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)

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 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)

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)

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.

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 non-free content criteria. On the other hand, trademarks are permitted by the First Amendment to be used for purposes of criticism and commentary, so provided that the trademark is un-copyrightable (e.g. the Coca-Cola logo) we can use it without any sort of fair use rationale, provided we only use it for commentary (although, it should be noted, the 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.

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)
50. Support I have had positive interactions with this user and nothing to complain about. Valley2city^‽ 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
52. Support Seems to understand his limits, good work at SPI. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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)

    Can't say that I agree about the signature, but I shall have a drab one just this once ;) Foxy Loxy 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
56. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support per IRC cabal good experience, no concerns FlyingToaster 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Huge improvements over the last two times. Acalamari 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. He'll do well and I wish him luck in this RFA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
62. Support. Level-headed contributions, and solid article work. I have no major concerns here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
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)

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

64. Support. Significant improvement since October. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
68. Support. Seems a solid candidate, with a good record of article work and sockpuppet tracking. Nevard (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. All-around good editor with whom I've had pleasant encounters. —Eustress ^talk 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
72. Support - Looks fine from here.  Channel R   21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. Not a problem in sight. — Σxplicit 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
75. Support- Potential to be a great admin. SD5 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
77. Support. I trust this user. Synergy 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. Seems trustworthy and committed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
81. Support Yes, just think things out before pressing the fancy buttons. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Very good admin candidate. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:43, 17 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)

   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: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], 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. It's not about disagreeing. After all, if it were just a bunch of yes men that would not be a good thing, it's about how people disagree. Do people provide arguments rather than votes? Do people carefully consider the articles under discussion. I've supported editors like Ecoleetage who was on the opposite side in several AfDs and was not persuaded by me to change his stance and as I said elsewhere I would support Childofmidnight as well who has also argued to delete stuff I thought should be kept. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   And in practically all your opposes, there's mention of cases of where the candidate disagreed with your stance somewhere, whether on AfDs, RfAs, or whatever. You're also getting away from the point of how grossly unfair this oppose is, your general criteria be damned, as it doesn't seem pertinent here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't oppose them simply for disagreeing, but for how they disagreed. You can make a compelling and policy based reason for deletion. I may not agree with it, but hey, it's written in an academic way. It's nonsensical "delete as cruft" non-arguments that are usually rapid fire that concern me. In my most recent instacne where I saw something from this candidate, I thought the support was abrasive to the 46 editors opposing and given that the opposes were well written with many diffs provided, I found that it demonstrated poor judgment. It is important that admins have good judgment. I do note in my oppose here that I have seen other good qualities of this candidate and as mentioned several times, I am likely to give the candidate another chance when I am done going back and forth here and have an opportunity to relook over the totality of the candidate's edits. I also note that since I opposed several others have opposed for different reasons and I need to review those to see if their concerns are sufficient to prevent me from supporting as well. But the idea that I only oppose people because they disagree with me is total misreading and distortion of the reality of why I oppose, especially because again, I more often than not support and I'm sure you could probably find plenty of instances where editors I supported made arguments I wouldn't agree with, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt nonetheless. One last note, I see below that another editor has said to also oppose due to poor judgment on the candidate's part, but does not provide an example. Why so interested in always challenging me, but not others who may make the same argument, but not even provide diffs? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:38, 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". Foxy 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)

   I agree that A Nobody's !vote here is fairly poor, and will probably be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. But I do not believe that A Nobody having massive tickets on himself, and being sour that Foxy Loxy doesn't think as highly of his "overwhelming evidence" as AN himself does, is a blockable offence. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Certainly not were it an isolated incident; it's not, it's part of a pattern with a history. I just suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody@Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:06, 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)

4. 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)
5. WEAK Oppose ( changed from Oppose. I see very little article work, and 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)

   I stand corrected. Anyone who write articles of Mac OSs is OK with me about article work. But I still see little or no policy discussion, and that is even more important. I am reluctant to have to tell the candidate to wait yet some more and be more broadly involved, but it seems the best advice. Changed to Weak Oppose at this point.DGG (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
7. 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)

   Many people aren't embarassed by being gay, but sexual orientation is a potentially contentious quality at WP. I'm surprised you didn't chide the candidate for its inclusion. And as for the OMG comment, apparently you subscribed to the opinion that the BLP policy is only a litigation avoidance policy. As Jimbo has said many times in the context of BLP: "We need to get it right." In some jurisdictions, negative but true information can lead to litigation, so Jimbo's statement can only mean what it says: get it right for its own sake not for litigation's sake. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

8. 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)
9. 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))

   Lovely oppose, lovely oppose. Mind providing diffs so it doesn't just look like an unsourced attack? Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Browsing through Off2riorob's contributions, talkpage and block log he appears to be a pov-pusher with edit warring tendencies; I'd treat anything he says with a pinch of salt.

   I realise there is a shred of hypocrisy in this Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hello Ironholds. Your strong response to my simple disagreement to your nomination of foxyloxy is unwarranted and you do your nomination of foxyloxy no favours with your attitude. There is more than enough imformation for me to form a simple opinion here on this page and I have read the two previous failed rfa's [[33]] and [[34]] and I see little or no "real" change. I see someone who is perhaps attempting to say the correct things to gain the tools . His good and valuable work for WP are in his contributions to articles (which I would like to see more of.) and his Bot creation. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

   Well while I appreciate your criticism you really shouldn't judge RfAs based on the nominators attitude (otherwise the nominator comes back with a grudge and opposes you, which isn't a threat, simply something I've experienced). If you see no "real" change you should be able to provide diffs more recent than an old RfA. I don't quite understand your point, though; you could level the accusation of "saying the right things to become an admin" at any user at RfA who is saying the right things. If you feel he's still doing the things that got him in trouble before you should be able to find diffs in which he shows "poor judgement" and "fails to assume good faith". Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose - per my criteria. Other concerns aside, the answer to #11 just sets me to oppose. I strongly oppose any sort of "vote" counting, and/or assessing primarily due to enboldened text, per WP:CON. - jc37 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    I feel I should point out that !Vote means 'Not Vote', because in some programming languages ! is the symbol for negation, for example the phenomenon is documented on Wiktionary. And in my answer to the question, I said viewing the bolded !Vote someone has cast and then weighing the reasoning behind their !vote. In that, I meant something along the lines of "Firstly, I'm going to determine a person's basic stance. OK, their bolded not-vote is Support. I now shall judge the rationale behind their not-vote now that I know their basic stance". I most definitely would not be judging the bolding in any primary way (if at all), but would be using it to gain context on what a person's !vote is referring to. To show you what I mean by context, if I take a !vote from this RfA and removing the bolded text we are left with "No reason not to". Now, that !vote makes no sense when you take the contextual information away from it (in this case, the bolding) and the vote is wholly ambiguous (does he mean there is no reason not to oppose, or no reason not to support, or no reason not to be neutral?). But, if we put it back into some context "Support No reason not to", we can see the vote is a reference to Ral315's Why the Hell Not? essay. This is why, in many cases, I think we have to look at the bolded !vote; to gain context not consensus, despite that fact that Polls are evil. I hope this has provided some clarification on my meaning. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    I understood that ! in !vote meant what it typically does here on wikipedia (a "non-vote"). (And knowing about ! as a "not" clarified a long time before that.)

    And the "context" of the enboldened text should be only as much as if it were not enboldened. That is, as merely adjectory (descriptive) to their comments - which you (sort of) are trying to express.

    So yes, you've further expressed what you were saying above.

    That said, the text of your answer to the question illustrates rather clearly that your perspective is one of democratic vote-counting.

    "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."

    And calling comments in a discussion to be "...the bolded !Vote someone has cast..."

    I think you may be a well-meaning editor, but based upon these and other comments above (and other concerns from your edit history, among other things), I don't think that you're ready for adminship at this time. - jc37 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose I know FL only from FL's frequent votes here at RfA (usually Supports). The quality of FL's reasoning in those votes is appallingly low.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Last time I checked being an administrator doesn't have any relation to the perceived "quality" of their votes at RfA; if this was RfB that'd be a perfectly valid oppose reason. I assume what you mean is "his badly-reasoned votes at RfA lead me to question his judgement", but if that is true surely you can pull up examples from his mainspace contributions that show other lapses in judgement? Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    While I respect your opinion and understand that anyone can oppose for any reason, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. People vote at RfA for reasons purely their own; while I understand the irony of me commenting on this, I think it's one thing to vote for a personal reason and another to vote against someone for having opinions that conflict with yours. But again, that's just what I think... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose Sadly, I'm afraid I can't see the candidate as being a completely trustworthy admin. Most people are fine during day-to-day life, and FL could definitely be a competent admin. However, under stress, when the tools actually make a difference and things are actually going to have major repurcussions, I'm not completely sure that FL will do the 'right' thing. Sorry again, mate! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I think you're a great contributor and your article work is top notch... but... the concerns brought up by Off2riorob and MoP are too strong to ignore. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    The concerns are not supported by any diffs whatsoever. Surely as an experienced WP editor you can find some? Off2riorob certainly hasn't been able to. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Please quote my whole name Off2riorob or link to my User page. Thank you (Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

    Done. Although I would point out that there is little confusion to be had as even a partial username like that is still incredibly unique and your request just seems overly picky. Notice how I also wrote "MoP"? People know who I'm talking about, ergo, no need to write out the whole thing. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you . Sorry to be a bit picky but when I am being harangued for opposing I felt it better to keep it clear. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

14. Weak oppose - the last RFA and a half left me with a uneasy feeling. –xeno (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose - fails my criteria: only really active for just over a year, less than 10,000 edits, not nearly active enough in the project, and particularly in the last few months and signs of a declining not increasing participation. Seems like the candidate is well on their way, but not there yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose Drifting between Neutral and Oppose, but I have to side with the issues brought up by MoP and Collectonian above. Q ^{T C} 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I initially opposed, but on further inspection of the candidate's edit history, there are more positives than negative. I do note that some others also offer reasons to oppose and would like to see how these are addressed further before deciding if I should move to support. In any event, Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.