Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3

Foxy Loxy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (48/9/0); Scheduled to end 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Foxy Loxy after his last failed RfA. Many of the opposes were for things that did not relate to his editing abilities or his potential as a candidate, but over the last few months I've seen Foxy work hard to correct the points brought up by the more relevant opposes. Foxy spends a lot of time around WP:SPI, an area that could certainly use more administrators, and also has experience with other administrator-centric areas such as WP:CSD. Holding back the tide of spam, vandals and sockpuppets isn't his only area of expertise, no; he also has some excellent article-writing experience under his belt. BootX and Xgrid are both Good Articles as the result of his work, with Xgrid certainly FA-worthy with some tweaks. He only has 2000-odd edits to the mainspace, yes, but when those edits have produced two GAs I think the numbers are moot; the content added is certainly of high quality, and contains more bytes than say a typofix. In my interactions with Foxy I've found him to be a polite, helpful user, and the comments on his talkpage reflect this. Hopefully RfA regulars will feel that SPI/CSD experience + excellent article work + politeness and helpfulness is an excellent formula to = tools. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an administrator, I would most likely have a focus on areas in which I am experienced and enjoy; currently the area that I believe fits that criteria the most is my clerk work at Sockpuppet investigations, where I review, comment on and close cases. I would really benefit from the tools in this area because currently, to close nearly every case, I need to flag down a fellow clerk in our coordination channel to perform the blocking for me. This has plenty of issues, as I am in a somewhat "non-US and Britain orientated" timezone, and at some times am lucky to find another active clerk (there are only 13 active clerks, other than me and I might find one or two online at any time, they are scarce). This can sometimes turn the few minutes or hour spent reviewing a case into hours, or even days. To start off with, I believe I would focus on SPI (and oh-my they do get a backlog sometimes) but when I think it is perhaps time for a new addition to my administrating arsenal, I would browse Category:Administrative backlog and choose an interesting task. Now this is where some people might say "I'll dive right in", but I have a different approach; I would spend at least a couple of hours and up to maybe a week having a through look through firstly the relevant process, policy and guideline pages and other people's contributions to the page: Like some say a picture is worth a thousand words, looking at the actions of a seasoned and respected contributor can tell you just as much about the process (although I would most definitely not rely on this entirely).

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

A: I would say, currently, my best article contribution to Wikipedia would be Xgrid. Xgrid is a good article and is currently undergoing a peer review to become a featured article (if it passes, it would be my first FA), also, I have significantly contributed to BootX (Apple) and Political history of the world (I started this article after recommendations on the talk page that the history section at Country has too long and irrelevant). In the WP space, I would say that my best contributions are those relating to my current participation at Sockpuppet investigations as a trainee clerk. In other areas, I have helped out in writing LoxyBot, a PHP scripted bot running on the toolserver that updates the {{opentasks}} template (it's transcluded on the Wikipedia:Community portal) with fresh articles every 3 hours. I also look at all articles listed here and clean up any that I notice needing formatting, linking etc (like this). In the past I have also assisted in the mediation of several disputes (the longest running of which regarded the Bates method article) with the mediation cabal.

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: Yes I have indeed been in conflicts in the past. Most recently, I was in an argument/minor edit war with 130.49.58.34 over the IPA pronunciation in country. The IP in question was continuously[1][2][3] adding an unsourced pronunciation of the word country (on Country of course) replacing my sourced IPA pronunciation. I originally reverted the user, asking for a source[4] and posted a welcome template[5] and a self-worded comment explaining the Wikipedia system of sourcing and reliable sources and asking the user to please provide a source for the change.[6] In reply, I was met with an answer that did not answer my original question (where did you get this IPA from?) and just merely rejected my own source[7] and was reverted again.[8] I then posted another message[9] regarding this reversion, reiterating my original request and asking the IP to stop. The IP then reverted me again[10] and, getting wary of the 3RR, I decided that instead of reverting the IP again, I would warn them about 3RR[11] and I then decided (after reflection about the best course of action, as I did not want to revert the user again) report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which I did here. After reflecting on my decision to report the IP, I decided to simply compromise and let both pronunciations stay in the article.[12] Those pronunciations are both still there today. With such conflicts, I believe I dealt with it in a reasonable way (possibly not the best way, but, I believe it is still acceptable) and will strive to remain calm, civil and kind (WP:BITE comes to mind) during such disputes in the future.

Did you, at any time, consider the content of what the IP was saying? For example, that Merriam Webster does not use IPA? I personally think that exchanges like this are the sort that lead to expertise withdrawal from en.wiki. So, in regards to this particular incident and future incidents, did you examine what the IP was saying, or did you simply go forward with "wikipedia uses IPA and my pronunciation is sourced" without making sure that your pronunciation was IPA as you were demanding of the IP? --KP Botany (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did consider the point in saying that the Merriam Webster did not use IPA and had a look at the Pronun Guide on their website and concluded that IPA and MW appeared similar, if not identical (coupled with that fact that I'm pretty sure seeing a mention of IPA pronunciations on their website). So yes, I did examine what the IP was saying.

No, I think the IP was correct, and that Merriam-Webster is known for not using the IPA in their pronunciation guide, as is uncommon (non-usage) among American dictionaries. If you want to quote IPA to users you can find it in the Oxford English Dictionary.[13] This is why the IP reverted you--he/she was providing the IPA pronunciation. I don't know if it matters for your becoming an admin or not, but it's disappointing when wikipedia editors could have assumed the IP knew a thing or two, rather than demanding they provide sources, and you just half-heartedly deciding your source was okay. --KP Botany (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Quadell

4. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. A time when consensus didn't go the way I wanted was regarding the Country article's History section. I had originally added the history section as I though it was useful and relevant, but approximately 4 months ago, a user raised questions regarding its usefulness here and removed the section; which comprised most of my work on the article. I reverted the removal pending discussion and outlined my point of view on the section, and awaited a response from the original user so that we could come to an agreement, but no response came, so I dropped the issue. Two months later, the discussion was revived by a different user, and the first thread starter and another user joined in the conversation (here), they brought up valid points on the section and provided reasoning as to why it may not be entirely relevant; I gave my opinion again, but it was clear that the consensus was that the section was not suitable for the article. I reacted by following the suggestion of one of the users by removing the content and creating a new article; Political history of the world.

Additional questions from — rootology (C)(T)

5. What are your views on WP:BLP? Specifically, do you feel that the current usage of BLP to protect these articles is too strict, too lenient, or just right, and why?

A: I must disclose, before I answer this question, that I have no strong views on the BLP issue and I generally stay away from articles involving people. This isn't a conscience choice; my interests aren't living. I would say that the current BLP policy (nothing that is unsourced and even remotely libelous can remain) is just right, the problem with BLPs is not the policy governing them, IMHO, but is rather a matter of enforcement of those rules. What I mean by this is, while removing libelous information is well and good, enforcing such a policy over tens of thousands of BLPs with such an editor base as we have now (particularly when mis-information can be hard to detect) can be impossible at times. I suppose the policy could be stricter, with instant blocks on those posting libel, but I don't know if they would help the situation, or cause even more problems.

6. Do you support any form of controls on editing, such as Flagged Protection, Flagged Revisions, or any variant? Why, or why not?

A: I personally support the following: Flagged Protection instead of semi-protection as it still allows some form of open editing and prevents messy editprotected requests. Flagged Revisions on all BLPs (granted, only if we can demonstrate an ability to combat the backlog), as I discussed in question 5, the BLP problem is becoming unmanageable, and this would prevent that. I'm not aware of any other variant, besides full Flagged Revisions on all articles, which I would oppose as unmanageable.

7. What is the most valuable type of editor on Wikipedia?

A: Simply, there is none. Wikipedia is like a puzzle, all the different types of editors fit together to form the whole picture that is The Free Encyclopedia. The editors produce the content; the vandal fighters keep it free of vandalism; the SPI people and checkusers prevent sockpuppets; the AfD voters help to reach consensus on deletions; the administrators protect the project with protections and blocks, the mediators diffuse disputes. It goes on like this, with every different type of editor linking into the mesh to do their small part in keeping the project at top quality.

8. If a user has a strong personal opinion or belief on something--politics, religion, anything--should you be able to detect any of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user? Why, or why not?

Clarification: Not sure what you mean by should you be able to detect any of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user, do you mean; should it be obvious that they have a strong personal opinion?

Essentially, yes. Our site is at times almost overrun, it would appear on given days, by people who can be safely described as "zealots" for one cause or the other, one nationality or the other, one religion or the other. Should such people be editing, essentially, or editing in a fashion where you can tell they're anything but a loyalist to NPOV, and not their pet issue? rootology (C)(T) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: You should not be able to detect any of their views in their edits; although granted, the topics they edit may suggest what areas they are interested in. This is because, irragardless of opinion, we must put our biases aside when editing and edit in only a neutral and factually accurate manner.

9. Related to the next question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Wikipedia username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publicly vow to not use your admin tools in ANY capacity on these topics, and make that binding somehow, such as Administrator Recall?

A: To be honest, I have no "passionate, fervent, or ideological [beliefs]" about any subject on Wikipedia (or in real life, for that matter); I like computer science, but I'm not going to get into any arguments over the stuff I edit. But yes, I would keep the tools away from areas that I edit.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 10. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 10a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Editors are blocked from the project when; they are causing disruption or damage to the project (I.e. Vandalism), the project/WMF/editors rights, safety or property are being threatened (I.e. Personal attacks), it is discovered an IP is open or anonymous proxy, a user has been banned from Wikipedia, it is discovered the user is evading previously placed blocks/using sockpuppets or to note previous blocks placed after a user invokes the RTV.

• 10b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: A page should be protected when; editors on a page are in a content dispute and are edit-warring (although in some cases, blocks may be more suited), the page suffers from persistent vandalism, the history is restored for deletion review, when page creation/re-creation needs to be prevented (I.e. After repeated re-creation and deletion), persistent page-move vandalism is to be prevented, there are page-name disputes and when the page as no reason to be moved (like the village pumps, etc).

• 10c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: The page must most definitely and strictly meet one of the speedy deletion criteria. If in doubt or not an exact match, PROD or XfD is the better venue.

• 10d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: IAR should be used in situations when the exact wording of a rule is being used by someone to contradict the spirit of the rule. IAR allows the use of common sense when a situation would be the exception to the rule, thus allowing them to improve the encyclopedia.

• 11. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Consensus is a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.[14]. Consensus is very hard to define, but it can be seen as when a majority (or super-majority in some cases) of individuals with winning arguments come to a decision on something. Determining consensus on a talk page is a matter of judging opinion by interpreting people's stances on an issue using their comments on an issue, the type of consensus seen on talk pages is that regarding someones actions on an article. At XfD and DRV, consensus can be more easily determined by firstly viewing the bolded !Vote someone has cast and then weighing the reasoning behind their !vote. The type of consensus seen at an XfD discussion is that of determining the worth of an article. The type of consensus seen at a deletion review is a re-evaluation of previous consensus at an XfD discussion or an evaluation of an admins interpretation of that consensus.

• 12. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Firstly, I would contact both users asking politely that they both stop immediately. I then would take a step back from the situation to have a look at what is being reverted, evidence as to why it is being reverted and view several possible actions (block, protect, just talk to them etc) and make a decision depending on the severity of their actions. If one or both of them had breached 3RR, they'd be warned, if they haven't been already, and blocked if they already had been. If one of them was performing blatant vandalism, they'd be warned or blocked, depending on a bunch of factors (severity, previous warnings, amount, vandalism-only account etc). If it is a persistent edit war (and both sides weren't vandals etc), I would try and get both sides of the story and try to mediate their dispute and help them come to a compromise. If either/one side will not cease edit warring after appropriate warnings, then block(s) will be issued.

• 13. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: To be completely honest; convenience and efficiency are the two most pressing reasons, followed by a want to help out more. It gets quite irritating when you find some time to do some clerk work at SPI, review a case and prepare to close and find no one willing is around to block the socks involved; you have to wait... and wait... and wait... until finally someone who can help you comes online. But the inefficiency doesn't stop there, then the admin you ask has to also review that case to make sure you're not lying just to get a user blocked. So what could take one review of the case and a 2 second whack of the blockhammer turns into a ~10 minute wait on irc, a ~5-10 minute review by an admin, a 2 second blockhammering and then another ~2 minutes tagging and closing the case by me.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

14a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I believe I answered roughly the same question in question 5. Let me know if that isn't enough.

14b. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Well, articles generally go to AfD because of notability/verifiability concerns, with a BLP, not being entirely sure of the reliability/existence of sources is B A D (libel and such). Because of this, if people can't make up their minds the article should be deleted, just to be sure, I'd delete it. Although if someone could provide me with RS and concrete evidence of notability/verifiability, I would be totally willing to undelete again or list at DR (whichever is better). It should be noted that, if I became an admin, for a while, my mode of operation would be to just leave any XfD I wasn't sure of for a better admin.

14c. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: According to the deletion policy, Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete. I would close the discussion as delete if there really was no rough consensus, provided the claims about vandalism are substantiated and not blown out of proportion; one incident of 'John Doe is the mayor IS A PENIS of the City of New York' does not warrant a deletion, but repeated vandalism, particularly of the libelous kind, does.

Additional (optional) question from User:RegentsPark

15 (This is a follow-up question based on your response to question 3.) In your response to question 3, you said that you left both pronunciations in the article and that you thought this to be a reasonable way of dealing with the dispute. Could you explain why ending the dispute in this way was reasonable (in your opinion), given that the other pronunciation was unsourced?

A. I believe that leaving both pronunciations in the article was reasonable as IPA pronunciations are not the most critical thing requiring sourcing and while it currently remains in the article unsourced, our verifiability policy states Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Meaning, in this instance, that while sourcing would be advantageous, the pronunciation isn't something likely to be challenged, so it does not require sourcing.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

16a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: It is not inconceivable that a user would create a page like that just to begin with, then build on the content gradually. Firstly, I would wait a couple of hours to see if any more edits are made; if they are, the speedy would be declined and I'd watch the page to make sure that it becomes an acceptable stub/article. If edits are not made in a couple of hours or the article is looking to be unsuitable for inclusion, I would userfy the page and leave a message on the creator's talk page on what userfication is, why I did it, and how the page can be moved back into the article space once sufficient work has been done on it to rectify those problems (or in a case where the article will never be notable, explaining why it cannot be included in Wikipedia).

16b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: The simple answer is no. The more complex answer is; I'd follow my methods outlined in 16a, but instead of userfying when no content appears after a couple of hours, I would delete it and explain to the user how to create a sandbox in their userspace and then allow them to develop it there, like 16a.

16c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".

A: Although the BLP policy states that any unsourced information that is even potentially libelious must go (which is all of them). The serious ones (ones that I would be very active in deleting without sources), IMO, are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I choose 7 and 8 as well because, despite what we would like, some people judge others on what religion they are and can attach negative connotations to certain religions.

16d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD#A7, would it be proper to speedy delete it?

A: I believe that it would be proper to speedy delete the article, because, combining the BLP and CSD policies within that segment, we can discern that while the A7 criteria says unsourced assertions of notability are permitted, the BLP policy (which trumps CSD) does not allow such assertions (so they are removed). Once those assertions are removed to comply with the BLP policy, the article does indeed meet that CSD criteria and can be deleted.

16e. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: No, I believe that they should be viewed as the same type of consensus, just displayed in a different format. While an XfD as a bulleted structure, the XfD is still a discussion, not a vote, meaning that the points raised in each bullet is weighed, not the amount of !votes. Similarly, talk page consensus is about weighing up points, but instead of the rigid format of an XfD, it is instead represented in the format of a discussion between users.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

17. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started an article on The Political Quarterly. It was nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A. No, I would most definitely not have deleted that article. If I am trying to decide if an article is on a notable topic, I would have read the article and clicked on the links within it; and after finding that two of the early contributors include a prime minster of Italy and a famous Bolshevik, I would conclude that the article contains enough notability to indicate why its subject is important or significant, and thus decline the speedy and suggest a different venue (if the user wishes to pursue deletion after discovering the nature of some of its early contributors). Really, because of the strictness of the CSD criterion, I would only deleted an article under A7 if the article really does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (which, as the criteria states, is a lower bar than notability). So an article contained "Billy Jones is a kid" is going to get deleted, but "Billy Jones was the first child astronaut" is going to stay and can have its deletion discussed at another venue.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy
• Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2
• Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3

• Links for Foxy Loxy: Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Foxy Loxy can be found here.
• Promote Foxy Loxy

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to answer the questions, and am sorry for the slowness but I am on my phone, so it's taking a while. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce!

• All done. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I thought Foxy should be an admin, when patrolling WP:SPI the other day, but figured he (she?) already was.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   He, just for the record :). Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Support seems to be a good contributor and I think they would be a good admin as well. Camw (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Sure.  GARDEN  12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support he has improved since his last RfA. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Vorpal Support +5 - Excellent SPI clerk, all-around great user, will make a wonderful admin! --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support No reason not to. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
8. You had a rocky start here with your original RfAs. All seems to have worked out well though - good luck Fritzpoll (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
9. A pretty good editor with plenty of contributions that are spread throughout the entire wiki. Cheers. I'^mperator 13:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
10. I supported last October because I thought you were ready and could be trusted with the tools; I see no reason not to support again ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Looks great. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I see a lot of improvement, and I've read through the opposes from the aborted first RfA and the full second RfA, and don't see anything now in the candidate that's relevant to those opposes ... I could be wrong, of course. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Seems to have improved greatly since the last two, and i see no alarms. --GedUK  15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - I disagree with the opposers, and see no reason not to give such a clearly dedicated, knowledgeable and friendly user the mop and bucket. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support, I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would break the encyclopedia. Tavix |  Talk  16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - Unless somebody provides concrete proof of FL's current "maturity issues". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_2 - when they relate to personal temperament, things from 6 months ago are surely still current enough, aren't they? Personalities don't change quickly. Friday (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I acknowledge that there were concerns 6 months ago (and maybe your mileage varies), but I'd only be interested in seeing frivolous, inane, or puerile behavior between then and now. It's a little unfair to penalize a candidate for something that was a problem during their last RfA, unless it hasn't been rectified. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    There's nothing about personal temperament there, just a load of fussing about restarting an RFA. Six months ago is not current, though of course your definition of "current" probably differs to mine. Majorly talk 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Support I don't see any reason he'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Clearly needs the tools, every interaction I have had with him has given me the impression that he is a reasonable editor. Wronkiew (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Minor maturity issues do exist, but I get the feeling your still very trustworthy.  iMatthew :  Chat  17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Good Luck ${\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}$ ^{Critique Me} 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Good luck from me also. -download | sign! 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. His answers to Q3 and Q4 show good sense and good temperament for the job. I've looked over his past RfAs and contributions, and he seems to have learned a lot. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Nothing but good interactions with this user. Good luck! — Jake Wartenberg 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Looks fine to me! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support Wizardman 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support on balance. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support- I supported last time and I have seen nothing since that would make me change my mind. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Will make a good admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
33. Support - Oppose section is unconvincing. — R² 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. No problems really. Looks to have improved from last RfA, so why not? Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I don't believe he will abuse the tools. I have dealt with him as a fellow SPI clerk and he has shown good judgement and general clue. I have read the opposes, but based on my own interactions with Foxy Loxy, I haven't seen enough to cast a different opinion. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Won't abuse the tools, IMO, and, in my one experience with him, did good work. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I can't truly find a reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Changed from oppose. Essentially on the reasoning of Wisdom89. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I have a concern that the editor seems a little eager to find reasons to delete, but he also seems to learn from mistakes and have a good grasp of policy. I'm sure he will prove a good contributor. Dean B (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support GlassCobra 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
43. No reasons given not to - six months ago isn't current. Majorly talk 01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. Great candidate. Like the SPI work and although you don't have the number of content contributions I'm looking for, I'm satisfied with the quality content that has been created. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Personally, I'd support purely for answering all the questions above (Guys, we aren't playing 20 Questions. But mainly, my support is for the fact you're a mediator, a good one at that, and too few admins are any good at solving disputes. Maturity issues? Pah. If you can solve a dispute like Bates method, that's good enough for me. (And to the admins opposing, could you solve a dispute like that? If the answer is Yes, then my question to you is, why are you here opposing when you could be solving disputes. Go ahead. We need as much help as possible. But if the answer is No, ask, why are you opposing? This user has a quality you lack. Consider that.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
47. ^.^ Master&Expert (Talk) 04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Supported his last RFA, still support him now.  Marlith (Talk)  04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support A great contributor, and definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose That said, and in a spirit of fairness, Foxy Loxy is much improved from the last go around. My reason for opposing right now is that you failed only this past October because of issues concerning your maturity, as well as an appearance that you approach Wikipedia as if it is World of Warcraft. That you have since taken steps to prove otherwise is commendable, but because the nature of the concerns surrounded maturity and sound judgment, I really need to see a sustained trend of improvement over a longer period (for me, that would be this October). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I reread this vote, and the RfA, and took a second look at Foxy Loxy's contribs, and really can't say I don't come off as a dick for opposing. Moving to support. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Per maturity and judgement concerns brought up before. These kinds of problems don't magically go away in a few months. Friday (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with my colleagues above. Repeat nominations of this sort put me more on edge because it's more likely the candidate is just trying to get adminship and muting flaws each go around. As such I would like to see a greater gap. Other than that I would like to see more content work. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   No comment on the repeat nominations, but more content contributions? I have pretty high standards for content contributions as well, but a GA going for FA and another GA are fine in my book. Just curious where you draw the line. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Question three looks more like a content dispute than vandalism, and their actions in such were inappropriate. The first revert is okay, but any afterward should have brought others into it and seek a third party. The candidate does not seem to consciously follow this, which makes me not feel secure in their ability to handle these situations, which come up often as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. One one hand, Foxy Loxy has seven good arguments versus three weak in the AfDs in which we participated, so more “right” than not. Yet, the candidate has weak judgment of character as seen here and is not persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Are you opposing the candidate because he voted in the opposite way to you in another RFA? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

   I am opposing the candidate because he has demonstrated poor judgment that could influence having a potentially disastrous admin by not being convinced by overwhelming evidence. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   So, making a good faith !vote that you happen to disagree with is now grounds for legitimate RFA opposition. Very disappointing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

   It's not about disagreement; it's about judgment. And in this case the judgment is remarkably disappointing; however, in perhaps a day or two I may revisit this one as I believe in keeping an open-mind. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, come on! It's not as though Foxy Loxy has supported a vandal, troll, or rank newbie. Kww's RfA is tracking at about two thirds support; backing such a candidate is not at all unreasonable. Reyk _YO! 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hey now, he voted Support on me and Drilnoth, so if that makes him a weak judge of character, what does that say about me? ;) BOZ (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Neither you nor Drilnoth have over forty editors opposing for a multitude of reasons. You and Drilnoth are obvious supports, but in the other candidate's case, forty-two editors (more than in his previous RfA) have seen fit to oppose and have offered more different reasons than last time. That should at least give one cause for pause. I can wholly understand good faith supports a la say how Casliber's support is written, i.e. it acknowledges the opposes, but wants to give the candidate a chance, but to dismiss the opposes altogether is poor. And again, I am likely to revisit this stance tomorrow. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, please. This is infinitely worse than your inclusionism dribble. Someone supports someone you don't like and that's a reason to question their fitness for adminship? Disgusting. And for someone that agrees with your side of the inclusion spectrum. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know why you feel the need to troll and attempt to bait me, but you have shown your true colors time and again and as such, you are not fooling anyone. It's always funny when those who say don't want me to comment to them don't hold back comemnting to me. If you ever want to deal with me maturely, I am always open to that, but I can't take seriously feigned hyperbole. Otherwise, as I've said above, I am willing to give this candidate a second thought on Sunday. I plan to do so objectively and one way to make me not want to change my mind and which would not be doing the candidate any favors would be to needlessly harangue me. If the candidate truly stands up as qualified then I will indeed gladly reconsider as I have changed stances in several RfAs after the candidate responded maturely and caused me to reflect positively on them. Don't make things needlessly worse for the candidate when I was hoping to reconsider anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   "True colors"? Wow, I'm sure the other five people who have commented on your oppose agree with you. I don't particularly care about your feelings; I care about candidates getting the short end of the stick with an extremely unfair set of criteria being applied to them that is immensely petty, as this !vote is. RfA is already an intense process and having !votes like the one you have here isn't helping it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   It reflects poorly on the candidate's judgment and as such it gives me a pause. Yes, those who are on the opposite side of AfDs and who also demonstrated poor judgment in that RfA rally against me, some in an unconstructively incivil manner that we have seen time and time again. That's to be expected and it doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe if you and the other candidate were nice and understanding, it wouldn't make me and many others oppose in these sorts of discussions. Maybe if attempts to reach out as I have actually tried with you were made, we could actually get somewhere. Instead, you come out at me in a manner that makes someone want to just say to heck with it and dig in rather than reflect on things. Notice how say BOZ commented. That is the sort of remark that makes me think, okay, you know what, in a dozen or so hours, I'll rethink things here. It's challenging, but constructively so. But your approach is the kind that makes it where out of principal alone I don't want to give into such badgering from someone whom I have tried to reach out to as seen at User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR/Archive_21#Of_probable_interest_to_you... only to be denigrated whenever an opportunity arises. That's where my concern is. I don't doubt that say Kww has done some constructive work for Wikipedia, but in my experience, he like you does not reach out to opponents, seems to focus on the negative, and is totally unforgiving and when evidence has been presented to that effect, I cannot help but feel baffled if not insulted when it is dismissed in a support "vote" by someone. Because we want admins who think carefully when dealing with editors, i.e. who don't always assume they are right and who won't stick to a block no matter if anyone suggests maybe the blocked person can get another chance. Again, I can absolutely understand someone reading the 46 opposes and wanting to give him a good faith chance anyway, but to do so in a manner that almost mocks the opposes just doesn't sit well with me. Besides, I think most adults can handle an oppose or two and especially when the person making the oppose, in this case me, is outright saying that it is tentative and will likely be revised in short order. If say instead of my usual antagonists commenting, the candidate had attempted to discuss with me in a mature manner even if to agree to disagree then as has happened at several RfAs, I might have already switched from oppose as I still might do, because I don't want to blame the candidate for what other editors say or do. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   The issue is that your criteria is grossly unfair. You might not believe it, but the five people almost immediately jumping on your oppose indicate that. As DGG noted in your editor review, your rationales are so unfair to candidates as to make compliance with them impossible. It's also immensely petty. A user disagreed with you and suddenly all of his edits and accomplishments are out the window—only this perceived slight to your impeccable judgment matters to you. If you wonder why people respond to you so negatively, it's because of these petty rationales, and also how you are simply unable to deal with people who don't like you. I suggest you read DGG's comments at your editor review from top to bottom. Dropping a nice comment on someone's talk page doesn't come across as "reaching out". It's like a slap in the face. It's like I beat you out for a job and then sent flowers to your house. I'm not "reaching out"; I'm insulting you. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   The overwhelming majority of admin candidates meet my criteria: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, people who don't overly involve themselves in the inclusion battle or people who agree with your stance on inclusion. A few !votes against your inclusion beliefs and the oppose is thrown up. As for what my comment was addressing, namely your oppose on this RfA, it's incredibly petty. Candidate disagrees with you, ergo he or she is bad. Rocket science. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I reckon for all of those above who I supported, one could find at least one instance in which they argued to delete something that I thought should be kept, but I supported them anyway... And notice in many of my reasons for support, I didn't even mention AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Note that he has basically admitted that much of his reason for opposing is his interactions with third parties, his "opponents". Kevin is not being judged here, an entire block of "editors" is being cast as demons. Time to block for cause. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   re A Nobody; Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers, Jack Merridew 09:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Even if everything A Nobody said was true, there would be a WP:KETTLE violation here at the very least, wouldn't there?—Kww(talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I just looked up WP:HYPOCRISY and found that it is another shortcut to there, which I had not noticed before. He has gone well beyond the pale here. G'day, Jack Merridew 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

5. I've been good friends with FoxLox for a while, but I'm going to have to oppose this. From what I see, they is still a little immature at times, and I would prefer to see a little more time before I can support. Xclamation point 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose I see very little article work, and zero contributions to policy discussions. DGG (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Very little article work? Check out BootX and Xgrid. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   It's not often that I disagree with you, DGG, but I do contest the statement that this candidate has "very little article work." As noted above, he has 2 GAs to his credit (more than I did when I went through RfA), one on the brink of FA as well. He has a fairly large mainspace count, though it should be noted that Foxy does most of his article work in his userspace. Hopefully this will cause you to reconsider at least that part of your oppose. GlassCobra 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   As I noted above to Fuchs, two GAs (one of which is going to FA) is a pretty fair sign of a decent content contributor. I typically don't like candidates without enough content contributions, and totally agree with where that sentiment is coming from, but I think having several pieces of quality content is enough to pass that threshold in practically all circumstances. Also, I'm curious about the need for involvement in policy discussions. Foxy Loxy does have a fair bit of participation at WP:VPR and WP:VPT, and as far as the projectspace goes, he's obviously well-involved in WP:SPI. I'm not sure whether policy discussions are as necessary in a prospective administrator as participation in an administrator venue in the projectspace. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose I am not left with much comfort about the candidate's maturity and experience. I also think the candidate missed with thinking the "He is married" in uncontentious - put the line in the biography of a Roman Catholic priest, or someone engaged to be married. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Anyone can be embarrassed by something. If the question had given an example then I'd probably agree with you, but it didn't, and saying the average person is married is not something likely to bring a horde of lawsuits to our door. I can find people who would be incensed by accusing them of being redheads, it doesn't mean such info should result in cries of OMG BLP VIOLATION, WE WILL BE SUED. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose I'm not too vested in this particular RfA, but I think that a basic assumption of good faith up front would go a long way in interactions with other users. I'm disappointed in how Foxy Loxy handled the exchange with the IP in the example above, and I believe that it could have been avoided by a preliminary assumption that an IP may have something to offer en.wiki. Whether you get admin or not, please weigh content when assuming editors are vandals. --KP Botany (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
10. OpposeThis editor has shown poor judgement and failed to assume good faith which will only worsen with the extra power, not ready.(Off2riorob (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC))