Wikipedia:Editor review/Firefoxman

User:Firefoxman
I was wondering if I was an acceptable candidate to be an admin. I have been on the wikipedia for over 2 years and have been contributing in every way I can. The Fox Man of Fire 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I appreciate your enthusiam but you currently have virtually no chances of a successful RfA. You're a registered user since 2004 but until now you were a very scant contributor (several months with zero edits actually). October is by far your most fertile month and if you keep your current pace for a few more months then you could consider an RfA. Until then, there's a lot to improve. First: your edit summary usage is much below expectations, you must try to provide an edit summary for every single edit of yours. I see that this month you've been involved with countervandalism, which is commendable and it's currently the only thing in favor of your eventual adminship. However, you would have to be an exceptional vandal fighter in order to have your RfA approved just for countervandalism. You should have your admin-oriented tasks more balanced with participation in WP:XFD. Getting accustomed to the deletion policies is of extreme importance for an administrator (and that requires time and substantial involvement). If you cannot prove why you should need the admin tools, then your RfA will not be successful. Now, I see that you're a Wikignome. Which is good, but many users will prefer to see some article building. I suggest joining a WikiProject that interests you, or contributing to a Portal. Last but not least, I recommend that you don't attempt an RfA before you have at least 3,000 edits (at least 1,000 of which should belong to the article mainspace). I hope this was helpful. Happy editing! Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, Firefoxman. As you asked directly if you were suitable as administrator, so I will be sincere: no. You have barely above 1000 edits, sometimes considered the minimun requirement. However, you have contributed little in June, July, nothing in August, and then September and October. 27 article talk edits is pretty low, because editors are expected to have experience dealing with large groups of editors working in the same article. Also, reviewing some of your reverts, this edit is apparently a good faithed edit (if unreferenced), and does not justify a test4, especially since the user has not vandalized in 3 days. Here you did revert to a still "vandalized" version of the article, you should have reverted even further. Also, here you reverted a valid addition (even if some may consider it questionable as a reliable source), even warning him for that. You did two edits in Articles for deletion, and four reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism. These numbers unluckily are not enough to prove your experience regarding when and how to block, and when and how to delete articles. Also, the fact that you can't say "I am proud with what I did in _this_ article" could lead people that you would have problems knowing whether a new article can be speedied deleted or just lacks references and formatting. I am sorry, but if you try to request adminship right now, you are likely be turned down. So, I suggest editing some more articles, learning the different style guides, sharing time with other users in article talk pages while improving an article, and probably joining a WikiProject where you could work in articles you like. Good luck, and maybe in 6 or 7 months you would be prepared to assume adminship. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * No, I mostly fight vandalism and spellcheck
 * 1) 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?
 * No.
 * No.