Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fire Star

Fire Star
Vote here (19/0/1) ending 04:03 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fire Star is conscientious and skillful, contributing to articles on Asian culture & other topics. Reserved & polite in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 1500 edits since February 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch
 * More like 2850 edits, plus over 175 as an anon. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone, and please know that I accept the nomination (and this time in the correct place!) Fire Star 01:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ProjeX 04:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * Sockpuppet, this was their 5th contrib. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#8475; yan! |  Talk  05:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ffirehorse 05:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Seems to discuss and compromise very well.
 * 7) [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 13:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Very strong support. Extremely likeable, easy to interact with, articulate editor. Supremely amiable, even regarding differences of opinion on the very most controvercial of subjects. Sam [Spade] 18:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I get the impression of friendliness and collaboration.. good traits for an admin. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Sure.   – Andre ( talk )  14:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Sí. --Slowking Man 22:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Flame on! +sj +  08:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I found his interference in the dispute between Sam Spade and me balanced. Andries 08:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Yep --Jiang 08:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes - I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'll vote in favor of Fire Star - ( AWilliamson - Allen Williamson, historian, Joan of Arc Archive ) 18:33, 10 Oct 2004
 * 18) * User has 23 edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 19) Absolutely. We need more friendly admins. &bull; Benc &bull; 10:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 11:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Sure. JFW |  T@lk  16:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * 1) Well, I haven't looked at him enough, but I've become irked by the amount of double articles he has created (We do not need two of the same kind of article for each romanization system), but other than that, I have no opinion on him. WhisperToMe 03:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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 would likely work extensively on the votes for deletion and the votes for undeletion pages. I don't consider myself a deletionist, yet given what we have to work with there it often seems that way. I have an interest in the arbitration process, and (hopefully) a sense of what is fair (for example, I would be willing to recuse myself if it was a person I had worked with or concerned a subject I had actually worked on, etc.). I also enjoy welcoming new editors to Wikipedia.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. The entire cycle of T'ai Chi Ch'uan articles, which are works in progress, of course. Teaching T'ai Chi is what I do for a living, I work for a famous T'ai Chi family currently from Hong Kong who have been in the business for 150 years, so I get a lot of reliable info from them. It is a growing hobby for many, esp. in the West, and people will come to Wikipedia looking for good information on the subject and how it is tradtitionally taught before they shell out their hard earned beans. Chinese martial arts have a long history of strict NPOV in their public statements, of all things (it cuts down on fights between schools), that I have been rigorously trained in, so Wikipedia's emphasis on it in many ways seems natural to me.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I had a very few when I was newer here. Eventually, if I felt the other editor was intractable, I just walked away for a while. This is only a hobby, after all. As an admin, that won't be as viable an option of course, but I deal with the public quite a bit in the "real world," so that should help. As an example of how I approach conflict people may look up my one request for arbitration over the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article (which ended up being protected for a while) and how I handled it.

Comments

Wow, I have my own sockpuppet! I wonder what that means? Anyway, thanks everyone for your consideration, I accept the nomination. Fire Star 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's basically a user account created for the purposes of voting or disruption. Take a read of Sock puppet. They aren't counted in the final tally of votes. -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Netoholic. I'm familiar with the term from the VfD pages, but it is mysterious to me that one would show up here... Fire Star 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any any conclusive evidence that ProjeX is a "sockpuppet." The account was started 4 Oct., while this vote started 5 Oct. I'm finding that the terms "sock puppet" and "troll" are being thrown around in increasingly inaccurate ways around here. ProjeX might just be a new user who's been editing as an anon for a while. I'm not suggesting that his vote should be counted, but I am suggesting that we should be careful about calling people names. func(talk) 02:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Quoted from Sock puppet - "When in doubt, follow the 100-edit rule." That account has far fewer edits to their name.  The note on the talk page (mentioned by Fire Star) from June probably indicates that the previous contributions were deleted for some reason.  In any case, this account won't likely be counted in the tally by the bureaucrat that promotes Fire Star.  This is not meant as an insult, just to flag that vote as probably invalid because "Sock puppets (are) forbidden from voting".  I would like to know what previous content has been posted by that account, in an attempt to perhaps discover who it is.  -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

There is a note on ProjeX's talk page from 13 June asking ProjeX to stop doing something or other, so he or she may have been editing that long ago, but there isn't any record of such activity on the "User contributions" history for that account. Curious... Fire Star 02:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)