Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) at 08:59, 11 April 2009 (→Support: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:59, 11 April 2009 by PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) (→Support: +1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Foxy Loxy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (35/7/0); scheduled to end 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I would say, currently, my best article contribution to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 and posted a welcome template and a self-worded comment explaining the Misplaced Pages system of sourcing and reliable sources and asking the user to please provide a source for the change. 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 and was reverted again. I then posted another message regarding this reversion, reiterating my original request and asking the IP to stop. The IP then reverted me again and, getting wary of the 3RR, I decided that instead of reverting the IP again, I would warn them about 3RR 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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages?
A: Simply, there is none. Misplaced Pages editors are like a puzzle, all the different types of editors fit together to form the whole picture that is Misplaced Pages. 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:
9. Related to the next question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Misplaced Pages username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publically 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 " about any subject on Misplaced Pages (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:
  • 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 Misplaced Pages, it is discovered the user is evading previously placed blocks/using sockpuppets or to note previous blocks placed after a user invokes the RTV.
  • 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).
  • A: The page must most definately and strictly meet one of the speedy deletion criteria. If in doubt or not an exact match, PROD or XfD is the better venue.
  • A: IAR should be used in situations when the exact wording of a rule is being used by someone to condradict 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:
  • 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:
  • 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/verifibility concerns, with a BLP, not being entirely sure of the reliability/existance 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/verifibility, 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:
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.


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


General comments

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

~ ωαdεstεr16«talk 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
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 /C 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    He, just for the record :). Foxy Loxy 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 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 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' 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 |  13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks great. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  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 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 / ) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages: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 / ) 18:20, 10 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 S t a f f w a t e r b o y {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}} 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 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 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
  33. Support - Oppose section is unconvincing. — R 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)
Oppose
  1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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 19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Are you opposing the candidate because he voted in the opposite way to you in another RFA? Lankiveil 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 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 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 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)
  6. 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)
  7. Oppose I see very little article work, and zero contributions to policy discussions. DGG (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Very little article work? Check out BootX and Xgrid. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    It's not often that I disagree with you, DGG, but I do contest the statement that this candidate has "very little article work." As noted above, he has 2 GAs to his credit (more than I did when I went through RfA), one on the brink of FA as well. He has a fairly large mainspace count, though it should be noted that Foxy does most of his article work in his userspace. Hopefully this will cause you to reconsider at least that part of your oppose. GlassCobra 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral