Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxearth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Foxearth

Final (8/30/3) ended 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Foxearth (talk · contribs) – This user always knows which facts to put in the correct category (e.g Harry Potter page, putting the correct filming rumors under the correct categories). This user reverts vandlized pages every time he sees them. This user consults with other users on the discussion page before making a change to the page he/she is on. ForestH2 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: * Yes I accept this nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxearth (talk • contribs)

Support

  1. Strong Support ForestH2
  2. Moral Support and suggest withdrawl. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support - suggest withdrawl -- Tawker 18:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Moral support, suggest withdrawal. Become more active in project space and try again in a few months. --Rory096 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Moral Support - time to withdraw —Mets501talk 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Moral Support Seems like a good editor. But way too soon. Withdraw now and try later. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support Joseph Solis in Australia
  8. Moral Support I suggest you withdraw and apply again in about 3 months. Don't feel discouraged! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sorry, less than 500 edits with none in project space. Have suggested to user that withdrawal might be appropiate. (and noted that admin tools aren't required for the chores he's interested in) Regards, MartinRe 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This user needs a great deal more experience before an RFA, in my opinion. I also suggest withdrawing and coming back later. Kukini 16:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose No moral support here, sorry. For starters, this RFA hasn't even been formatted properly; that isn't a biggy, but you could at least accept under the specified area (note: I moved it for you.) Also, your number of contributions is a bit fluffy, but that doesn't say they aren't quality; they're very much so, just I'm not seeing too much quantity. Finally, your question answers do not state exactly why you need administrative powers (other than saying you'd "help" with vandalism, but you haven't done much of that) and how said powers would help you accomplish your current duties. Again, no offence, but I recommend withdrawal and trying again in a bit when you have more experience under your belt. _-M o P-_ 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It seems unclear to me whether this nomination has been formally accepted, since Foxearth has failed to accept at the top of the page (and I have left a message to that effect on his talk page). However, since the questions have been answered, and the nomination re-added to the RfA main page, I will add my opposition of a user who I feel remains inexperienced, with insufficient edits, not enough use of edit summaries, and no edits to the Wikipedia namespace. That said, Foxearth has clearly made plenty of valuable contributions to Wikipedia articles, and I hope he will continue to do so. Per MartinRe above, admin tools are not required for creating new pages, and expanding existing ones, and I would urge Foxearth to continue to do so. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment In fairness to FoxEarth, he did initally add his acceptance at the top of the page (not 100% correct or signed, but first under support) which was subsequently moved down by other editors. Also think this should have been up to the user to re-add to main page once the incorrect formatting was pointed out, as only nominees are supposed to link to their Rfa. MartinRe 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Ah, I didn't realise that. I would agree that this should have been down to Foxearth to re-link from the main page, and initially held of voting for that reason. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I re-inserted his request here, as he had accepted the nomination before it was included here (alas, in the wrong place). I admit I should have left him do that, but I saw no point in waiting as the result seemly pretty obvious for me (at least for me). My assumption was that this would be a better learning experience than spending time trying to guess why his application was deleted from the list and what did "bad formatted" meant. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose per all above, also hasn't properly signed his acceptance, and it's in the wrong place anyway.Gary Kirk (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose per all above. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, I agree with UkPaolo, this user has valuable contributions, especially to areas of Harry Potter interest. However, I don't think this user needs admin tools to achieve goals -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose, no projectspace experience and less than 500 edits. Doesn't need admin tools to do what he does. Edit summary usage for Foxearth: 5% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace. That is quite a turn off. Frankly, I feel this was a bad faith nomination. Royboycrashfan 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Not bad faith, just inexperience, I believe. Nominator account created less than three weeks ago with no project space edits either. Be gentle! MartinRe 17:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: I can't see under what grounds you consider the nomination to be in bad faith. Foxearth and his nominator ForestH2 may have both been naive and lacking experience of the RfA process, but I think it would be unfair to call this inherently bad faith. In many ways it was nice that ForestH2 wanted to recognise the contributions of another editor. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I just feel he's completely unqualified. Royboycrashfan 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose and also suggest withdrawal. Nothing in the user's answers indicates the need for a mop—yet. Edits and distribution thereof are good, but not indicative of much experience—yet. User may make a great admin someday, but is not there—yet. Hope to see this user not get discouraged, and come back in several months. RadioKirk talk to me 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose lack of experience Pete.Hurd 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. I concur in opposing at this time. Certainly not a bad-faith nomination, though. DS 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose No participation in anything such as AFD, RFA, CFD, MFD or reversion of vandalism. --Knucmo2 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Inexperienced and too little use of edit summaries. Withdrawing is in your best interests. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Needs more experience, being an admin is just mroe work, there is plenty to do without it. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. You need a fair bit more experience, especially in process. Try to get say 2000 edits (with some in wikipedia namespace) and come back in 6 months if you wish. DarthVader 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose edit count. didnt sign acceptance. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - please spend more time with Wikipedia, and use edit summaries and have a substantial amount of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks, AndyZ t 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong oppose, without prejudice or intention of piling on. Good points have been raised. I don't think as of yet it's safe to hand you the buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 01:17 UTC (2006-05-3)
  19. Weak Oppose, almost gave a moral support, but the above ballots have shown me that you may have to work a little harder. I vow to support you on your next RfA, however. Funnybunny (talk/This Wiki needs your help!) 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Strongly. Sorry, but you simply have too little experience to be an admin. Not even 500 edits yet?Omni ND 11:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per above comments. Needs more experience. -- backburner001 13:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose for too few edits and too little experience.--Jusjih 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, lacks experience, try again in November. --Terence Ong 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I feel bad doing it, because you're obviously a good user, but not enough to be an admin. This reminds me of my RfA. All I can say is, try again later. Jared W 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose not enough edits in the talk/user talk namespaces. Admins need to be able to communicate with other users. Try again in a few months. - Pureblade | Θ 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Now, I don't suffer from editcountitis, but you are very green. Keep plugging, and I should be able to support you later.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - Doesn't pass my personal requirements for adminship. --Dragon's Blood 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Weak oppose, I usually don't care about editcounts but even I must admit that you should get more experience. But your edits are very good and if you continue on the same track and start using edit summaries I will definately support in a few months. --Bjarki 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Normally I emphasize quality over guantity, but less than 500 edits is really stretching things. I'd want to see a little community participation as well (such as at Articles for deletion.) Grandmasterka 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. More experience needed in other namespaces besides (main). Also, it would be advisable to use more edit summaries, especially for major edits (in which only 5% are present so far for major).—G.He 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Way too early, needs more experience. Nominate again in perhaps like, after 6 months? - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Foxearth's contributions look good, but needs significantly more experience (in article namespace and WP) before considering adminship. -- MarcoTolo 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Can't oppose, you're making great edits, but I think it's way to soon --Primate#101 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Edit count as of 15:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC):

Total edits 318
Distinct pages edited 125
Average edits/page 2.544
First edit 06:37, 13 December 2005

(main) 273
Talk 12
User 9
User talk 6
Image 3
Template 8
Category 4
Wikipedia 3


Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would be more than happy to participate in any of the pages with inaccuracies. Wikipedia is a fantastic site, and I am proud to be a part of it, to help maintain it's safety from vandalism, to create new pages that have been overlooked and to expand upon the site in my own individual way.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) page, which I feel I have helped expand. I created subsections within the confirmed cast, added relevant citations, a New Cast section, confirmed scenes, and filming locations to say the least.
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: I try to overlook any kind of unneccessary insulting, I have no problem with registered users in the slightest, however the IP unregistered users get on my nerves, despite many vain attempts to persuade them to join the community of Wikipedia, they are adament on vandalism (well most of them) whoch causes frustration, however, I try to maintain a level head as often as possible.


The above 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.