Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chanting Fox (2nd)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chanting Fox

final (5/11/3) ending 02:30 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since my first self-nomination attempt. Thanks to Func for helping me set this up; I had a little problem where I ended up resurrecting the old self-nomination and I then tried to move it to my talkpage by using the URL for my talkpage. To make a long story short, I don't think I'll be doing any page moves anytime soon. I've learned and done quite a bit since my first attempt, and I'm wondering if it's enough to become an administrator. I'd like to ask a favor of you all: if I don't become an administrator, please unlock my userpage. It was protected a few months ago due to vandalism, and I'd like to edit it again.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I wonder if this is even neeeded for a self-nomination, but of course I accept. --Chanting Fox 5 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

• I can see where this is going. To those who have voted to support my self-nomination, I thank you. To those who have voted otherwise, I also thank you. I don't think there is any point in continuing this process at this time. I herebe withdraw my self-nomination. See you again in an month or two! --Chanting Fox 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Edit count (from Kate's tools): [1]

Support

1. Support. Lot of help with vandals. You may sometimes put {{testX}} on their Talk pages to establish track for the future. Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
2. Support. Pretty much what Pavel said. I've been doing some RC patrol lately (well, within the last month) and CF has been fixing stuff before I can get to it on several occasions. Give the man his mop :)—chris.lawson (talk) 4 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
3. Support. Taking a little time off from my Wikibreak to support an excellent vandal hunter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 4 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
4. Support. An exceptionally great newcomer when he just went here and started quality vandalism reverts. He'll make a great admin here on Wikipedia. A rollback feature may give him some more convenience! — Stevey7788 (talk) 6 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
5. Support. He may only have about 1800 edits but they were quality edits. We really should judge people based on their edits, not the number. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. He reverts and calls edits vandalism too quickly without thiking and without even bother to reply to queries about his revert left on his talkpage. He reverted a NPOV edit on a temporary article page calling it vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mel_Etitis/JTF&diff=18109860&oldid=18109796) 168.209.98.35 4 July 2005 04:44 (UTC) Fishpaste 4 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
   • As an anon. IP, your vote is invalid. That is stated on top of the RFA page, and would apply to any RFA you attempt to cast a vote on. I also think I was justified in calling your edit vandalism from what I'd seen when comparing the previous version to your version. However, the latter is just my opinion, and other users must judge for themselves. However, you are entitled to your opinion and your input on this matter. Your vote doesn't count, that's the unfortunate fact. --Chanting Fox 4 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

   There, I have now logged in, just for you! And the fact that you still consider a NPOV edit to be vandalism only further demonstrates you are unfit for adminship since you do not know the difference between vandalism and (N)POV editing. The article you claimed was "vandalized" was a temporary page we were working on to replace the existing, protected, page. Had you answered my query left on your talk page and spotted your mistake it would have been acceptable. But you refuse to admit your mistakes. You are good at spotting obvious vandalism, but that's it. (all admins, please visit that above link for his revert which he still claims is vandalism) Fishpaste 4 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

   • That's a different matter. The only objection I had to your vote was that you weren't logged in, and as such your vote was invalid per the RFA rules. Having logged in, your vote is now valid. As for your remarks on my talkpage about not having reverted your edits again, understand this: I ASSUMED it was a case of vandalism as it appeared to me to be such. The reason why I have not reverted it again is that I have no desire to get into an edit/revert war over something that I could be wrong about. I've made mistakes in the past when it comes to thing like this... my talkpage holds a reminder to me from the very beginning of my time on Wikipedia of one such incident, which was far more severe than this one. You should also realize that even if I were to become an admin, something like this wouldn't get you blocked. It takes either a previous history of vandalism or complete disregard of repeated warnings for a user to be blocked. I have no intention of being a "trigger-happy" admin. However, I would like to point out that your comment on my talkpage is a bad idea in general. Other users could be provoked by such a message, and things could get out of hand. That's not going to happen here though... like I said, I don't see the point in wasting time and energy on revert/edit wars with other users. --Chanting Fox 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You're not ready for adminship, as you've only been here for just under three out of nine months. Denelson83 4 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'm not much for editcountitis but you're below the four-digit mark. Also, don't bite the newbies. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:44 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I disagree that you haven't been here long enough, but some of your actions have shown an unfortunate lack of grace and tact. Give it a month or two and I may change my vote. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Below 1,000 edits on articles (at the time of nomination) and hasn't edited for enough of his time here. Also didn't sign his nomination which isn't impressive. Hedley 4 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Not enough experience and has made a few poor judgement calls. -- JamesTeterenko 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Not well-rounded: only reverts vandalism. Doesn't seem to understand the wikipedia interface or protocols, judging by his self-nomination "speech". Seems to have good intentions, but not yet trustworthy... -- Rmrfstar 5 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Needs more time here. 1,000 edits isn't enough. --Woohookitty 5 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Please come back later. PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:31 (UTC)
10. Oppose. for now. Bit too green. ~~~~ 01:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
11. Sorry to have missed my chance to oppose him. Could someone alert me if he renominates himself any time soon? Chanting Fox, try doing more work on articles and read the article on assuming good faith. Make it your credo and I'd change my vote. Grace Note 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Chanting Fox will make a wonderful administrator/vandal fighter, but he still seems a little new and unsure of procedures. In a few months, not only will I probably support, I'll be happy to nominate. I'd recommend reading over all the "how to do stuff" pages during that time, in addition to improving articles and keeping vandals quivering in fear. Joyous (talk) July 5, 2005 00:30 (UTC)
2. Good at fighting vandals. In RC patrol he often gets to things before I do, and it takes dedication to do RC patrol without the luxury of rollback. On the other hand the objections I see seem reasonable. Everyking 6 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
3. Probably will make a good admin someday, but needs more experience in general. A wider variety of contributions will also help. JYolkowski // talk 8 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I've been fighting vandalism since the beginning of my time here at Wikipedia, and I've started doing some minor spelling and grammar edits as well. I've also added quite a few shared IP notices to talkpages of anon. IP addresses which I traced due to vandalism on their part. It's a pain dealing with those types of vandals, but it's even more of a pain for admins when they get e-mailed by other users complaining about a shared IP being blocked because the blocking admin didn't know the IP was shared.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. After reading edits by several users about how annoying vandalism from school IP addresses were, I came up with an idea to help deal with the worst offenders. It was pretty rough, and it never really got off the ground, but the consensus by the users who commented on it was that it sounded like a good idea. I'd like to try and revive that idea. As stated above, I've also added quite a few shared IP templates to talkpages of IP addresses that were used for vandalism when WHOIS revealed that they were shared by an unknown number of users. It's not exactly an article, but it prevents headaches when it comes to blocking the vandals.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Not too much to say here. I've had a few incidents in the past where I thought I was dealing with vandalism when it was actually something else. The biggest incident was back at the very beginning; you can look at my talkpage to see what I mean by that. However, I have a simple method for preventing major conflicts of this sort: when it comes to POV edits, I'll generally revert once and then stay out of it. I don't have any edit wars in my past; it's just not worth the stress and time.