Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Firefoxman

[edit]

Final: (82/1/4); Ended 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefoxman (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Firefoxman, or ffm, a user I feel will make a fantastic administrator on the English Wikipedia. After seeing the now iconic "ffm" signature on Talk:Main Page a very long time ago, I keep seeing his name crop up in all sorts of places, from WP:ERRORS to computing article histories. His 8,000 well spent edits have been nothing but constructive, solid contributions, usually to his speciality article type; software. He has a great AfD track record, and even has a barnstar from Elaragirl for this, indicating the trust and recognition the community has already shown him. Apart from these technical details, ffm has shone in the most enviable area of his personality - his endless civility.

So, just what kind of editor is ffm? Well, he's the type of user who dips and dabs here and there, never straying too far from his niche, but still willing to be bold and make difficult decisions well. If he were to become an admin, I'm sure ffm will adapt to the tools with pace and caution, rather than with zeal and vigour. I thank you for taking the time to evaluate this user for adminship. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Malinaccier

Firefoxman (or ffm) is a great editor. In the relatively short time I’ve known him (in comparison to the amount of time his account has been registered here which is well over four years), I’ve been impressed with his maturity and knowledge of Wikipedia policy.

Among his most valued contributions is the time put into working at a place where very few non-admins have ever heard of—WP:ERROR. Ffm has made over 240 edits there, and this experience will help him as an administrator because of the ability to edit the Main Page and fix the errors there himself. Not only this, but he isn’t a shabby content editor, which is shown in his expansions to the articles Ubuntu and Open mail relay. As shown above, Firefoxman’s value to the Project can be greatly increased by trusting him with the sysop flag. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. ffm 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: At first, I'd wait. I'd go through the Wikipedia:New admin school and practice. I've done a good bit of work as a non-admin to WP:ERRORS, and I'll be able to help out even more when I'll be able to fix things myself. After, as I'm well experienced in vandal fighting, I would help out in WP:AIV, blocking vandals after they have continued to vandalize past their final warning. I would also visit the WP:SPEEDY category and delete pages that met the criteria. I would also close WP:AFD debates, since I've participated in many. I'll most likely stay away from WP:RPP for a while, as well as WP:DR, because I haven't had any experience there yet.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am a bit gnomish, but am most proud of the work I have done at WP:ERRORS to clean it up and manage the constant error reports. I'm particularly proud of what I've done to Open mail relay and Ubuntu. I also designed the initial template at WP:IFU, and dabbled in WP:AFC. I'm a member of WP:LINUX, as well as WP:INET, and try to help out there when I'm familiar with the subject matter.
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: I try to avoid editing when stressed, and thus have been in a low number of conflicts. I am rarely directly involved in conflicts, and most conflicts I am in are as a result of a WP:3O request. (See Talk:Acid and Talk:Open mail relay). In the future, I will not let people get to me, and will deal with it calmly. I will not use admin tools, such as protection and deletion, for disputes when I have a personal or professional interest in the dispute, and will not wheel war (I've never violated WP:3RR AFAIK other than vandalism).

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Please write a haiku about your Wikipedia experience.
A.
Cool, I can edit
Featured articles are hard
As are haiku

Optional questions from RyRy5 (talk)

5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A: That would meet the protection policy requirements for semi-protection, as it was persistent vandalism by various IPs. I would semi-protect it.
6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: I'd warn the user up to four times, and if they persisted I would block the account, put a post at WP:ANI, report it in #wikipedia-en-admins, and contact the administrator via email and ask for more information. If the admin unblocked himself and continued vandalism, I'd get a steward.

Optional questions from Dweller

7. Could you give links to some recent participation in XfDs which had both Keep and Delete arguments before your input?
A. Again, I mostly try to contribute to the AfD that are clear decisions in my mind. I don't have any plans to close controversial AfDs, but by closing the less important ones ones I can allow other admins who are better at it to focus on the more difficult ones.
Here are some AfDs from a while ago that I specifically remember as being controversial with multiple keep/delete !votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabo (Star Trek), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_Star_Wars_Jedi_knights_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Degausser, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_victims_of_the_Columbine_High_School_massacre.
8. I've seen your work at WP:AIV. Have you ever posted to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:3RR or similar noticeboards?
A.I have not had much experience there, and I do not plan to work there as an admin in the near future.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Firefoxman before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support no. 1 :) Will not abuse the tools, and will make the encyclopedia better, which is why adminship is granted after all. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Doesn't seem like he'll harm anything, seems like he might actually help things. MBisanz talk 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cautious Support. Reviewing your deleted contributions, rollback usage and User:Firefoxman/Admin coaching I think on balance Firefoxman will be a net positive. You've obviously worked hard since RFA 2 to address the experience concerns. My cautiousness is that Q1 seems a little bland, you've not had much recent input regarding speedy tagging, and I saw a mass of vandal reverts on the 16th May, some of which were not really clear cut vandalism [1] and none of which seemed to result in you warning the editor. Having said all that, working on WP:ERRORS counts as a big plus, and there seems to be no glaring issues. Certainly a civil and friendly user. Just take it steady. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. All I can say is, I'm pleasantly surprised. Best of luck, ffm. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems OK. Nothing stands out that should suggest this user will make a bad admin. He's dabbled in all the right areas. Lradrama 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Grr, WBOSITG, I thought I was gonna be co-nomming? :( giggy (:O) 09:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I figured after all the drahmaz you've been through at RfA, nomming would be the last thing you'd've wanted to do! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I've had a look through your recent edits, and I'm pleased with the level of article building and maintenance work you do. The only thing I'd ask for is that you put more thought into your responses in general in order to demonstrate critical thinking. This in itself is no big deal though, so I'm happy to support. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Nice mix of work, and definite building of content and usability. I just visited WP:ERROR for the first time myself - never saw it before.  Frank  |  talk  12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've seen him participating well in many areas an am confident that with the tools he will continue to behave in a mature, responsible manner. Naerii - Talk 12:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seen him around, looks good. Near-perfect edit-summary usage, decent number of edits over quite a large timespan - shows you are experienced. Going through new admin school is a good idea - I didn't do it on enwiki, but practised on my own wiki. My only concern which would lead me to oppose would be the fact that this would mean there's another admin to beat me to stuff :P In other words, I offer my full support :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - ffm seems to be a very good editor who's got experience in a number of admin related areas. There's nothing in his contributions that cause me concern, and I'm confident that he'll make an effective administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (ec)Ithoughtyouwereonealready support I never thought I'd have to say this again after I stoletranscluded a script to highlight admin sigs, but I guess I did. Seriously, I thought you already were an admin. Guess that's because I don't frequent WP:ERROR very much... Good luck and remember not to delete the main page when your supposed to be fixing it. ;) Thingg⊕⊗ 13:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Al Tally talk 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks fine, and the good technical work is a big plus. GlassCobra 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above Trust nominator. More than meets my standards. Review of edits and talk shows low likelihood will abuse tools. Dlohcierekim 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Le Roi, your examples are from months ago. I'm a better editor than I was then. I suppose the candidate is as well. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- per the noms = ). --Cameron (T|C) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. As nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I did a full review of this candidate's contribs earlier, and came to the conclusion then that if I ever saw ffm at RFA, I would happily support. Easily meets my criteria. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - basically per everything that's been said above. ffm is a very civil, nice user, and even though there might be a couple of little things, they don't concern me and it doesn't affect my support. This candidate is experienced and I'd trust him with the tools. Just don't forget to start out slow and careful as you said. :) Good luck! Jamie☆S93 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Definete. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, nothing to indicate that this user cannot be trusted with the tools. Shereth 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No... no, just no. You're already an admin. Liar. Admins running for RFA are disruptive, and therefore I oppose.Joke, of course. I hate cliches, but it's true. :( · AndonicO Engage. 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sceptre (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support About time. I would carve you a mop myself if I only had a carving knife. Bstone (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Only if you take strong note of Wisdom89's neutral, which I'm sure you will. Apart from that, everything else is fine. Jack?! 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Per conversation in neutral section below. User should be more careful at WP:UAA considering how bitey it can be, but I trust that they will be more conscientious in the future and learn by trial and error. The rest of the work is quite good. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support you can look at his answer to Q1 as hesitation, but I see caution motivated by responsibility. He's not gonna dive into the pool without learning to swim. Good attitude, Vishnava talk 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Belated Support as nom. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Per Bstone. I've seen ffm around quite a bit, and I doubt he'll abuse the tools. Seems like he could really benefit from the mop. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per WP:WTHN and previous positive interaction. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Conditional support – /Support Firefoxman / do I so long as haikus, / like above, are fixed./ (5/7/4 ≠ haiku) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice the <!--Comment-->? I'm using the Japanese pronunciation of Haiku, which is three syllables: ha-i-ku. ffm 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I unfortunately didn't notice the comment. I've never seen that pronunciation before; please pardon my ignorance. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (and I could swear I made this comment earlier, but I don't see it anywhere)[reply]
  35. Support. I've seen ffm's contributions all over Wikipedia, and I agree that he will make a good admin. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support The issues from the previous RfAs seem to be taken caer of. And his decent Haiku shows his dedication to teh wiki :-)  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. dorftrottel (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Those year-old diffs don't really convince of any possible malice.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Prodego talk 05:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - trustworthy editor. Oppose arguments seem to be based on stuff that happened last year. PhilKnight (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Seems like the right person for the job. --Ecoleetage (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support all looks good. --Stephen 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support This is a well prepared candidate for adminship. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support- The concerns that were in your previous RFA's have been ironed out, and I think sysopping you would be a net positive. Best of luck, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 14:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Taking a look through this user's contributions, answers, and recent history, there's nothing to indicate that this user would misuse the tools. You have my trust thus far. :) Best, RyRy5 (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I thought ffm was an admin already- he has my trust and I feel the project would benefit from him having the tools. Some recognised content would be nice, but I see Ubuntu (certainly an important article) is currently a GA nominee. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Anthøny 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, trust the user. Wizardman 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support from me and the otters. Deserves it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. He is reliable. Axl (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support of course, great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I've known this user for I think a couple years now from vandal fighting together, and I've never seen anything from him that led me to question his judgement. delldot talk 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - looks good, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Reliable, trustworthy, and good work. Soxred 93 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Rudget (Help?) 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Although some article writing would be nice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Good user who won't abuse the tools. Razorflame 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Looks good. MrPrada (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I'd trust this user with a mop. Even a really big one. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, good edits, answers and experience. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 05:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Bwrs (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support — civility, comprehension, maturity, and skills: all this and haiku too? Yowza — Athaenara ✉ 00:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Yep. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. miranda 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - he needs the tools. Frequent reverter of vandalism/tests, and reports people to WP:AIAV. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support BradV 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - excellent candidate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support by all means. Has done super work here and on other wikis. +sj + 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - looks fine to me. I've seen him in action around the wiki, and all is well :) - Alison ❤ 08:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - excellent candidate. DKNY89 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Trustworthy editor. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Meant to support this one earlier, but here you go. Acalamari 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Good candidate. I am mostly impressed by the fact that both times earlier requests failed the candidate simply went back to contributing to the encyclopedia - learning all the time - and only reapplying when they thought they might be ready. I believe they really are this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. SupportNo concerns. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support No concerns here, great work at WP:ERROR and good answers to questions 5 & 6. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. See no serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Excellent editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per [2] and [3], i.e. lots of rapid under a minute deletes (notice November 14, 2007, October 24, 2007, October 9, 2007, September 27, 2007, September 19, 2007, September 17, 2007, April 18, 2007, April 11, 2007, February 9, 2007, January 11, 2007, many days in December 2006, etc.) There seems to be a pattern through the totality of the candidate's editing history of blocks of incredibly rapid AfD delete posts with less keeps overall than say even I have argued to delete. Consider such things as:
    12:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie Game‎ (→Movie Game: Delete)
    12:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beggsy‎ (→Beggsy: Delete)
    12:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery‎ (→Downgrade your PSP to version 1.5 using your PSP battery: Delete)
    16:17, 17 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gargano‎ (→Anthony Gargano: Delete)
    16:17, 17 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campus Destinations, Inc.‎ (→Campus Destinations, Inc.: Delete)
    16:17, 17 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotgun democracy‎ (→Shotgun democracy: Delete)
    17:42, 11 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnock High School Closure‎ (→Earnock High School Closure: Delete)
    17:42, 11 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holidoze‎ (→Holidoze: Delete)
    17:42, 11 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Long‎ (→Anton Long: Delete)
    Three in under a minute? And if you look at the dates listed above as examples, you will see many such instances. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any recent "offences" (like from this year)? You do realise that this has nothing to do with adminship? Not everyone is an inclusionist. As long as the comments were valid, there's nothing wrong here. I notice you frequently oppose "per X AfD", which is not really an acceptable thing to oppose for if you simply disagree with their view. Al Tally talk 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Al Tally - to me, it doesn't look like deletionism wasn't his full reason for opposing. More importantly, there was also a concern about the multiple AfD !votes per minute. --Jamie☆S93 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD participation has a tremendous deal to do with adminship. What separates admins from the rest of us is their ability to do three things: block/unblock, protect/unprotect, and delete/undelete. Someone who is overwhelmingly biased one way or the other is a concern when it comes to the third part indicated previously of what an admins does. Approaching AfDs as votes and rapidly is disconcerting for someone who will be in a position to delete articles. And so when I see such rapid "per nom" succession as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. throughout the candidate's time editing, it cause for concern as to how thoroughly they will look at the articles and discussions when closing AfDs. What else can we base our impression of how they will close AfDs on? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "biased"? When I go through AfDs, there are numerous cases when the subject is (IMO) most definitely not notable, I try to stay way from ones that are close, or ones on topics that I am unfamiliar wihth, so that would explain my low keep count. ffm 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't see a mix of keeps as well, how can we know what does meet one's standards of inclusion? But again, part of the major concern here are these blocks of just rapid "per x" deletes, including instances of three or so under a minute, which themselves are within blocks of others also posted in a minute or so. We need to see clear evidence of the article having been looked at and the full discussion read, which is hard to do for three articles in under a minute. I would also encourage anyone to do their own source search as well during an AfD. In the couple of dozen times that I argued or nominated to delete, I still made a couple proactive edits to the articles in question anyway, just in case and I still spent time on Goodle or Dogpile or Academic Search Complete double checking that I too couldn't find sources. It would be one thing if the examples above were the only instances or they all happened back on '05 or '06 or something, but they happened multiple times throughout your time editing here. Looking at the more recent AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pie Box Enterprise Linux, while Google News does indeed not turn up much, sources do turn up on a regular Google search. I do think you do good work reporting usernames, however (for example, [9], [10], etc.) So, I do have confidence there, but the AfDs are just a concern. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A similar issue was covered here just last month, where it was suggested that perhaps a user investigated several WP:RfAs first, then responded to them in rapid succession. It does seem the good faith way to approach the subject. Perhaps even more significantly, a check of the nine AfDs listed above reveals that all 9 were, in fact deleted, ffm was most often not the last contributor to the discussion (so he wasn't just pile-on), and most of them had not a single "Keep" !vote, so they were almost overwhelmingly non-controversial.  Frank  |  talk  19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. With CAT:PROD, and to some extent CAT:CSD, I do the same thing - open lots of pages in one go (tabbed web browsers are really useful for this), check their eligibility, then go through them rapidly hitting the delete buttons. If I had enough pages open, I reckon I could do 20-30 deletes in a minute, but with long-ish gaps after each batch, while I check the eligibility of the next lot. Often, with CSD especially, a glance is all that's needed, as it is unquestionable. With longer, and spam stuff, a scan through is required, but if I'm concentrating, and in a good state of mind (ie. not tired), I can weigh those up in a shortish space of time too (10-15 secs). I see no issue with rapid edits like that. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still there is a tremendous disparity in terms of deletes versus keeps overall and I would like to see more in the way or original arguments that add to the discussion rather than just "per noms" which we list as an argument to avoid in deletion disucssions. My main concern is that when I see no actual argument listed, it means I am not sure how the contributer personally evaluates policies and guidelines. It's easy to just agree with someone else, but for someone who will be closing discussions, especially if they ever close ones in which their are keeps, we benefit when the closer formulates an explanation on their own based on evaluating and weighing the arguments. As far as participation in AfD, if they are overwhelmingly or obvious deletes, then why bother with another "per nom"? Plus, as I said, even looking at the most recent one where it was claimed no sources exist, a regular Google search did turn up sources with "news" on the URLs. When we delete stuff, we may be deleting many, many hours of good faith volunteer work, which means we may offend or turn off our contributors and readers when we make mistakes, so I just believe that we need to be really careful about how we do it and it is particularly important for admins who are the ones doing the deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the most recent one (which I nominated), I searched via both Google and Google News, but was unable to find any sources that were reliable that had given more than trivial coverage to the distribution, as opposed to distributions such as Gobuntu or Mandriva. In addition, the article I nommed was deleted, and in fact the admin who closed it advised me in the future to prod such articles, as it was uncontroversial. ffm 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Le Grand I can understand why your concerned about the possibility of pages being deleted incorrectly. But do u have any examples, where Firefoxman incorrectly/hastily supported the deletion of an article (recent would be better). Because I couldn't find anything lie that. From what I can see, Firefoxman has been quick to say "delete" for things which should clearly be deleted.Ziphon (ALLears) 09:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have opened them overnight to read, considered my opinion, and then press Save in rapid succession the next morning. The timestamps is not 100% indicative of everything. - Mailer Diablo 08:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]

Neutral - Leaning towards support if the user promises not to work at WP:UAA for a while. Those reports are very unsettling and the candidate expresses interest in this area per answer to question 1. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Changing to support per WP:AGF and the other great attributes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. ffm 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But note that both a and b were blocked. ffm 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't have been. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite shocked that Theguyfromupthere was blocked, thats disgusting and seems as though no thought went into it whatsoever. Jack?! 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was also a vandal, so it might have been for that reason + username. ffm 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Strike that, the block log says otherwise. ffm 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theguyfromupthere was a vandal, and the block log states that. A good block. Both of these reports were fine imo. Al Tally talk 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't. A vandalism only account goes to WP:AIV not WP:UAA. Neither of those reports necessitated immediate administrator action regarding their username. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says you. It doesn't matter which of the hundreds of noticeboards they were reported to. As long as they were blockable (which they were) there is no problem. He should be praised for reporting those users. Al Tally talk 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does matter Majorly. The user reported them to WP:UAA due to a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, not because they were vandals. Wikimanmanmanman was reported and then hard blocked due to their username. That's preposterous. The other, while a vandal, was reported for their username as indicated by the diff. Completely unacceptable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not preposterous according to the blocking admin. And I repeat, it doesn't matter why he reported. As long as the accounts were blockable, he did nothing wrong reporting those names. Al Tally talk 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an administrator blocked a non-violation for their username doesn't absolve/change anything. Come on Majorly, listen, the candidate has done great work and there is no way in hell I'm going to oppose (I've supported) based on a few diffs. However, the candidate made an error. Plain and simple. Should they have been blocked? Probably. Should they have been reported to UAA for the reasons given? Absolutely not. That's my point. If as an admin he works in said area, he will obviously block the wrong usernames and that's a real concern. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why he should stay away; if he likes doing that, he should just learn by trial and (other people's) error(s). · AndonicO Engage. 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply suggest going much more slowly as I don't quite see the experience at WP:UAA just yet. However, this is really a semi-minor issue considering the other beneificial attributes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Would like to see an explanation for [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was later rectified and apologised for. I think that one misread source shouldn't dampen his overall hard work. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rectified? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe he didn't rectify it. However, I feel that the candidate would have rectified it if you had not beaten him to it [12] [13]. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. After looking through your work, it's all really good. However, a lot of it is automated. A vast majority of your User Talk edits, at least in the last 1000 of them are automated, templated warnings. This shows a lack of communication and I feel good communication is a valuable trait in an admin. Also, the same case applies to the mainspace, a lot of your recent work has been via Huggle. I'd prefer to see that you do more of your own work rather than click buttons in a script. At least in the 1000 or so edits leading up to your RFA. Useight (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually alot ffms recent edits are not automated. He does make comments on talk pages from what i can see and uses templates as appropriate. Really the templates are there to help you communicate. Personally I see that he has been doing decent job in terms of communication. Ziphon (ALLears) 09:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The templates are there to assist, and to assist in ensuring problems in a user's editing are dealt with in a fair method, which provides the editor ample information. I can't help but feel that without the templates, there would be a lot of biting, and some editors would not be given the information they need to improve. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew I would be questioned when I went against the grain. Okay, 821 of his last 1000 User Talk are automated warnings. Of his last 1000 mainspace edits, 725 are automated. I agree that templates are there to assist, but not to be a crutch. I don't think that an editor who nearly exclusively uses automated tools is ready for adminship. Useight (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Useight here, although I would just like a wee bit of clarification. Useight, are you referring to vandalism/edit test warnings only, or friendly mediated templates for article maintenance and CSD tagging as well? What about nominations for XfD via Twinkle? I just want to zero in on what you're getting at exactly. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The numbers I posted above take into account all his Twinkle edits, all vandalism reverts, all automatic templated warnings, and all templated welcomes via Friendly. I believe that's all I considered in my numbers above. Useight (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Pending optional answers to optional questions. I may then opt to optionally change my opinion. But I might anyway. A longwinded way of saying this is a placeholder. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "A: I'd warn the user up to four times, and if they persisted I would block the account, put a post at WP:ANI, report it in #wikipedia-en-admins, and contact the administrator via email and ask for more information. If the admin unblocked himself and continued vandalism, I'd get a steward" — administrators vandalising equals one message and then block. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Firefoxman_3&oldid=1146518050"