Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy

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

Foxy Loxy

(15/22/8); Withdrawn by candidate in favour of fresh RfA

Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs) (renamed from ^.^) - Hello fellow Wikipedians! I created my Wikipedia account on 12 July 2006 (under the username Atyndall), when I decided to make a few corrections to an article, and try and make my own (like a lot of newbs, my article ended up deleted) but after only a shortwhile, I became too busy, and forgot about the account (and really the 'pedia itself) for several years. After finally cutting my addiction with MMORPGs because I saw them to be pointless, I decided that editing Wikipedia is both addicting and helping a good cause. I started off how many new users do; small corrections, tagging pages as stubs/cleanup/etc, anti-vandalism (with twinkle, and later, rollback) and moved up on to the bigger stuff like mediation, articles for deletion, huggling, writing good articles and running a bot. Currently I try to commit a fair amount of time each week to the 'pedia, continuing with the article writing, anti-vandalism, my bot, participating in AfD discussions and occasionally mediation. I believe that I (using the terminology of some RfA !voters) "would be a net positive" to the 'pedia if I was given admin privileges. Of course, that decision is up to you.

I thank you all for your time in voting/commenting in this RfA. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 11:51, 1 October 2008 (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: If I was granted the mop, I think that I would start off with what processes I am familiar with (closing AfDs and good old vandal-fighting) and then start to expand out into other areas like CSDs, PRODs and the Requests for Page Protection page. I would particularly focus on areas listed in the Administrative backlog category (at the moment, some ones I could have a look at; SSP, TFD and PUI). I would eventually settle into my own little niche in the 'pedia, mopping the floor in my attempt to make the place cleaner. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^}

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

A: I believe that AtyndallBot would be my greatest contribution, even though it only performs a very simple and menial task it was my first proper PHP project and I improved the SxWiki framework to do many things it couldn't before, it also takes over from the broken Pearle in updating the {{opentasks}} list, helping to keep the list as dynamic as it should be. I also find my first notable article, BootX (Apple), to be a very good contribution also (it reached GA standard) as I managed to turn it from stub quality to that standard over a month or two (roughly dedicating 1-2 days a week on it). I have currently written Xgrid up to (well I think) that same standard and it is currently going through the GAN process right now, I think that I have done well on that article as well. I have draw up SVG diagrams and also uploaded 21 images (most are still registered under my old username Atyndall) to here or commons to include around the 'pedia or specifically in the articles I have editing. With the images, I am particularly proud of Image:Xgridprotocol.svg and Image:Wikipedia in binary.gif as I think they help to illustrate a point in creative ways. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^}

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: Around March 2008 I was in a conflict with User:Lookinhere over the citation usage of James Rogers (soldier). I reverted the citations User:Lookinhere used as they were [website link] instead of <ref></ref> tag citations, I explained my actions to the user several times[1][2][3] but was ignored/not noticed. After becoming frustrated at the fact that Lookinhere was questioning my knowledge of the subject (even though that is in no way related to reverting an edit, or so I thought at the time), showing that he/she hadn't even been listening to what I had been saying I yelled at him/her at the bottom of here, this was also ignored. Finally after accidentally adding a CSD tag to the user's talk page using Twinkle, Lookinhere brought the event to WT:AN/3RR[4] calling me vicious and believing that I had malicious intent when I accidentally added the CSD tag to Lookinhere's talk page, after reviewing courses of action I calmly apologized at his talk page[5] and that was how the matter ended. I know now, in hindsight, that I could have handled the situation much better; instead of just removing his contributions I should have taken the matter up with Lookinhere before he/she became angry and started ignoring my postings. I definitely should not have resorted to yelling at Lookinhere as that was a serious breach of Wikietiquette and possibly inflamed Lookinhere even more. I needed to keep a calm head when this happened, which I did at the beginning, but then lost at the end. Since then I have dealt with several other people who have insulted me with nothing but a calm response[6][7] and will continue to do so in the future. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^}

Completely optional question from Frank:

4. Would you provide a pronunciation guide to your user name?

A: this question held relevance to my old username, ^.^. It is irrelivant now as the name has changed. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from –xeno (talk)

5. Would you be willing to change your username to something more appropriate? (cf. naerii's neutral reasoning)

A: My username has been changed to Foxy Loxy — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) If it bothers people, then yeah. I must point out though that the crat who changed it to that didn't object. Update: it's goign to be changed soon. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a user, it is far less of a problem then as an admin. To expand on what I assume naerii was driving at in their neutral - You block someone then you smirk at them with your sig. –xeno (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Just one more: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: After reading the question through, I believe that I would decline the unblock request, telling the user to wait it out (this would hopefully make the vandal get bored and move elsewhere), I would also provide the user with a welcome templatem links on how to constructively contribute (e.g. How to edit, MoS etc) and a warning that one more vandalism edit, and a 6 month - year block (account creation disabled) will be applied (its only a semi-dynamic ip right?). Then I would wait till the user's block has expired, then watch his/her contributions for the next week (occasional checks) and block as promised if any further disruption occurs. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

7. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: This is quite a tough question, I believe that there are a couple of different approaches depending on what kind of article it is. If the article is a BLP and the added statement is contentious then the new user could immediately remove the statement as per WP:BLP or report it to the BLP noticeboard. In any other kind of article or with non-contentious BLP info, per WP:V, the information could also be immediately be removed (as you said the material is unverifiable and V says that material without sources can be removed and because it is unverifiable no sources could possibly be found) and it should be, but then the new user should try and discuss with other user's on the article's talk page about why the information was removed etc and how their contributions are still welcome, provided they are verifiable. In a nutshell, I'm not trying to belittle consensus, it's still very important, but we are here to write a factually accurate and verifiable encyclopedia, not come to agreements over information that cannot be verified. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

8. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: I must say, that I don't really get annoyed users on my page ranting (well, I do get a lot of userpage vandalism, but you don't really respond to that). One time when the user was actually irate was this but I have helped to point a new user who has posted to my page in the right direction and give a user a very brief and very general explanation of who I am. I know that is not strong evidence, but you can't, in good faith, make irate/annoyed people come to your page and I think I have just been lucky (or maybe unlucky, depending on how people view this answer) in that department. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: My article writing and mediation will definitely continue if I were to be given the mop, but I think I may replace anti-vandalism with another admin orientated activity, like those talked about in A1. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'Optional Question from  Marlith (Talk) '

10. What do you want Wikipedia to be in five years?  Marlith (Talk)  03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A: Well, hopefully Wikipedia's quality has increased and bureaucracy has decreased. An overhaul of the RfA system is a must. Having an AI based antivandalism plugin build into MediaWiki would be an excellent idea. Oh, and a kind of scripting plugin that makes it when you need to do something like submit an RfA, you need to fill in one form, click, and all the necessary things are posted to the pages where they are needed (less steps! less creep!). I guess I would like a whole bunch of other improvements, including a bigger and higher quality article base and the ability to run bots from inside mediawiki. I don't really know what else to say, it just better be better! — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^}

General comments

• See Foxy Loxy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• I would just like to point out, with my edit summary percentages that my major edit summary usage is only 47%, this is because the majority of my edits are marked as minor and the major edits the tool are accessing are over 5 months old. Long story short, If you look at wannabe_kate's tool you'll see I haven't neglected to use an edit summary in 5 months. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^} 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• IMPORTANT NOTE My relatively low mainspace editcount seems to be one of the main concerns of the opposers so I would like to explain it here. My process of article building is to take a copy of a stub, copy it to my userspace and then edit up to a GA standard (for example, the BootX (Apple)'s userspace article is User:^.^/AIP/BootX. After the time it takes to write it, I then copy the finished product back to the article. So although I made many edits to my userspace version of BootX, the mainspace version is only 8 edits. (As pointed out below). So my mainspace editcount is low due to that, so I do do article writing, my editcount just doesn't show it. For any one interested in this, see User:Foxy Loxy/AIP. — Foxy Loxy _{formerly known as ^.^}
• Links for Foxy Loxy: Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I don't believe I can support this candidate so I'm not popping anything in down below. I will, however, make a comment. Daniel's oppose, cited by others, is a disgrace. Either the oppose is due to a poor grasp of English or it is on the limit of moving from assuming bad faith to an outright personal attack. The candidate may be motivated for the wrong reasons. Their intentions may be misguided even. But ill-intentioned ? Vandals are ill-intentioned. Editors who write articles and help keep the place free of malicious edits are very much not - wether they seek adminship as a reward or whatever is not reason to describe their intentions as ill. Again, disgraceful. Suggest redcation or a simple oppose. Pedro :  Chat  19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am in absolute full agreement with Pedro. It's an egregious miswording (at the very least) to refer to a solid editor as "ill-intentioned", which, now that we're on the subject, is quite curious. Why is some of the opposition coming to this conclusion? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Since this is a response to Daniel, shouldn't it be under Daniel's comment? Why is it on top? Not trying to stir drama, just seems mislocated here. Townlake (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I would think its a reply to every one who said "per Daniel" as such it belongs at the top, but thats just my pov. -Djsasso (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair point - thanks for taking my question in good faith. Townlake (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso hit the nail on the head. This a general comment as several editors are "opposing per" and, as such, lives up here. Indeed, no drama.Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• (in lieu of Neutral) Aside from what naerii pointed out, there's "You have been blocked from editting for having an innapropriate username -- ^.^" Not worth an oppose, though.--KojiDude ^(C) 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Seriously people. Has "Oppose: for teh lulz" become a valid !vote too? Daniel's oppose was not only seriously inappropriate, but a broad judgement about an editor's intentions, which he cannot make. But the fact that so many oppose based on that is disturbing. Points to serious flaws in RfA process. Neuro√Logic 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A point I feel I should make here is that only 2 users have opposed per Daniel specifically. Others have cited "per above" but not specifically him. I don't think the comment was particularly pleasant, but I don't think it's something to get worked up about here - it's not something that will make or break this RFA. -- how do you turn this on 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should this RfA be procedural-closed? A lot of the objections to the candidate were based in whole or in part on the username, which has been changed mid-RfA. Rather than forcing a 'crat into an uncomfortable (and arguably unfair) position of having to decide whether to chuck all those opinions, it might make more sense to close this and ask the candidate to start over. Just a thought; I really don't know, just putting it out there. Townlake (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. I think this is a sensible move. -- how do you turn this on 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would probably leave that up to the candidate, but I'm only counting a single oppose based on the username alone. –xeno (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as a net gain to the project. No reason to believe you as an admin would be anything less than A Good Thing. Ironholds 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Ironholds says it all. Vishnava _talk 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Weak support because I support by default but, per fish&karate, please read WP:TROPHY. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Moral support, but I recommend withdrawal unless you want to be snowed by opposes. I don't think you are gaming the system (i.e. taking the MMORPG approach), but some editors got that impression because of your sig & user page, and because you've only contributed substantially to a few articles. Based on what I've seen at RfAs that tide is very difficult to reverse. I found your article contribution genuinely positive, and your involvement with mediation in good faith as well (I reviewed the case). You have good writing skills, so you can definitely use those in upcoming months do dispel the idea that you're doing it for promotion. VG ☎ 15:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - the answers aren't bad. I've seen a lot of good article work being done in userspace. Not bitey, rude, full of himself, or otherwise likely to run screaming into the night. I'd like to see you do an editor review, but your determination to see the RfA through to get feedback on what to change is not a bad idea. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Increasing to strong support, per Daniel's ill-intentioned comment and !vote. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   I have had an editor review, try looking under the name Atyndall. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Support A GA, to me, suggests an understanding of how things work in the mainspace - and it certainly isn't a crime to use the userspace to make article improvements, so that explains what appears to be a paucity of mainspace edits. I also see project space experience. Fine by me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Good answers, stable contributions. This guy will be will certainly be a benefit for the project. --Flewis^(talk) 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Giving this editor the tools will be to the advantage of the 'pedia. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Support A GA is a great contribution. Seems like a net positive for Wikipedia, though some more time on-wiki(As in experience) would have been better. I'd suggest changing the username though.....;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
10. I am a bit bothered by the asking for a nomination, but outside than that the opposers have brought up very little I find troublesome; he has a GA, fights vandals, contributed to AfD's, is civil, has never been blocked, ect. Using huggle is not a crime, making jokes about MMORPGS's in not a crime and I really don't see that much problem with the username, its neither confusing nor offensive really. Weak support though for several reasons I would have a hard time explaining, but, I have no doubt that the +Sysop for his account would be anything other than a net positive for the Wiki. Icewedge 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
11. support. And please don't be discouraged this got off on a funny foot and that you'll probably have to come back in a few months. You did absolutely nothing to deserve the "ill-intentioned" jab that I can see. Very sad that so many endorsed that pointless attack. RFA is sometimes crazy and unfair, but (I think) pretty reasonable in the long run. Keep up the good article work, get the name changed, work on the opposes that can be addressed, and I think you'll make a good administrator in the not too distant future. --JayHenry (t) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Moral support. Nothing wrong with asking for a nomination. Better ask publicly than in private. Bwrs (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen Atyndall's work, especially when I was adopted by him as a new user. While his mainspace edit count seems low he explained that. Otherwise I think he makes an excellent candidate. He knows his way around the policy, and philosophy of Wikipedia. As well as having significant contributions to his areas of interest. Some of the opposes I see are ridiculous, hopefully this doesn't discourage you Atyndall! Neuro√Logic 10:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
14. From neutral. It seems the opposition is scraping the bottom of the barrel for their rationale. naerii 15:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. He was very helpful with disputes at Bates method involving at times difficult users. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Of the 1400 or so namespace edits, almost all of them are Huggle or Twinkle - including the last 1000. While I don't expect that much, some kind of encyclopedic contribution is helpful. And based on your userpage (" have many roles on Wikipedia as I am trying to gain enough experience to become an administrator"), you seem to think Wikipedia is a game, and the purpose is to become an admin. I do not want people like this being administrators, sorry. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG. fish&karate 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I have reworded the sentence on my page to make the intention of that sentence clearer. And now I know why I'm addicted to the pedia. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I've downgraded to "weak oppose", as I note you have done work on two or three articles in your userspace then moved them - which would meet my (very minimal) requirements for encyclopedia building. I'm afraid I still get the feeling you're "ticking all the boxes" (do one or two articles, do loads of huggle and twinkle stuff to get the edit count up, do a bit of mediation, etc) solely to get the admin bit - viewing it as some kind of "levelling up". The fact you switched to editing Wikipedia after your "cutting your addiction to MMORPGs" is telling; it seems like you simply changed the game you were playing, rather than broke the addiction. As long as you see Wikipedia as an MMORPG where you gain XP by bashing vandals and level up through RFAs, you're still not what I'm looking for in an admin. Sorry. fish&karate 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   The addiction to mmorpgs and the linking to WP:MMORPG were said tounge-in-cheek. But ok, you are entitled to an opinion. I am am totally aware that wikipedia is not a game. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose, reluctantly based on main space edits. I'm tending to the view that in order to be an administrator of the encyclopedia, you need to know what it takes to help write the encyclopedia. I'm not sure an editor can appreciate the subtleties of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT, let alone guidelines and the manual of style without having contributed to the encyclopedia. I have, however, been wrong in this before. Hiding T 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   As a user outlined shockingly accurately before about my editing style, I tend to write articles as subpages of User:^.^/AIP then copypaste the result into the mainspace. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 13:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, although i get troubled by such cut and pasting and the GFDL. Hiding T 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Apparently it's fine, as long as there is only one contributor to the page (as in my case). — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 5:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   It is and it isn't, but it is such a small technical point that it matters very, very little and is not worth tying this rfa up with. Hiding T 12:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Virtually no article work and just ~1800 mainspace-edits since 2006 are simply not enough. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   See the addendum to neutral number 2; low mainspace count is due to finishing article work in userspace, then transcribing; I wouldn't describe a GA as "virtually no article work". Ironholds 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Oh, I did not see that. Whilst I can't find a GA in this addendum (that article is not already a GA, right?) the article work is sufficient for me. Therefore I strike out my vote for now. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Comment: ^.^ edits in user space and pastes in article space (see my comments below in the neutral section). About 900 edits in his user space are article work. VG ☎ 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose with moral support - Please change your user name, then I will looking further at your contributions. — Realist² 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   The user has already committed to changing their username, but doing so mid-RFA would be pretty confusing, no? –xeno (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   What would it be changed to or has he/she not specified that yet? — Realist² 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Has not specified... –xeno (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Again, I will change it. But can it wait till after the RfA? I'll need to think of a good name. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Well this RfA runs for a whole week. If it takes you that long to pick a name then I have worries. If you can provide me with a name or even a short list, at some point during this RfA, I would be most great full. — Realist² 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   (outdent) I was thinking about maybe Firemonkey, or Icemonkey or Foxy Loxy or Man or something like that (I'll have to check iif they are available). — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   User names seem good. I'm still opposing but I would more than happily support if you came back in 4 months ish. Continue with your mediation work and please pick an article or two and turn them into GA's. Also, (unless your starting a brand new article), try to build the article up in the main article space, not your sandbox. If you build it alone in your sandbox your missing out on things like communication, consensus and dispute resolution with other editors. Building articles in the sandbox is the easy way to do things but you don't acquire half the skills/experience potential afterward. — Realist² 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I disagree with you on this point -- building an article in userspace is a good way to avoid overzealous Newpage taggers and taking your time on gathering references and information. Why can't comments and communication be made once the article has been moved into mainspace? I do not think building articles in userspace is a bad thing at all. GlassCobra 17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   I think it is a sort of baby and the bath water thing. You can work in peace but you miss out on involving others who may have useful ideas on organization or content. The whole point of wikipedia is that, in theory, all ideas are open to consideration (though, of course, not all ideas should make their way into an article!). Note also that this editor is not creating new articles in user space but is taking existing stubs and working on them in user space so newpage taggers are not a huge issue. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

   If you want to create a brand new article, creating it in the sandbox is a good idea, especially since the deletionist army is so vocal and powerful. However taking a stub that's notability etc isn't in question and bringing it back to mainspace 10 times as large, with 0 community input up to that point is not the best way of going about things. It is much better to engage with other people, ideas etc. Note, that I do indeed use sandboxes myself and do huge copy and paste jobs. It's just not the ideal way to do things, goes against part of the spirit of what we are trying to do. If he creates an article in his sandbox and takes it straight to GA that's great. I know he can write a good article. What I don't know from this is how he deals with conflicting ideas, communication, drawing consensus, edit wars etc etc. — Realist² 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - In addition to the above, for some reason I have a bad feeling about the candidate. This is not unjustified, it's just more of a general worry. Replies to this oppose will likely not be answered, as I genuinely am not entirely sure why I feel so uncertain about the candidate.  Asenine  14:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry you feel that way. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I guess your badgering of people (not myself) is starting to nag at me a little bit, you might want to tone it down, just a suggestion. I don't recall seeing you at RfA before, so I should mention that a lot of regulars don't like having every oppose commented on.  Asenine  15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

4. I dunno. I just didn't find this particularly promising. And now I feel bad because he did come and ask for help, etc., so sorry. Please do change the username, by the way—a crat clicking a button doesn't mean it's a good username (just because you can doesn't mean you should... useful mantra). Giggy (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, now that hurt. :-(. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I know. I'm sorry. Giggy (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Ill-intentioned, not enough experience with article writing. Daniel (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I don't quite understand what is wrong with my intentions. And for improvement next time, what is enough article experience (as discussed above, my article ns count is misleading)? — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Ill-intentioned? Nice to see that admins can't even bother to follow WP:CIVIL in RfA's. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Per Daniel, and of course, please change the username. Recommend candidate to withdraw application asap. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   As discussed above, my username will change, but after the RfA (to lower confusion). And I am sorry, but come rain or snow, I want to see this RfA through to the end. I find the critism to be useful, and there is a slim chance of success. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Per answer to Q6. While I'm not faulting the user for not knowing that admins should not decline unblock requests for blocks they have placed, making the user wait it out when they are showing interest in contributing constructively is unnecessary. Vandals are a dime a dozen and reblocks are cheap, constructive contributors are golden. Also, the jump to a six month block after a 1 week is taking too much of a hard line (especially for a semi-permanent dynamic assignment that can be recycled if the user turns off their modem or releases the IP). –xeno (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I thought semi-dynamic meant that the user's IP would stay static unless they called up their telco and asked it it be changed. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Weak Oppose per Giggy. A bit more experience is needed (and also, please don't respond to every oppose, even if their comments are completely unreasonable.) I disagree article work is insufficient. A GA isn't insufficient. -- how do you turn this on 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose from Neutral - per response to Ncmvocalist's oppose. "Seeing the RfA through to the end come rain or snow" does not indicate particularly strong judgment - admins need to be able to evaluate consensus and respond appropriately before being forced. Townlake (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I think an RfC probably would have been a good next step in looking into adminship, instead of self nomination. As mentioned by a few people already, you have some glaringly obvious issues. Plus, I seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously... seriously HATE your user name. bigjake (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Simply not enough wide range experience. Administrators need more skills than just anti-vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 18:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    Writing two GAs requires more than anti-vandalism skills. -- how do you turn this on 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose due to so much badgering of opposers. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose Per Daniel, and as stated above, it might be good to change your screenname. Suggest WP:SNOW closing. America69 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose, but keep it open - the user needs as much feedback as possible. I'm opposing because of the username - how do you prounounce it? It should be linguistic, not hieroglyphic! I talk to people all the time about Wikipedia, and mentioning this person's name would be awkward at best, like "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince". But this time it is even worse, because there is no previous name to refer to. It's an inappropriate name, especially for an admin, and it sets a bad example for others which would likely be emulated. The Transhumanist 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    Well it is being changed very soon. See above (realist's comments). — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

    TH, I understand you oppose but did you read the nom? This editor was previously User:Atyndall and he states it clearly above, in the first lines of his nomination. Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    Not to mention that they would be willing to change their username if it creates/is a problem. Would this be a provisional oppose? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Giggy (that request for a nom reads very uneasily), per the 'come rain or snow' comment (shows a lack of good judgement in my opinion), and of course per the terrible name (though I completely aknowledge that the user has agreed to change it). Seriously, seriously suggest a close per snow: I reckon a snowball has a greater chance of surviving in hell than this RfA does of succeeding, and it strikes me that all the constructive critisism that there is to be said has been said, in triplicate at least. _TalkIslander 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
16. I'm afraid I'll have to weak oppose here. I definitely think asking for a nom constitutes power hunger - although you probably didn't want to make it sound that way. I don't care what your username is (it could be "Iblokdunowwhatugonnadu" for all I care) but the overall reliance on Huggle is also a major factor in my position here. I would definitely have supported if I had seen more evidence of article building rather than blind reverting (not suggesting you are, but that's how huggle works). Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per WBOSITG--LAAFan^sign _review 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose per most of all statements. macy 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose per A6 and username as well as WP:MYSPACE concerns. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Haven't had a lot of interaction with this candidate, but by reading the opposes above, a few problems such as the username and less article building concern me. SchfiftyThree 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
21. -_-, per many of the concerns raised above. krimpet✽ 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose Because, with the new name, I suspect Foxy Loxy is leading us Henny Pennies and Chicken Littles into his den :-) But mainly because I don't really like this habit of porting stubs onto user space, working on them, and then porting them back into article space, even if for the right reasons. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative encyclopedia and it would be much better to edit directly in article space because the edits may attract other editors who would have something to contribute. This porting method, to me anyway, gives me the feeling that either the editor wants to have ownership of the article or wants to avoid conflict by presenting a complete work (which will, presumably attract less attention). Either way, it seems not in the spirit of wikipedia. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

    Clarifying that my Foxy Loxy comment above is a joke! I have no concerns about the name of this editor, Atyndall, ^.^, Foxy Loxy, are all equally acceptable asaic. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

    For a salutary, if extreme, example of the dangers of working on articles in userspace, see this. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

[gone to support] "You have been blocked from editing ^.^" naerii 12:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, what's with the complete lack of mainspace editing? Here are the last 500 mainspace edits; I see a big chunk of huggling on the 17th and 10th of September, 2 mainspace edits in August, and then similar chunks of Huggling going back through July. Do you never edit stuff? naerii 13:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"You have been blocked from editing ^.^"? — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be a fear that your sig will look like it breaches WP:BITE. Hiding T 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't name that guideline specifically, but my I meant something like that, yeah. See here for an example of how stupid it looks. naerii 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Nothing extremely concerning, though there are some things that leave me sitting atop a fence. First, your past 500 mainspace edits are almost entirely Huggle-related, and I can barely find any mainspace work. While I'm not looking for 12 FAs, some general writing/maintenance/cleanup of articles would be nice to see. Your talk page doesn't show anything that would make me oppose, though the most recent thread leads me to believe that you might not fully understand the GA process, which might indicate an overall lack of understanding of policy. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   The last thread, as explained in the thread, was a mistake. — ^Happy_Man^{(^.^)} 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Comment. ^.^ is one of those editors that does a lot of work with a few edits, so the article space edit count may be skewed to his disadvantage. Look at the edit history for BootX_(Apple) for instance: only 8 edits by ^.^, but ^.^ definitely deserves the GA credit for that article. VG ☎ 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Addendum: ^.^ edits in user space, and then pastes the result in article space, e.g. [8]. This explains the low non-Huggle edit count in article space. VG ☎ 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. There are still things that concern me slightly, namely ^.^'s username. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral As per the previous comments here. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Currently I wouldn't want to look for 'citations' behind the user's identification -- which in my opinion is not a name -- and their signature, both of which together may be rather confusing to the typical newbie.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral and recommend withdrawal. Difficult to form a fair opinion on your qualifications and judgment with your ASCII username - if you're intending to change it, I suggest you resubmit to RfA with the new name. Townlake (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose

4. Neutral - I would have morally supported but there are too many factors which mitigate that premise of weakly supporting. Sorry. Caulde 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral...and might I add that it is a bit pointy to report someone at an RfA to WP:UAA, especially when it has already been addressed. If you don't want this person to be an admin, then oppose them...don't try to get them blocked for something that has already been resolved. --Smashville^talk 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Who did that? –xeno (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Someone who has apparently not expressed any opinion on this page at all.  Frank  |  talk  17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   No, but it was someone who very clearly has this on their watchlist. I meant that more as a...don't anyone else do it either. --Smashville^talk 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Good point.  Frank  |  talk  17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   [9] –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Yea, thanks. I found it afterwards, I guess I didn't look closely enough the first time. –xeno (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Um, sorry, but I don't think you have the experience yet. Sorry for the um, I'm not really committed to either support or oppose without piling on, so i don't know exactly what to put here. Anyways, good luck ;)—Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday) · (Testify!) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   (Moved to oppose) Neutral I know that neutral votes are passé ([10]) these days but on the fence I will sit for this one! I think that the editor has tried to familiarize himself with admin roles (for example, by clerking on medcab cases and, on at least one occasion, doing a good job) but I think some mainspace editing will be helpful. In particular, and I'm sure I'm a minority on this, I don't really like this habit of porting stubs onto user space, working on them, and then porting them back into article space, even if for the right reasons. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative encyclopedia and it would be much better to edit directly in article space because the edits may attract other editors who would have something to contribute. This porting method, to me anyway, gives me the feeling that either the editor wants to have ownership of the article or wants to avoid conflict by presenting a complete work (which will, presumably attract less attention). --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral Overall feeling of uncomfortableness, maybe because of the apparent lack of experience in either the mainspace or the DR realms. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Great work so far, and I'd like to see it continue. My only problem is that I feel you lack experience in some areas. Good luck, and I'm sure I'd support in a future RfA. iMatthew (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral The candidate's mainspace edit count concerns me, but on the other hand, I can accept their reasoning for that, as I have known many editors who choose to edit in that fashion. I may revisit this vote at a later date after I've had more time to review the candidate's contributions in detail. --Winger84 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - slight lack of experience. Continue with consistent effort and I think I'll be able to support you down the road. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Seems like a good editor, but Foxy Loxy's inexperience is a little concerning. Definitely not a reason to oppose, though. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion is preserved as an archive of a restarted request for adminship as per discussion at the bureaucrat noticeboard, a new RfA will be opened soon. Please do not modify this page.