Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FirefoxRocks

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


FirefoxRocks

[edit]

Ended (3/10/3); 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FirefoxRocks (talk · contribs) - I'm FirefoxRocks, I've been here on Wikipedia since July 2006. I regularly participate in WikiProjects to make Wikipedia a better community. I have made over 450 edits (probably 500 by this week), mostly relating to WikiProjects. I can help with many administrative tasks if I get accepted. FirefoxRocks 23:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help with deleting of pages as well as watching vandalism (in accordance to WP:AIV). If I were administrator, I could assist in blocking vandals. Also, I plan to contribute to never-ending backlogs such as cleanup, expansion, deletion and referencing sources whenever possible. Generally, I would clear out un-encyclopedic information such as nonsense, fictitious information, vandalism, etc.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are mostly WikiProject contributions. I have edited many, many pages to deal with Stub sorting as well as disambiguation page repair. These are my best contributions because I am helping Wikipedia become a more efficient and effective site.
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 the past, I have tried to repair a disambiguation page. However, the links that lead there could lead to many categories. Other users and I have argued about which links go where. I have left the disambiguation page alone and let other users do it their way because it seems more correct. In the future, I will verify with other sources the context of the page in which I am relinking to and go with whatever is most appropriate.

Additional questions (optional)

[edit]
4. I know it was a while ago, but can you explain this edit, in particular the use of someone else's signature? I realize that you immediately replaced the signature on the next edit, but would still like an explanation. -- LeCourT:C
A: This was because I intended to copy the template on my page onto User:Fergie_bep's page. I accidentally copied the signature and I didn't know how to make my own until I read the notes around the edit box.

5. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: My password is 9 characters long, has 1 number as well as 1 symbol. Therefore it should be strong. I use different variations of the password across sites.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/FirefoxRocks before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Moral support → Keep going this way, the time for your adminship will come! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Adminship is no big deal, and the answer to Q1 demonstrates a good enough understanding of the tools. The oppose votes, though civil, are predominantly based on editcount, which I don't consider a significant factor. Walton Need some help? 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Low activity, but Is Wikipedia going to lose anything if he becomes an admin? Nope. It's not like he's being given the Big red button. And if he blocks one vandal in a year, it is enough help, IMO. Especially impressed with the work in clearing backlogs. Low talk page interaction is a cause for some concern though. Better luck next time. - TwoOars (T | C) 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - wow you do great work, the only problem is you haven't got enough edits to show the community can trust you, you've certainly been here long enough, so I would suggest you keep on plugging away at it, I'd be more than happy to support if you had around 2000 edits. Keep it up anyway :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - for low edit counts and apart from that you have been doing a pretty swell job..keep it up..re-apply in 3 to 4 months and I will definitely support you...----Cometstyles 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I would think a little more time would help you too. Perhaps more interaction with others. I notice that your contributions show little interaction on talk pages. I also note that you seem to make unilateral changes, albeit minor ones, to user pages other than your own. Now, they don't own the pages but you might think twice about doing that without a least a message to them -- just a courtesy thing. I imagine you will develop quite soon into someone that will be very valuable as an admin. JodyB talk 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Adminship might not be a big deal and I'd almost be willing to support based on that, but a couple items bug me enough to oppose... Mainly the lack of talk page usage and the general lack of experience. I'd happily support in a few months time. Suggest a 'crat close this thing before it gets dogpiled by Opposes. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose As other people have said beforehand, experience is key when demonstrating a need for the admin tools. You are a fine editor and well on the way to gaining such experience but less than five hundred edits in nearly a year of contributing means that your activity levels need to be stepped up a notch-or-two. Try working on admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols; vandal reverting (using tools such as vandalproof if you want to) and warning on their Talk pages; reporting to AIV. Working in the main article space is also a good thing to do - plenty of references need to be checked, sourced and cited properly, as well as peer reviews; good article candidates, etc. Come back with some more experience over the summer and this opinion will probably slide over to the support column. (aeropagitica) 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: Like others, I see no problem with nominee's edits, but 1.5 edits a day is, in Wikipedia terms, very low usage for aspiring admins. I wouldn't consider myself a fanatic, but just on policing vandalism of the items on my watchlist I rack up five times that much activity. More activity isn't so much helpful to a future RfA as the minimum standard.  RGTraynor  20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose You need to do much more editing around here before the tools can be given. Get some more experience, maybe join some projects, and try again in a few months! Jmlk17 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per reasons stated abouve. Would be happy to support in around 6 months, provided edit count increases substantially.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I do not believe you are ready to be an admin after three days of heavy edits (don't get me wrong, you do good work). Looking your edit counter and contributions, I see little communication with other users. I'd like to see steady edits and not just sporadic 'every once in awhile' edits before I support your adminship. I wish to see many "Wikipedia:" edits to show you know your way around Wikipedia and are understanding of every admin-related page. Having more discussion page edits will show you are capable of dealing with other editors and being able to deal with them in a calm, effective manner.++aviper2k7++ 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry, but not enough edits. TTalk to me 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on. As has already been said: You're doing well, just give it a little more time. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I agree with Ryan Postlethwaite, you are definitely on the right track but I think experience is the main thing, I suggest something similar or the following work to "get yourself known":
    • Participate in WP:XFD
    • Enable email via Special:MyPreferences
    • Your usage of an edit summary is good so there is nothing to point out there.
    Your work with Backlog's is too excellent and your stub sorting, I think if you give it 3-4 months of some quality and solid contribs you will pass no problem! Kindest regards - The Sunshine Man 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Not sure I can trust or support you at this time, but come back when you have a good number of edits. Looking through your contributions, a lot of your edits seem to be stub-sorting. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.