Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3

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

Foxy Loxy

Final: (83/16/1); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept.

^Pounce! 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

"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).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 —

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?

T) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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
  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: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 contentious assertions (this question implies that all the assertions of notability in this biography were as such) (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.

Follow-up question Where in WP:BLP does it say that unsourced assertions of notability that would not be contentious must be removed? If you think they must be, you are in essence advocating a policy change to say that, with the result that all unsourced biographies must be speedy deleted. Is that what you actually think, or do you want to analyze the question al little further? DGG (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. The BLP policy doesn't say that non-contentious assertions of notability should be removed, but I thought it was implied by the question that all statements of notability were contentious (as they were removed), correct me if I'm wrong. Added some words in red to clarify my view.

In my experience, usually any basic assertions that the person did something which might serve as an indication of notability are not contentious; the BLPs that are removed lack any indications whatsoever, or assert things that by our standards are not possibly notable, like being in a high school athletic team or running a small business. The contentions are usually about the details. Of course, if one wishes to delete an article anything can be called contentious. DGG (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

Optional question from BQZip01

18. Can you explain the difference between copyrighted images and trademarked images? Are they allowed on Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances. Where can one find a general disclaimer for trademarked images hosted on Wikipedia? Please take your time to research and answer these questions as you deem necessary. I don't expect a quick response as the issue can be quite confusing.

A: Before I go into the nitty-gritty of this question, I think I need to make some things clear. Today is the first time I have really gone into depth about copyright vs. trademark law, and, admittedly, it has befuddled me quite a bit. I found the entire process of researching the definitive answer to the question both exhausting and confusing. There does not appear to be a straight (and short, mind you) answer anywhere I can find talking about the differences between trademarked images and copyrighted images, so I had to browse many, many, many sites for little bits of information to piece the entire thing together. I should also say, before you read my answer, that I have never had any intention of working with image licensing and trying to answer this question as probably put me off the topic for a long while yet :). And here we go:

Copyrights protect the specific creative expression an idea through any medium of artistic/creative expression, while trademarks protect any symbol that indicates the source or origin of the goods or services to which it is affixed[15]. The purpose of a copyright is to protect works of authorship as fixed in a tangible form of expression, while the purpose of a trademark is to protect words, phrases and logos used in federally regulated commerce to identify the source of goods and/or services[16]. The difference between the two is that a registered trademark confers a bundle of exclusive rights upon the registered owner, including the right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorized use of the mark in relation to products or services which are identical or "colourfully" similar to the "registered" products or services, and in certain cases, prevent use in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services[17] while a copyright confers authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished[18]. What this means, I think, is that a trademark is a symbol used to identify a company and provide a basic guarantee saying "hey, it's got our stamp on it, you can trust it". A trademark agreement can only be violated if the trademark is used in relation to products or services which are identical or "colourfully" similar to the "registered" products or services or a product that is dissimilar, but could be confused by a consumer to be related to the products of the company whose trademark is being utilized. On the other hand, copyright (which can only cover works with sufficient creativity) basically says "this is my work, you can't copy it, distribute it, create derivative works of it, perform it or display it without my [the copyright holder's] say so". As you can probably tell, copyright is a much more restrictive and across the board type of intellectual rights protection than a trademark, but requires a significant level of creativity to be used. From this information, I can surmise that images that are copyrighted are much more creative and restricted, while trademarked images are less creative (and in some cases qualify for public domain), but we must take care using them in situations where their use could be interpreted as a "tick of approval" from the company that uses that trademark. Both types of images are allowed on Wikipedia, with certain trademarked images permitted on Commons instead. Copyrighted images require a fair use statement to be used on the site (this is not just a site rule, but part of copyright law) and are generally permitted if a user can demonstrate why they meet our

MoS suggests that graphic logos, something that many trademarks are, should be used only once in an article). Finally, the general disclaimer for trademarks (not necessarily images) can be found at Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks

.

• Links for 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)[reply]
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

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

• 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.
  ^Pounce!

• All done.
  ^Pounce! 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Support as nom. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
   ]

   He, just for the record :).

   ^Pounce! 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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)[reply]
4. Sure.
    GARDEN  12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Support he has improved since his last RfA.
   GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Vorpal Support +5 - Excellent SPI clerk, all-around great user, will make a wonderful admin! --
   sign) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support No reason not to. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
11. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks great. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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
    push to talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Support Seems to have improved greatly since the last two, and i see no alarms. --GedUK  15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
    ]
17. Support, I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would break the encyclopedia. Tavix |  Talk  16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Unless somebody provides concrete proof of FL's current "maturity issues". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

19. Support I don't see any reason he'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
21. Support Minor maturity issues do exist, but I get the feeling your still very trustworthy.  
     Chat  17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support Good Luck ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}}$
    ^{Critique Me} 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Good luck from me also. -download | sign! 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
26. Support Nothing but good interactions with this user. Good luck! — Jake Wartenberg 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Looks fine to me! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong support Wizardman 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support on balance.
    talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
31. Support Will make a good admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
33. Support - Oppose section is unconvincing. — R² 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. No problems really. Looks to have improved from last RfA, so why not? Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support No problems here. Good luck!
    talk) 03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
38. Support I can't truly find a reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Changed from oppose. Essentially on the reasoning of Wisdom89. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
41. Support GlassCobra 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. No reasons given not to - six months ago isn't current. Majorly talk 01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
46. Personally, I'd support purely for answering all the questions above (Guys, we aren't playing
    24 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. ^.^
    Talk) 04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support Supported his last RFA, still support him now.  
    (Talk)  04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
49. Support A great contributor, and definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I have had positive interactions with this user and nothing to complain about. Valley2city^‽ 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, agree with many of the comments by supporters above that this user has shown some significant positive improvements over time. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Seems to understand his limits, good work at SPI. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. My main concern is that your signature persistently annoys me for some reason, and gives me the impression that you're about nine years old. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, a spectacularly poor reason to oppose an RfA! :D I've had no other concerns about your editing in the past few months, there's been a wide variety of generally intelligent and well-thought-out contributions to various aspects of the encyclopedia and to the project space. I think you'd do well with the tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say that I agree about the signature, but I shall have a drab one just this once ;)

    Loxy 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

    ]

54. Support - I see you as a friendly and trusted user who should make a good admin, I supported you at your last RfA and I see no reason not do so again. I do think the main oppose issue at your last RfA, based upon deciding to re-start it, was heavily overblown. The opposes in this RfA are not very convincing either.
    (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support - No concerns. I checked some of this editor's clerk comments at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, and thought he showed judgment and experience there. You can see a list of his SPI comments with this search.EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support per IRC cabal good experience, no concerns FlyingToaster 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Huge improvements over the last two times. Acalamari 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. He'll do well and I wish him luck in this RFA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Experienced enough, although it's a little concerning that only 30% of your edits are on the article mainspace. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support On balance, I'd say this candidate will be a net positive. More to the point, is saying "on balance" and then saying "net positive" a grievous sin against the language? :) Protonk (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Level-headed contributions, and solid article work. I have no major concerns here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. I remember your old RfA going down, Foxy, and I must admit it was a shame for it to do so in such fashion. Happily, people are finally aligning themselves for the proper reasons now. I'd like to offer you my backing, as I think you'd make an excellent admin if bestowed with the responsibilities. Ayrton Prost^sign 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    support you've come a long way. Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC) removing my !vote so I can close this.[reply]

64. Support. Significant improvement since October. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support On balance, support arguments convince me more than oppose arguments. No specific-enough reasons given to oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support I have read over the previous RfA's and I feel that the user has made the necessary changes. Very unlikely to delete the mainpage or break the Wiki. Trusilver 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. A strong record of content contribution (GAs and a future FA). I think outstanding issues from the previous RfAs have been resolved. There is an unfortunate tendency for a past RfA to poison future RfAs that would have passed easily if the earlier RfA had never taken place. What I see here is a good editor, and not someone who will delete the mainpage or use the tools in a content dispute. Cool3 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Seems a solid candidate, with a good record of article work and sockpuppet tracking. Nevard (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. All-around good editor with whom I've had pleasant encounters. —
    Eustress ^talk 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Support Shows good judgement at
    WP:SPI. Has certainly made mistakes in the past, but I'm happy that the lessons have been learned, and that the mop will be wielded properly. Mayalld (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
71. Support - cut-and-paste from the last RfA: "I was inclined to oppose, but realized that an oppose merely perpetuates some of the "problems" of RfA today - opposes for procedural reasons, naming conventions, etc. Do I trust this candidate with the tools? Yes."
    Tan | 39 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Support - Looks fine from here.  Channel R   21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Not a problem in sight. — Σxplicit 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - no real reason to oppose. The biggest problem shown here is the edit-warring on Country, and I trust Foxy when he says he will avoid such conflicts in future. Robofish (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support- Potential to be a great admin. SD5 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support After deep consideration do feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools. Do not see misuse of tools. Great commitment through. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. I trust this user. Synergy 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Seems trustworthy and committed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. I see someone who will benefit the ranks and will work to mitigate problems rather than cause them.
    -- Banjeboi 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Support. I am impressed with the well written/referenced Xgrid and Bootx(more please!). Participation at SPI, CSD and RfA[19] demonstrates dedication and a desire to work with the community. My humble opinion solidified when edit sampling revealed consistent efforts to help others[20]. Foxy has met his own RfA criteria[21] and has proven that he will be able to manage the buttons responsibly and to the benefit to the project. --Preceding unsigned comment 03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Yes, just think things out before pressing the fancy buttons.
    247 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Very good admin candidate.
    ^Talk 11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]