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

Foxy Loxy[edit]

Final (39/34/8); Closed as no consensus by WJBscribe at 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs) - 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 a while, 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 Pounce! 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 Pounce! 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that LoxyBot 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 Pounce! 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pounce! 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from iMatthew
4. In your own words, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia?
A: An administrator is any user on Wikipedia that has been granted extra user rights (mainly block, protect and delete) that could cause high amounts of damage to the project if abused. These rights are granted (usually) through the stringent Request for Adminship process. The main or official roles of an admin (there are plenty) on Wikipedia are ones of maintenance and "cleaning up messes" (which is symbolized by the admin powers being represented by a janitor's mop, a symbol of cleaning up messes). Many admin related tasks are handling requests for the admin's tools to be used after consensus is determined (the admin reviews the situation then if it is favorable, acts as a proxy for the request. i.e. avenues such as AFD, AIV and RFPP), the admin using his/her judgment to apply use of the tools to benefit the project (i.e. reviewing SSP cases or NPP/AVP and blocking), intervening in disputes (i.e. WP:AN/I) or enforcing consensus/policy/ArbCom (i.e. 3RR blocks). Because of the stringent RfA process, people who pass through successfully are seen to have high community support/good judgment/experience/etc. and are looked upon as role models in disputes. Due to this, admins also attract people requiring some form of mediation/intervention and act as sort of unofficial mediators (which is why handling heated disputes is a key RfA requirement). Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:bwrs
5. Tell me more about the first change of username. Then, please tell me about the new username. Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, I first changed my username from Atyndall to ^.^ because Atyndall is (this is very beany) related to my real name, which makes me feel a bit uneasy, so I thought I'd change it to something more pseudonymous (^.^ being in no way related to anything). I then changed ^.^ to Foxy Loxy due to a suggestion from Xenocidic that if I were to become an admin, the name could be seen as offensive under the extra scrutiny and if I were to block someone, it would be seen as a kind of smirk. And here we are. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from previous RfA
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 Pounce! 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I now know a better answer to this question as learnt from the previous RfA oppose. Unblocking straight away and blocking for two weeks if disruption continues. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Pounce! 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pounce! 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pounce! 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Optional Question from  Marlith (Talk) '
10. What do you want Wikipedia to be in five years?  Marlith (Talk)  03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pounce! 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

That's good, but I also think that the questions and answers to questions from the previous RFA should be pasted here. No reason for people to have to jump back and forth to look them up. Nsk92 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - No change in my stance since the last RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - He was very helpful in mediating disputes at Bates method involving editors who can at times be rather difficult. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why not? - Edit counts show sufficient experience, good variety of interests, clear block log, no sign of antagonistic behaviors. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support. This user seems to have a good deal of experience in admin areas and maintenance. Sure, more general involvement in the mainspace would be good, but Foxy Loxy shouldn't have any problem in regards to wielding the administrative functions. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As in the previous RfA I Support this candidacy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support. I had been thinking about Foxy's previous RFA and had yet to decide my stance when he went through the username change and relisted his RFA. Anyway, I agree with what was said in his original RFA, that creating an article in the userspace and then moving it into the article space is not a crime, but I think you might want to limit that practice in order to foster an attitude of collaboration. As a side note, I had no problem with your previous name, but I do prefer a phonetic one because I'm always talking with my roommates about Wikipedia. Useight (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support. Good article and AV work; as before, no reason to consider the Banhammer in this guy's hands anything less than A Good Thing. Ironholds 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support per my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy. - Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 06:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support per my original reason. Good answer to Q3, by the way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm of a mind that taking the feedback regarding the username and acting on it indicates an editor who will respect both consensus and the requests of their peers. These seem ideal admin traits. Pedro :  Chat  07:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support I was severely disappointed in some of the opposers from the previous RfA. Blatant assumptions of bad faith, nitpicky, etc. You seem to do decent work, and I have no real issue with working on articles in userspace. A note of caution: do review Xeno's oppose in light of Q6 from the previous RfA, jumping to a 6 month is indeed too harsh. Good luck. GlassCobra 09:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support- I think adminising Foxy Loxy will be a net gain to Wikipedia. Sure restarting the RfA is highly irregular but I think, given the unusual situation with your previous user-name and the unwarranted nastiness of some of the opposes, starting afresh is justified. Reyk YO! 09:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support - I wasn't entirely happy with all of your responses to the previous incarnation, but you have shown you are adaptable, which I think is an essential quality in an admin. You've got moxie, kid. Have a cigar. Prince of Canada t | c 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - No change since last Rfa --Flewis(talk) 10:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I don't think that Foxy Loxy would be a disaster to the 'pedia. Xclamation point 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I can see no evidence that Foxy Loxy would abuse the tools. I also think that relisting the RfA was fine in this case, and hope you don't get hit too hard for it. Ale_Jrbtalk 11:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support My rationale for support was going to be something that would now look just as a rephrasing of Pedro's rationale. I admire your attitide, I think only positive things can come from that. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - The crats restarted this thing, not the editor. The answers are good and they didn't change trying to game the system. The work is good. Solid XfD participation. Anti-vandal work, while not my big thing, is all properly done. And the userpage message encourages me -- I'd rather have someone trying to learn how to be a good admin than thinking they know it all and their various arrogations are correct. The answer to Q6 in the first RfA is actually a plus to me. We spend too much time coddling IP editors and adhering to a blocking policy that basically assumes that some how short little blocks are going to stop the vandalization when there's no evidence of such. Additionally, despite what people are claiming, at least 10 opposes were based on the user name. Finally, despite some claims, the editor is actually showing experience in several admin related fields : mediation, bot operation, both solo and coordinated article writing (and the negotiation and consensus building the latter involves), AN/I, patrolling, and the like. I firmly agree people should be able to oppose for whatever reason they like, but I'm afraid vague "bad feeligns" or suggestions of "ill-intentions" , or opposes based on a decisions by crats, doesn't really reflect on the editor's actual actions. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a point of order, the 'crats specifically declined to restart the RFA and the candidate closed it themself. –xeno (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. He's got the record and attitude to be a good administrator. The confusion over restarting the RfA should not cloud people's judgment over the basic issue. Vishnava talk 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Reasoning didn't change since last time. Please Note: FoxyLoxy solved the issue of the username...That shouldn't count AGAINST him. but, my original comment about ridiculous opposes still stands, they're just looking for reasons to say no now. Neuro√Logic 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No... It was Townlake's idea. In fact, every bureaucrat who commented declined to restart it, simply commenting that it would be up to the candidate. In fact, any candidate is free to close their RFA and start a new one at any time: this does not mean it is a good idea. –xeno (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. My suggestion was the 'crats consider restarting to eliminate the awkwardness of weighting !votes at the end, given the username change. The 'crats declined and said if the candidate wants to, it's their call. Townlake (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, sorry about that then. Still, he solved the problem that most people opposed for, and they're still not happy, just because they're looking for reasons to oppose. I'll change my comment, but my support, and original comment on his RfA about the problems with the RfA process stand. Neuro√Logic 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A close reading only shows a single person opposing based on the username alone. I'm sorry but you're completely misconstruing the situation. –xeno (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spare me xeno, I'm not going to entertain the idea that the opposes weren't almost completely blanketed about his username, now it's about the restart. RfA is supposed to be about trusting a user with the tools, not about nit picking every little thing just to find a reason to oppose, like so many seem to do. I'm hardly misconstruing anything. Neuro√Logic 10:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I'm not convinced by the opposing arguments. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. 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 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agree with Tan. naerii 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. You know what, Tan nailed it - is the candidate trustworthy? I think there's evidence to suggest that. I do think restarting the RfA was hinky, but not enough to oppose on those grounds. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Tan and question 4. iMatthew (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support will be a gain to wikipedia as an admin Ijanderson (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good answers, no obvious problems.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No serious concerns. I haven't seen anything brought up in the oppose section that I find particularly worrying.--KojiDude (C) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I opposed your prev. RFA, but just your responsibility and your handling of the chnage has got me convinced, you'll be great. —Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. For God's sake. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Last night I did a good dig through your contribs. I think you'll do fine, as the username controversy is over and I can't find any reason to oppose you. Best wishes. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Moral Support We can't let a good user like this one slip through our fingers. I see nothing wrong. Best of luck to you. Jock Boy 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, the user took the criticism in the first RfA to heart and made changes to deal with it. I see being able to take advice and criticism like this and acting positively upon it as a good thing. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  35. Support I am happy that my review of talkpage, contrib history and Count indicates no likely abuse of the mop - and I have noted the comments by the 'Crat on the candidates talkpage, so laying the restart at the feet of the candidate only is manifestly unfair IMO. Oh, and another candidate of whom I have had good experience at AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've trawled through your user pages, earliest contributions, the oppose section here and in the previous RFA, and weighing all the oppose reasons against your involvement in Talk:501st Combat Support Wing I'm very confident that you would make a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 11:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - While I can see why many users are unhappy about the re-start, I see no strong evidence of ill intent by the candidate, and I think this issue has been overblown. I am aware the opposition bring up concerns other than that of the re-start, but I have reviewed the users contributions and other things and I am satisfied that this user has the right attitude and enough experience to be an admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Moral Support : To not to demoralise a good Wikiepedian. Frankly I too really didn't like the restarting of the RfA, but I may support you during WP:RFA/Foxy Loxy 3 -- Tinu Cherian - 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support (Switched from oppose.) My concern about working in article space is still valid (IMO, of course). But, on reflection, I believe that this user won't misuse the tools. That's enough for me. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I really really dislike the "restarting" of the RFA episode, just because you did not like the (valid) reasoning behind a few opposes. Seems to me to show someone who wants to be an admin way to much and is willing to mess with the rules in order to achieve it. Now, regarding the username issue. It is good that you changed the username. However, the fact that you had such a fairly clearly inappropriate username for so long and only changed it two days ago (and only after it became an issue in an RFA), is a problem in and of itself indicating judgement and maturity issues. I am quite willing to forgive and forget such things, but not after just two days. Second, quite a few opposes in the previous version of this RFA raised issues unrelated to the username. For example, the answer to Q6 in that RFA is quite bad. You don't threaten an IP with a one year (!) block in the circumstances described (after a block of just 31 hours). Nsk92 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to make it clear that it was never my original idea to restart the RfA, although it was a good one, and that I only allowed it to restart as two crats and several users said it would be a good idea (also you can break the rules, due to WP:IAR). I did not changed my username for the sole reason to gain support votes, but xenocidic raised a good point that such a name could look like a smirk to people I might possibly block. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That maybe, and I absolutely do blame the crats in question for making such a poor decision and creating a really bad and messy precedent, but you should not have agreed to this anyway. It just looks bad and desperate. By the way, please paste the questions and the answers to the questions from the previous RFA to this one. Nsk92 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I'm finding comments on this rather baffling. Some seem to be suggesting that bureaucrats encouraged the restart - I can see no comment to that effect in the discussion and made none myself. The four of us who commented agreed that a restart in these circumstances was a matter for the candidate to consider, and that none of us felt we should intervene ourselves. I expressed the expectation that were there to be a restart, previous commentators would be notified of this. No precedent has been set here whatsoever - there has never been a requirement that a second RfA must be a certain length of time after the previous on closes, and commentators are expected to reach their own conclusions as to whether the amount of time passed has been sufficient (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt 2 for an example of a successful RfA that started the day after a previous one was closed as no consensus). WJBscribe (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion there was no compelling reason to allow a "restart" (which was a substantial departure from the standard procedures and which set a really bad precedent for the future), and the bureaucrats should not have permitted it and should not have given it to the candidate as an option. I disagree that "no precedent has been set". In the case of Matt Britt the original RfA was closed as "did not succeed". In fact, in every other case I know of, an RfA had been closed either as "successful request for adminship" or "a request for adminship that did not succeed". In this case, however, it was closed as neither of these but, rather, as a "restarted request for adminship" (apparently a new category). Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of requests are closed because the candidate withdraws, as happened with the previous RfA with this candidate. I do not see that bureaucrats can either (1) prevent a candidate for withdrawing or (2) announce an unprecedented requirement for time to pass between RfAs without any community consensus for this. WJBscribe (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that baffling when you consider that a statement at the top of this Rfa says "This RfA was restarted from this one due to this post on BN." Easily open to interpretation that a discussion on BN concluded that the Rfa should be restarted. I suggest changing the box to something that categorically states that the decision to restart the Rfa was the editor's own decision. (Note also the bolded incorrect statement by Neurologic in the support above.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then read the discussion... which anybody interested in the issue should... then you would note that a lot of people also encouraged NOT restarting as it wouldn't change the end result because only one oppose was based solely upon the user name.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The current name could too (but please don't go changing it!) Giggy (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per me last time around. Giggy (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. 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. 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.
    Above was copied from my opposal in the previous RFA. In addition to this, restarting an RFA halfway through - especially when it was 15/22/8 at the time - is a very poor show. I wonder if you would have opted to do the same if it was 40-0-0? fish&karate 10:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was 40-0-0 and no one objected to the username, there wouldn't be much cause to restart, would there? GlassCobra 10:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. fish&karate 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely what? You're not making any point. If no one objected to the username, there would have been no need to restart this RfA. GlassCobra 10:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there would be no anti-username votes, would there? Xclamation point 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry, but this whole do-over routine (not to mention switching names in the middle of the original aborted RfA) is too erratic for me. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on point, but note that we've had name changes during RfAs before - John Carter, formerly Warlordjohncarter, is one example - though that RfA passed 146/0/1. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This candidate is no John Carter -- the aborted RfA was closed at 15/22/8. This is strictly a do-over, which is unfair to the process -- should every failing RfA candidate get a do-over while the process is in motion? Restarting a failing RfA is bad form. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - there's a reason I highlighted the result of that RfA. The name change itself doesn't bother me, but the re-do is hinky, however well-intentioned. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention Budgiekiller The Rambling Man's RfA.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per reasons given in last RfA. — Realist2 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. weak Oppose - While I appreciate the softened stance to the hypothetical vandal (it's actually maybe too much of a reversal, even I asked the person to prove themself with a ((2nd chance)) template), this whole restart business is just too gamey for my tastes. There was really only one person opposing solely because of the username and I think that issue has been blown out of proportion. I would've preferred to see them come back in a month or so after addressing some of the other concerns and I would've been able to support. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Softened oppose per reasoning by Tan, Pedro. Ultimately Foxy seems well-intentioned. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I'd like to see the editor work on articles in article space rather than user space for a bit (details of my oppose in previous Rfa). --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose - Restarting an RfA? What, just because you don't like the opposes? How utterly ridiculous.  Asenine  14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at your username and then re-read what you just wrote. --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I originally voted neutral on the last RfA for lack of experience. But a second chance to gather more support? Hmm, no. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 15:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I simply can not believe that the RfA has been renamed and moved because of a username issue which extended simply to one oppose. ^.^ should have worked to address the concerns of the opposers, get a rename in that mean time; and whether or not this was somebody's (or some people's) idea, it demonstrates poor judgement in the fact that the candidate did not express a opposition to the idea of restarting an RfA when knowing of the rarity of such occasions and their relevant merits. I agree with many of the aspects and sentiments of fish&karate's oppose above. Caulde 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per all above and my rationale in the last RFA. Highly irregular. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Choosing to withdraw and then immediately resubmit an RfA, simply because of a few irrelevant oppose votes relating to a user name that I don't think was any kind of an issue, shows a lack of strength needed to deal with issues that may be difficult for an administrator to resolve. --Winger84 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I'm uncomfortable with the concept of a restarted RfA. I appreciate how it happened, but nonetheless, you probably should have waited a little longer before resubmitting. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per my last reasoning. I also disagree with restarting this RFA. You should have just waited a little while, and the reapllied. America69 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Too soon after previous (aborted) RfA. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Simply solving one issue raised in your previous RfA (your username) and then coming back with the expectation that everyone will be happy to support shows a lack of respect for the community and their previous decisions/thoughts. I personally feel that people can change, but I need to see some evidence of that before I would be happy to support and simply changing your username and starting over does not reflect the type of change I wanted to see. I do just want to say though, that I think changing your username was a good idea, and that it shows a commitment to try and better yourself, and becasue of that I hope to see you try again at a later time. Tiptoety talk 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose - per Tiptoety's comments. macy 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose If you can't handle oppose votes, I don't want to think about how you'll handle the heavy personal attacks that come with adminship. And per me on the other RfA. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per my opposes in the original RfA, minus of course any username issues. I also feel that this RfA should not have been restarted - kinda goes against the entire point of the process, in my opinion. Not a good decision (which I realise wasn't entirely made by the candidate, but they could have refused). Edit: Gotta agree with Tiptoety above - good comments. TalkIslander 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - as per my earlier neutral comment. I really didn't like the restarting of the RfA. This morning I was comfortable with just a neutral vote, but when I thought about it again tonight I really do feel that the decision to restart the RfA (not the idea, but the choice the candidate made to do so), was a bad call. Not considering repercussions and consequences of pulling off something like this before acting is a serious no-no for an admin. Also, tack on the previous RfA's comment regarding a lack of experience pursuaded me to change my vote. Look, nothing personal, I'm sure in time you'll make fine admin, but please, give it some time before your next RfA? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Sorry, but this has become a mess. You should withdraw, wait for three months and then try again. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I'm not at all comfortable with this "do over" business. The candidate should have simply told the person who opposed per his username that he'd changed his username so that user could review his/her comment. This just feels like a very gamey way to go and I can't support this RfA under the circumstances. Sarah 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I am in complete agreement with Philknight and Tiptoety. I cannot agree with Tan's rationale for support because it has downplayed the underlying issue - this is not a procedural matter, but rather, this is a matter of the candidate's immediate judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose You can't just tweak your name and reboot your RfA halfway through in the hope of changing the result. Wait awhile and try again. Nick mallory (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose After looking around, why did you restart this RfA so soon? Wait awhile then reapply. --Banime (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose Restarting this, even after seeing all the opposes previously smacks of a want for adminship moreso than I'd ever vote a support for. The name was only a minor issue, your major issues still sit unchanged. I find it almost insulting that you'd come back, with a different name, and expect a different result. bigjake (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm staying where I am with this one, per my original rationale and Tiptoety's point above. Garden. 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Oppose Per low edit count, less than one year of real on-wiki experience (the previous two years total less than 100 edits), and restart of RfA. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Slight oppose: Recently amped-up activity + mere lack of article contributions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I wasn't going to get involved in the RfA round 1 because the outcome was forordained... I probably wouldn't be here now, except for the fact that the outcome was obvious from the start, but Foxy chose to ignore the advice cited in Foxy's rationale to restart. In the BN discussion, I indicated that when the pertinent facts change or are no longer applicable to the rationale presented in an RfA, that I could see the case to restart... but I also explicitly told Foxy to wait as restarting would not have a material affect on the outcome of the RfA. This perception was echoed by several other respected editors. Yet, Foxy decided to restart... I don't think the discussion he cites shows a clear consensus to restart. Foxy's citing it shows serious concern about ability to guage consensus, AND independence. This is a case where because of Foxy's personal involvement, consensus to restart should have been blatantly obvious. It wasn't.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)EDIT: my recollection of the discussion was that there were more who opposed restarting... didn't realize that they were all from one other editor. Withdrawing my oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I think many of the support votes are misrepresenting the position of many of the opposes as merely being that of sticklers for procedure. The real issue however is that of the candidate's maturity and soundness of judgment. Additionally, edit history shows only a very recent upsurge of activity, with both less time and edits than I am comfortable with in an admin. Try back in a few months. Sorry. Ford MF (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose--LAAFansign review 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. I have stayed out of RFA until now, but this nomination is clearly inappropriate. Please try again later. Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. weak Oppose per User:Fish and karate. Inappropriate restart and not enough experience to build a solid judgement. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Per others' arguments here. swaq 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Sorry, but you need more experience, M.K. (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - I personally don't agree with restarting an RfA simply because of difference in reasoning behind a couple of oppose votes. I was neutral leaning support, but not, truthfully, I cannot say the same. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. See above. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I completely agree with Jamesontai. My concerns about his username no longer stand, but an overall lack of experience prevents me from supporting at this point. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral as the one who originally suggested this might be appropriate for a restart after the name-change. I was Oppose for reasons unrelated to the username in the first go-round... but as that was a repeated concern in the first RfA, after the change in circumstances the restart seems to me, at least, understandable. And since my Oppose was based on candidate's unwillingness to acknowledge consensus, and restarting this RfA seems evidence to the contrary, I'm comfortable hanging on the sidelines for this one. For anyone thinking candidate is gaming the system, all I'll say in response is it wasn't originally the candidate's idea. Townlake (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: the second RfA might not have been the candidate's idea, but changing their username mid-RfA in response to oppose votes certainly was. Ford MF (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral will probably do no damage with the tools and will learn quickly on the job but currently lacks experience Mjchesnel (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral – I think that restarting the vote is somewhat irregular. It is almost as if a candidate for public office asked everybody to vote again because he had just flip-flopped on an issue on Election Day; however, this is definitely mitigated by the fact that it was not originally your idea. (By the way, I like the old username better, but clearly I am in the minority in that regard.) Bwrs (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning slightly toward oppose. I surely can't complain about the experience issue without seeming like a hypocrite; however, this starting-over-the-RfA thing makes me uncomfortable. I think a better strategy would have been to withdraw, then wait--even a couple weeks or a month probably would have been sufficient--before trying again. I do like your answer to Q3, however. You clearly have good administrative/Wikipedian instincts--I just wish you hadn't been so anxious to try this RfA thing. Barring any wackiness, I'd support next time.Gladys J Cortez 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. More substantive mainspace edits would be helpful. As would waiting a few months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I don't want to pile on, but I would like to simply offer a couple of comments, and suggestions for the candidate. First of all, Foxy, I strongly urge you to go read this through completely. Now, I realize that is a very extreme example, but it illustrates some very valid and important points. You move stubs into your userspace, edit them up, and then copy and paste them into the article. I have big concerns with this for a number of reasons. First of all, the possible GFDL issue that was at the core of that problem (and I believe someone mentioned it to you in the previous RfA), but the biggest issue I have with doing this is that all of the edit history is lost when you do things this way. There are "in work" tags you can use that notify others you are actively working on an article, simply use those on the article, and remove them when you are done for the day. If the article you are building in your subpage does not exist, then definitely use the move tab, and physically move the page into Article space to maintain the history. But I really have strong issues with building an article from a stub to a GA in userspace, and then in one copy/paste edit drastically changing that article, when you may have done hundreds of edits in that userspace. Especially if you request deletion of that userspace page later, the entire edit history is gone then. Ariel♥Gold 08:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, a bit inconsistent/inexperienced. Moral support only. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category