Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 2


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

Firefoxman
Final: (2/13/1); Ended 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

- I have been "actively" working on the Wikipedia since 2006/06 (see my advanced statistics and have a good feel for the policy of the Wikipedia. I contribute regularly to AfDs, and always try to help out new users. I do a lot of new page patrolling and I believe that I have pretty good judgment. Previously, I self nominated for RfA, but then, I was a clueless newbie who only had 60 edits. I believe I could benefit from becoming one now. ffm yes? 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, of course! ffm yes? 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. ffm  yes? 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I hope to be able to help with the XfDs (AfD especially) and Requested Moves. WikiProject on open proxies looks good, I know a lot of work I could do there. I am a deletionist, but will try to lean toward Inclusionism on Speedy deletes. I personally disagree with WP:IAR and think it is the polices of the wikipedia that give it its structure


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have done some work on Web desktop, but most of my other edits are tagging articles or correcting errors.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: In January, User:Geo Swan was annoyed that I had placed a on an article he created, he complained that I had put it on too early and had removed it . I decided that I would not peruse it to AfD, and he pretty much went away.

Questions by bibliomaniac15:
 * 1. May you please explicate further on why you dislike WP:IAR?
 * A. I think that, although all changes are undoable, we have policy for a reason. It should be taken seriously, not just ignored whenever we feel like it. In some extreme cases, when following the rules would be totally absurd/inconvient, then, a change to the rules should be proposed, otherwise anyone could do anything and justify it by saying "Hey, I was just following policy; I was just ignoring all rules".


 * 2. Would deletionism or inclusionism be better in cases of pages marked with speedy deletion tags, and explain.
 * A. With pages with speedy deletion tags, we should always include pages that will meet the  notability guidelines, even if it would be a bit of a stretch. If it is a close call, I would take it to the community so that a decision could be reviewed by more people. So, inclusionism would be the best philosophy when dealing with speedys.

4. Question by  Captain  panda   Mussolini   ha sempre   tarche  02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you nominate yourself?


 * General comments


 * See Firefoxman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Previous RfA - December 2005, withdrawn by candidate. A Train take the 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Weak support Tagging your old RFA for a speedy  worries me a little.  If this RFA is successful, please read WP:CSD to see what things can be deleted before using the delete button.  But you are obviously a trusted user and your work reverting vandalism does a great service to Wikipedia.  So I support. --BigDT 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I see this user around frequently and he looks like a good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
 * 1) Oppose — I'm sorry but I'm not actually seeing any contributions to the well.. you know.. encyclopaedia? I always find it hard to trust a potential user for sysop if they identify as a "deletionist" or "inclusionist". Your answers are also extremely short and vague and you don't use edit summaries everywhere! Short answer: could I trust you with the buttons? no. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Half of this user's edits are to the mainspace. Good grief. --BigDT 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they actually building up an article though? He's made 7 edits to his most edited article. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BigDT: : "Revert, revert, more revert, more revert, (still no contributions), revert, [...] (we've reached #50!)" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How silly of me to think that reverting vandalism and proofreading articles was a contribution. Please forgive my short-sightedness. --BigDT 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BigDT - we must be careful here to watch our civility: I respect you no end, and I wouldn't want to see you get in hot soup. Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, just not enough experience. Maybe in a few months. Alex43223Talk 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Tagging your old RfA for a speedy does not demonstrate the familiarity with policies and practices that is expected of an admin. A Train take the 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as many RFA's go, I think you should get more experience of policy, more presence at XFD, because if you're a deletionist and only have a couple of hundred edits in the WP space, it's going to be hard to judge what you're going to do. As per Alex43223, more experience required for me.  The Rambling Man 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry, but your lack of experience with anything other than vandal-fighting, and your highly-deletionist outlook, makes me wary of giving you the admin tools. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Sorry, man, but you got nothing that convinces me that you have enough knowledge to be an admin. :( Captain  panda   Mussolini   ha sempre   tarche  01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Please be patient on applying, adminshi[p is not a big deal Give yourself 6 months of quality edits and you'll pass no problem.-- Wizardman 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - your edit history shows many pages which you had marked for speedy deletion but which were not deleted (otherwise the history would not be there). For me, this is either a sign of unfamiliarity with WP:CSD or an over-eagerness/readiness to delete.  I may support after a few months if there is a change in editing patterns, but for now, sorry, Black Falcon 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I worry a little about editors who do not actually contribute by adding material to actual articles. As you have added no more than 7 edits to any article I am very worried. Quadzilla99 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Quadzilla - we are, primarily about writing an encyclopedia... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per all above. You've been here a while, but it looks like more work is needed. Start getting familiar with policies and guidelines and gain more experience editing (edit count is normally not an issue for me, but for a user who has been here since December 2004, it's really low), and try again in a few months and you should be in better shape. --Coredesat  11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Only 2145 edits in total, with only 1,047 mainspace edits, not to be nasty but this is not enough, I would reccomend at least a further 4,000 edits and more work in policy areas (such as WP:AFD, WP:TFD etc). Aswell as this you do not seem to be active enough with your highest edit count per month being 639, I would reccomend at least hitting 1,000 to 1,500 a month. Don't be discouraged.Telly addict Editor review! 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why burden RFA candidates with making over 1,000 edits a month? This is a volunteer project, not a full-time job. I made 204 edits last month, does that mean the contributions I did make weren't valuable?--Kchase T 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding ... you could write one featured article every day and finish th emonth with only 30 edits. 1000 edits is a lot less than it used to be now that so many edits are being made in a semi-automated fashion ... but many admins don't come close to 1000/month and admins have been approved with not much more than 1000 total edits. --BigDT 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow that is a really bad case of editcountitis. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Suggest withdrawl per opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Nothing too compelling to support, yet. Having some quality main-space contributions and a little more experience will probably encourage me to support you in a future RfA. Good luck. :) - Anas <font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 13:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship 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.