Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fennec

Fennec
Fennec has been here for two months and made 635 edits. In that time, he has acted responsibly, contributing to the encyclopedia and the general dialogue surrounding its development. I think he would be a good sysop. Danny 00:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks. I'd... hmm, it seems standard practice is "be honored to accept", so I'll blatantly steal that phrase from below. - Fennec 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Timwi 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Danny 00:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Although he is relativly new to Wikipedia, I support. Good to work with. Ludraman | Talk  00:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Fennec's stats may not look impressive, but he is very active on the IRC channel, and has helped fight off vandalism and contributed to policy discussions on multiple occasions (notably helping to document the Bird/Brain affair) -- being consistently thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive and courteous. I was going to nominate him two couple weeks ago until I saw how new he was; but RfA votes should be based upon reputation and past actions; based on those criteriaFennec will make an excellent admin. -- Seth Ilys 00:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Definitely. ugen64 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Fennec is relatively new, but he has been very active in that time and appears to have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies. Angela. 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.  Nice to have you. Meelar 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I know him from other IRC channels too, and his Edit history looks good too. He won't wreak havoc for sure. --moeffju 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Again a good case for flexibility of guidelines. Unlikely to act any worse, no matter how long we wait. -- J-V Heiskanen 04:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Confident that he'd do well. Ambivalenthysteria 10:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Looks good to me. -- ChrisO 14:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) GrazingshipIV 16:47, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) It is a little early, but my opinion of them, and their behaviour, is unlikely to change. Maximus Rex 05:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Definite support!  --Merovingian &#8597; Talk 05:51, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Perl (he would make a great admin)
 * 17) Cecropia 18:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I respect (and initially was swayed by) those who feel 3 months or whatever should be a minimum, but I have to support Fennec based on his record because he seems to have the makings of a fine admin.
 * 18) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 02:14, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC) Will make an excellent admin.
 * 19) Maybe some young sysop blood will help everything Quinwound 05:58, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Sure, he's pretty new.. but I think he's both friendly and trustworthy. Hadal 20:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Changed vote to support after checking (solid) edit history. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 23:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Fennec pointed me to Wiki's that are much better than this crappy old one, so for that I'll vote for him/her/it/whatever. Richardchilton 02:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) *IRC chat sez:  Fennec, it's too bad you told me about these other cool wikis because you have derailed my guerilla campaign against Wikipedia
 * 24) ** Erm. I don't quite know what to say. Enjoy yourself. - Fennec 03:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) *** I do. Richard/Hanpuk/&c. has again openly declared his intent, but nothing will be done.  More pages will be protected, I will be personally attacked some more, and ideologues will leap to his defense.  Sigh. -- VV 06:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) I support him, Fennec's an effective syop, and i like him--Plato 03:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. &rarr;Raul654 14:53, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Hephaestos|&#167; 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) Amiable. Promising contributions. I'm starting to sound like a horoscope. Support! Chris Roy 21:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) Schopenhauer 16:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 32)  &mdash; mendel &#9742; 17:00, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) Too new. --Wik 00:55, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Too new. anthony
 * 3) At a later date, I will most probably support. It is just too soon, according to my personal gauge for this. Still too few edits. P.S. I love the birds. Kingturtle 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Too new, will support if nominated again in a month or so -- Graham :) | Talk 18:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Too new. Do we urgently need new admins? Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Changing my vote to Oppose. His insertion of an unfunny "April Fool's Joke" on this page today demonstrates to me that he doesn't have particularly good judgment. Moncrief 22:57, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *Give him a chance - his second try at a joke was much better. --Michael Snow 17:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) What's the hurry, is there a shortage of admins?  Why not wait 4 more weeks and nominate then. Mdchachi 15:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) Argh, once again I am hesitant. I had just looked at Fennec, thought "Hmmm, only 2 months here....I'll nominate in 3-4 weeks".  2 months is well below the guideline most of the community supports....I'll have to think about this, and am neutral in the meantime. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the fox, but a bit too early. Dori | Talk 01:15, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * Too new I think. I'll probably support later. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Texture 18:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)