Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug


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

Firebug
Final (17/12/2) ended 06:06 10 December 2005 (UTC)

— I have been a Wikipedia editor since late March 2005. During that time, I have worked extensively in RC patrol and VFD/AFD, in addition to adding contributions to numerous articles. My recent experience in RC patrol and vandalism fighting has brought me to the conclusion that I need the keys to the broom closet at this point. It sometimes takes hours for obvious nonsense articles to be deleted after being tagged, and vandals often continue to vandalize (after warning) for some time before the overworked admins are able to read WP:VIP and block them. Should I receive adminship, I intend to continue article contributions, RC patrol, and vandalism fighting, and to only use administrative powers in those cases where community consensus is clear. Firebug 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Obviously. Firebug 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it's a coincidence that about five people came in to vote against me right after Jimbo protected Alan Dershowitz with the admin-only editing proviso. This is exactly the kind of politicization of the admin role I was talking about when I said that was a horrible idea. Firebug 22:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. I note about 1295 edits, fairly well distributed (nice work on templates, and in AfD). Yep, this'un is ready. BD2412  T 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree. Support. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)  Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  06:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Need more admins. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-3 19:01
 * 6) Support. Excellent job on spotting and reporting rv's and POV's. Aucaman 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I like his edits.--YHoshua 21:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The more vandal-fighters and banners, the merrier. Matt Yeager 01:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. We need more vandal fighters - not everyone needs to focus primarily on writing articles. Brisvegas 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Excellent mix of Wikipedia-namespace and article-namespace contributions. Great mission statement. Crotalus horridus 15:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Long time, no see! Good luck Firebug. -- Svest 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 13) Support. Being an expert on fair use is not a requirement for adminship, being prepared to discuss with others is a requirement and Firebug has indicated he is willing to do this. I see no reason to oppose based on this, and I've not had any problems in my interactions with him meanign that I am happy to support. Thryduulf 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14)  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  15:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Izehar (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, good vandal fighter. the wub "?!"  19:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, with regret. While User:Firebug seems to be an excellent vandal-fighter, I am concerned about this editor's stance on Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg.  User:Firebug, after User:Extraordinary Machine tagged the image as lacking proper copyright information, made this edit, which pasted a number of images to User talk:Extraordinary Machine (accidentally, User:Firebug fixed it quickly), with an argument that seemed to be "Other people have failed to follow Fair use, so there is consensus to not do so".  The lack of familiarity with wiki-markup, and lack of familiarity with Fair use are of less concern to me than the fact that the user's response was to attempt to argue that other problematic cases meant that Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg must also be okay, rather than immediately researching the issue and attempting to minimize any risk of copyright infringement.  That attitude concerns me.  Jkelly 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have had this image deleted in accordance with community consensus, since several other editors stated that they felt it was unnecessary for the article. I do respect the need to follow copyrights, but I do not believe that User:Extraordinary Machine is correct when he states that every fair use image needs a specially written paragraph describing in detail why this particular use qualifies. I pointed out that this is not, in fact, Wikipedia practice, and gave as examples several fair use screenshots that were prominently placed on high-traffic, important articles. My position is that the various templates (e.g. describe most of the criteria for fair use, and that extensive essays on each individual image are not needed. We would literally have to delete 90% or more of the fair use images on Wikipedia if Extraordinary Machine's position were taken seriously. I am left to wonder if this was really a content dispute in the guise of a copyright issue, because my screenshots from Knight Rider have aroused no such controversy. (They are all included in articles and contain a sentence-length explanation of where they came from and why they are needed, as well as the appropriate template.) I'll be happy to discuss this issue further on my Talk page or on any forum where these policies are discussed. Firebug 20:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Extensive essays, no. But Wikipedia is vulnerable to serious trouble in the area of copyright and we must become better about our claims of fair use.  In general, citing precedent is fine.  But in this particular area I think it doesn't work.  Chick Bowen 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Writing detailed rationales is part of Wikipedia practise: Image description page. That some, indeed many images do not have such rationales does not excuse the writing of them elsewhere. -Splash talk 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per JKelly. In the final analysis, I actually think Firebug was probably right about the fair use claim (which stems from the content's fame as widely-discussed news item, and doesn't require attribution to the holder if attribution to the disseminating news service is given.  However, I think Firebug's argument was less than thoughtful; that, in combination with the low edit count, tips the balance to a "better-safe-than-sorry" vote.  I will happily support in a few months, and I'm sure Firebug will be much more deliberate with copyrights after this issue. Xoloz 06:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Firebug to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs. Blank Verse 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, worried about depth of knowledge. Fair use is fairly obscure in terms of what I'd like an admin to know, but I'd want them not to make statements that are incorrect (such as rationales not being Wiki practises) because it belies not having read up properly before pronouncing. -Splash talk 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't need more admins. Most vandalism that goes uncaught would not have been caught if everyone on Earth had access to rollback. Most clear vandals are blocked immediately, and thanks to tag and bag, we don't need many admins for tackling speedy deletes. The AfD backlog is small, and it never hurt Wikipedia to have an article deleted a day too late or have its AfD template removed a day too late. 202.58.85.8 07:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 08:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. Too few edits.Gateman1997 20:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I can't support someone who a deletes a benign and self-evidently true statement like this by calling it "original research": An adminstrator should know better. RJII 07:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per Cite sources: "if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information". (Emphasis in original.) Saying that "there is a possibility that a private alternatives to the USPS monopoly on normal letter delivery could be profitable and net tax contributors" requires a source, or else it must be removed under WP:V. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with the use of administrative powers. This was a content dispute where the use of such powers would be clearly inappropriate. Firebug 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Stating something so something so trivial does not constitute "original research." There are plenty of other benign and trivial statements in the article but you chose that one to delete. This shows POV pushing on your part by choosing to interpret Wikipedia's "original research" policy to an absurd extreme. And, that has everything to do with being an admin. RJII 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry. JKelly and others raise some good points. Just try to keep up editing and make sure you always use edit summaries, and I will support you in the future. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - He chose to edit war on the wrong side of the meta-template problem, and was extremely rude to me in the process. I have no doubt that he wants adminship just so he can wield a bigger stick. Also, he called this vandalism... -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to be too critical, but don't you think that something that happened so long ago should have been forgiven and forgotten by now? Just seems a little odd to base your vote on something that happened like 7 months ago. Oh well, I guess it is your perogative. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it may have been a while ago, but this user took a long break after July, returning only on Nov. 23 -- a scant 10 days before posting this request for adminship. His recent article contributions are mosrtly courtesy RC patrol (to get votes here).  His earlier contribs usually center around controversial articles and POV disputes. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Was just wondering, is all. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My views on the meta-template issue are well-known, so there is no point in rehashing them here. I think the best response is that from the Arbitration Committee: "On Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful (now called Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates), Netoholic was arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not. His dismissiveness of concerns even when told directly he was running roughshod over others, his apparent assumption of bad faith, and his use of revert wars to insist on it being described as a guideline (when it became clear it would not become policy) are all examples of interactions that contributed to this problem." It bothers me a great deal when someone attempts to ride roughshod over consensus, whether using edit warring or admin powers. I assure you that I have no intention of using admin powers as a "bigger stick"; this would be an example of the type of behavior I have opposed since joining Wikipedia. As for Xiong's user page, it is generally not considered acceptable to blank another user's page, and I do not feel that warning Netoholic to avoid this conflict was inappropriate. Firebug 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like how you said you didn't want to re-hash, but then spent over 100 words doing just that. And, um, I didn't blank his user page - I replaced a template that wasn't supposed to be used on a user page.  I'm not sure which more clearly shows that you aren't ready to be an admin -- your attitude or your lack of attention to detail.  -- Netoholic @ 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * CAREFUL... WP:NPA is close. Let's just tone it down a little bit. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. No evidence to show that he has reformed from his earlier, rub-you-the-wrong-way ways. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - seems to be too POV. Rangerdude 03:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - A number of encounters with this user have made me uneasy. Also, his very first edit shows prior knowledge of Wikipedia, and I'm concerned about the several-months-long gap until November 23, but then asking for adminship within nine days of returning. SlimVirgin (talk)  11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, as per SlimVirgin, and all of the fair use talk.  --  user:zanimum

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, low edit count, so eh. Quentin   Pier  c  e  21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, See a bunch of template issues you've gone through on your talk page (Thank you for not blanking them!) but don't see that you've ever used template talk pages re: your templates. xaosflux T/C 00:16, 6 December 2005 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. As stated above, I intend to use administrative powers largely for RC patrol, such as deleting articles that clearly meet the stated criteria for speedy deletion, and blocking persistent vandals. I will also assist in closing AFD nominations as and when needed.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm especially pleased with the contributions I have made on Nintendo Entertainment System and its related articles. I have strong technical knowledge of the NES hardware, and I was able to add important information such as the section on hardware failures (the infamous blinking red light) and what causes them. In general, my contributions are eclectic, covering a very wide variety of interests, from politics to pinball. While I can't point to one specific article as my masterwork, I have performed small, incremental improvements in many of them.


 * 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. Like most other Wikipedians, I have had occasional content disputes, both with good-faith users and with POV pushers. In most cases, discussing the issue allows a sensible compromise to be reached. In extreme cases, I will seek community consensus via methods such as an RFC. There were two cases in which I and several other users had to take individuals to arbitration for persistent violation of NPOV and personal attacks. This is a very unusual occurrence, and I would not wish to act unilaterally in such cases.


 * 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.