Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ffirehorse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ffirehorse

(19/3/0) ending 20:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Fantastic user. Been with us for a few months now, and wholly deserving. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:37, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your nomination and your gracious words. I humbly accept. ffirehorse 21:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If, for any reason, Ffirehorse's nomination does not reach a consensus by its time limit, I volunteer to re-nominate him for 7 more days. --ℛyan! | Talk 16:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. He's seen so many (other peoples') adminship requests go by so many times that he well deserves one for himself now. :) -- Grunt   ҈  21:50, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
  3. Andre (talk) 23:22, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes, let's have more admins who don't keep a watchlist. It's all too easy to use it as a crutch to article ownership. --Michael Snow 01:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Rhobite 01:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. {Ανάριον} 07:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lst27 23:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Happy to. Even moreso considering the shoddy reasoning for opposing. Ambi 07:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • At least I don't oppose people on the basis of their username, or because of Manual of Style disputes like some people. :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Fire Star 20:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Btw why the double Ff? JFW | T@lk 23:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Stewart Adcock 15:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. ℛyan! | Talk 16:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  13. OK, I can overlook the bizarre double-F. Seriously...strong support! - Lucky 6.9 23:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Excellent contributor. Enough edits for me. --Slowking Man 05:56, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  15. I'd prefer nominations to come up after more time on the project (time, not edits) to see the user in interaction with disagreeing and disagreeable folks, but I've already seen ffirehorse in situations like that, and he or she has responded reasonably. Geogre 18:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good contributions, committed, good attitude. — Gwalla | Talk 20:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Jayjg 17:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. I like how you patrol cleanup. Support. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 18:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Lots of people like him, and he doesn't meet blankfaze's standards. Ambi 14:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Ambi, you voted twice. Andre (talk) 04:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support --fvw 12:12, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I admire the user and his work, however, he does not currently meet my personal standards for admin candidates. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Has not been here long enough. Passw0rd 12:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Possible sock puppet vote? User has ~100 edits, and a lot of them are putting wikiversity tags, categories, etc. on pages and voting on RfA. Andre (talk) 16:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. 120 edits is too low, IMO. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
    Um...that would be 1201 edits. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • 1201 edits since 2 July 2004. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There's no special significance to my user name, other than I've tried to use the "single f" variation as a name on other sign-in sites and had other users beat me to it. Thus the "double f." Fairly banal, I know. ffirehorse 01:54, 21 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 view adminship as an opportunity to help further contribute to the Wikipedia project and community. I will use admin rights sparingly and consider my highest priority the essential housekeeping chores that are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators as being vital to the admin responsibility (e.g, VfD and keeping an eye on recent changes for vandalism). I also look forward to acting in any way I can to give help to users seeking it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm happy with the material I've added to historical and pop culture figures (Luis Echeverría Álvarez, Fred LaRue, Ambrose Bierce, Leo Baekeland, Timothy Leary, Jennifer Lopez, Lily Tomlin, Whoopi Goldberg, Fatty Arbuckle, Franz Marc; also greatly expanded John Demjanjuk). I'm also happy with the work I've done on music acts, including Bailter Space, Smithereens, Rare Earth, Laura Branigan, Kool and the Gang, etc. I also added some to Elvis Presley. That said, there's always more to do, and I intend to do as much as I can going into the future, with an emphasis on creating more new articles and expanding stubs.
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 try to avoid conflict as much as possible. I had a watchlist at the start of my time here but discovered that the best way to detach yourself from the outcome of any contributions you make is not to have a watchlist. I have not had any major conflicts with any other users; there have been a few misunderstandings (especially when I first started out), and I am certain that I have irritated some users (usually when I have been overbold in making additions or corrections to articles), but these have generally been quickly cleared up (I hope). I try my best to maintain civility, because my firm belief is that asset is what makes a project like Wikipedia work.