS). Aitias is perfectly entitled to to vote, and all this has simply degenerated into simple insults and name-calling. Majorly, Ottava, let's just trust the judement of the closing crat, and leave this as be. Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iridescent support discussion

 * 1) "Bureaucrat" on Wikipedia is a ticky-box job that could be performed by a well-trained gibbon and instils about as much respect, and I neither understand why people make so much fuss over RFBs, nor care whether or not Xeno is one. Support to cancel out some of the imbecility in the "oppose" column though. "Xeno is like a well-trained gibbon" is at least as valid a logic as about 50% of the other points raised on this RFB, and whoever has the thankless task of closing this farce will probably take both about as seriously. – iride  scent  16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were a bureaucrat, I would ignore the above support !vote of iridescent. ( I shouldn't have said that. AdjustShift (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC) ) Please read Rlevse's closing rationales here and here. A well-trained gibbon can never give such solid rationales. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is why you aren't a bureaucrat and never will be. Your !vote below is nullified by your own rationale. Iridescent pointed that out and provided a rationale that is actually a rationale while pointing out that your oppose cannot be held as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, the above comment of yours explains why you were nearly site banned. It is none of your business to poke your nose in the middle. AdjustShift (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...says the user who's posted five different unsolicited replies to posts on someone else's RFB. Gotta love Wikipedia... – iride  scent  17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said "If I were a bureaucrat, ...", my dear. I've strike it. You have a right to support or oppose anyone you want using whichever rationale you want. I would like to apologize to you, Iridescent. AdjustShift (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Tan   &#124;   39  17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "why you were nearly site banned" The fact that you would even try to make such a comment shows that your whole response here is completely inappropriate and incivil. Not only is your comment absurdly false, but it has nothing to do with Iridescent's support. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My response to Iridescent's support was inappropriate. I apologized to Iridescent, and he/she has accepted my apology. BTW, your "the above is why you aren't a bureaucrat and never will be" comment was inappropriate. AdjustShift (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of thankspam
I wanted to thank everyone for their participation. I was humbled by the amount of support received and also honoured by those who took the time to outline areas of concern. The insight provided has been helpful. –xenotalk 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect the maturity and composure you maintained throughout the process, Xeno.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)