Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fyre2387

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Fyre2387

Final (15/12/1); Withdrawn 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyre2387 (talk · contribs) - I believe this user looks out for detail and would be a great addition to the ranks of adminship I believe he has the experiance and I think since he helps everyone already he is a good choice for admin status Coallen 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I didn’t expect this, but I’m flattered and will accept.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)I withdraw the nomination, as it no longer has a chance of sucess and conutning it would serve little. I am truly grateful to all commenters, including the "oppose" section: its always good to learn where one might improve. Thank you, all.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: Whatever I can, really. In particular, though, Main Page tasks would certainly be of interest to be, since I already do frequent Talk: Main Page. I also do Newpage patrol, so being able to speedy delete pages which fit the criteria myself as opposed to tagging them would be useful. I’d also help out with closing XfD proceedings, particularly Wikipedia: Miscellany for deletion. In addition, I’d help out at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia: Requests for page protection, particularly when they become backlogged.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, any review of my contributions will show a large amount of edits to topics related to Avatar: The Last Airbender. I’ve done some work to improve those articles and a lot to maintain them, and I’m pretty proud of them, particularly the two feature-quality pages (the show itself and the episode list). Though it doesn’t show on my contributions page, I’m also happy with the Newpage patrolling I’ve done. I can’t count how many pages I’ve tagged for speedy deletion, and I firmly believe that’s an important task for Wikipedia as a whole. I’d also like to think the help I’ve given at Talk: Main Page has had positive effects.
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’d be a liar if I said no, and I’d also be one if I said I’ve always handled it as best I could. I'll freely admit there where times I'e said things I should not have. To pretend otherwise would be wrong. That said, though, I’ve learned through my mistakes in the past. For a recent example, I’ll cite the recent debate over allowing fair use images in lists. I rather strongly felt it should be allowed. However, when the community’s consensus shifted to disallow it, I acknowledged that fact and determined to work within the boundaries established. (diff, for reference)

Optional Question from Black Harry

4 I'm probably going to be killed for asking this, however yesterday your nominator unsuccessfully attempted to become an administrator. This alone is unimportant, however he added your name to the list of his supporters. My questions to you are first, would you have supported his RfA? Second, what do you think of him signing your name as one of his supporters? And last, do you think its a little ironic that he nominated you after his attempt to become an admin failed? 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A:That RfA (Coallen's) was...interesting. No, I would not have supported that RfA, mostly for the reasons cited by those opposing there. I'm not sure why he listed my name, although I'd say it was either fraudulent or simply a misunderstanding of the process, perhaps thinking I would support based on our past interactions. Given the interaction I've had with him in the past, I'd be willing assume good faith and call it a misunderstanding, although it was still, obviously, an incorrect action. I assume his nominating me now is because he's just been exposed to the process, although I can't say for sure.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I assumed good faith too. I would ask though that you try to find why Coallen did add you as his supporter. BH (Talk) 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And looking at your talk pages, I think he nominated you so he could protect certain articles he has an interest in, it also seems to be the reason why he nominated himself. I'd love the nominator to respond to this. BH (Talk) 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, I can only offer my assurance that any protections I would do would be strictly according to relevant policy, including avoiding doing so on topics where I may have a conflict of interest.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optionals from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

5. When would you fully protect/semi-protect/unprotect an article? (3 part question)
A.I'll answer in three parts, if I may:
1.Full protection: This is something I would use rather sparingly. The strength of Wikipedia is open editing, so closing down that editing is undesirable. As for more specifics: the first thing that comes to mind is protecting those pages that are supposed to be fully protected all the time, ie Main Page, Template:Afd, and the like, as described in the first five bullet points at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection. While this won't, it all likelihood, be a frequent occurrence by any means, there are the infamous "rouge admin" episodes where they may become unprotected. As for "normal" pages, I would do so in the case of major, harmful edit warring in order to give all parties a chance to cool down and, hopefully, work the issue out on the talk page. I'd probably not give this sort of protection an initial duration of more than a couple days at the longest, but I would keep an eye on the situation and extend the protection if there was no reason to believe things had changed. In general, though, I would never use full protection where semi-protection could accomplish the job equally well.
2.Semi-protection: Still to be used very sparingly, but the standards would be slightly looser than full protection, being that it is a less severe option. The most common scenario I can see would be heavy vandalism from anonymous editors with multiple IP addressees that can't be stopped by banning. Whenever possible, banning the vandals (after they've been properly warned) would be preferable.
3.Unprotection: In short, when the circumstances that led to protection in the first place no longer exist. Again starting with the more obvious cases, this would never be so on Main Page, since it will always have that high visibility. In most cases of any sort of protection (barring those that are meant to be indefinitely protected) I'd prefer that the protection last no more than a couple days, but I'd also avoid too many blanket statements. Instead, I'd look at the pages on a case-by-case basis and determine when to lift protection. When dealing with protections made by an admin other than myself, I'd also consult with that admin on the subject.
6. I'm sorry to ask this (this is because you mentioned WP:AIV), but what is your take on WP:SNOW and WP:IAR?
A.WP:IAR, to me, is basic common sense. Wikipedia exists for the purpose of creating and maintaining a free encyclopedia. All our rules, therefor, have that as their ultimate goal: making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be. If a scenario should arise where they do the opposite, stubbornly clinging to them is illogical. That said, IAR is not something to be invoked on a whim. Wikipedia's rules exist as a result of a great deal of discussion, compromise, and consensus by many editors with the goal of improving Wikipedia. It should NOT be used simply because one doesn't like a given rule. I'll cite an example I encountered myself recently (this is also mentioned in my answer to question three, with a diff.) In this episode, I was of the opinion that Wikipedia's fair use policy allowed fair use images to be used in a list. However, after significant and involved discussion, community consensus was formed than ran contrary to this opinion. Even though I honestly and in good faith believed having those images in the lists would improve Wikipedia, for me to invoke IAR and restore them would have been wrong, because community consensus was contrary to my own personal opinion. In regard to WP:SNOW, I'd call that an outgrowth of IAR. Put simply, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and thus we should not be carrying out processes for no reason other than that process demands it.

Optional Question from Black Harry

7 How would you go about banning a user, such as the IP vandals you mentioned in your answer to Question 5.2? 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A:I’m afraid I should have been a little more clear with my wording in that answer. Banning would be applied via blocks. Furthermore, it may (and very often would be) appropriate to block a user without the formal banning procedures, usually for a limited period of time. When it came to anonymous users, I’d be sure to heed the advice/instructions at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. In a technical sense, I’d enact blocks as described at Help:Block and unblock.

Optional question from AldeBaer

8. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A:Fascinating question! Here's some that come to mind:
1.Avatar: The Last Airbender-Granted, my appreciation of this one comes somewhat from the work I've put in to it, but that's not all. Its a featured article, which isn't exactly a common thing to see for what, after all, is technically a children's television series. More than that, though, it embodies what I consider one of the true strengths of Wikipedia. Here we have extensive detail about a topic that would never see the light of day in a traditional encyclopedia. That's something special, in my book. In fact, my first exposure to Wikipedia ages ago (I was reading pages long before I edited anything) was a series of pages about Star Trek, and I remember being very impressed.
2.United States Constitution-This is a topic upon which I like to think of myself fairly knowledgeable, but I can defiantly say I learned a lot reading it. What more can you ask for from an article?
3.History of New Jersey-Much the same as number two. Fascinating article that gave me a new appreciation of just how history this little state I live in has.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fyre2387 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - The user is very experienced and has been around a long time and I believe can be trusted with the tools but his wikipedia edits is a bit too low and he needs to take part in a lot more of WP:AIV and XfD's as well but apart from that everything else is fine..--Cometstyles 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - looks like a competent user, can be trusted with the mop. Answer to q1 demonstrates a good understanding of admin tools. WaltonAssistance! 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm impressed. The Sunshine Man 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Good editor, quite civil and their input on XfDs shows a firm grasp of policies. Peacent 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support No big reasons to oppose. You were asked to be more civil in your editor review in Jan 2007 and I have not seen any incivility after that, so I guess you have improved. (And there is a way to know the number of articles you tagged for CSD: although this shows all your edits including your edits to deleted articles, so all of them need not necessarily be CSD tagging. :)- TwoOars 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose.- TwoOars 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support good user, with strong credentials. His answer to my question cleared up the one potential reason I had for opposing. BH (Talk) 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC) switched to oppose BH (Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - I feel this user is capable of handling the tools. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I think the tools will be in good hands. Seems like a level-headed editor to me with a good grasp of Wikipedia policies.--Atlan (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support From what I see, this user will make a great admin. Captain panda 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, no good reason to oppose. Neil ╦ 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - no reason to suggest editor will misuse the tools. PGWG 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak per Y, support per my trust that this user wouldn't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Although your counts are kind of borderline for me personally, I see no other reason to oppose. I look forward to your good work.JodyB talk 16:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Terence 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Answers to questions satisfy my curiosity regarding policy knowledge, seems level-headed enough to handle the responsibility. Carom 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Like ths guy's contributions, good plans for the future, honest, wants to clean up the wiki, you got my vote. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak support - shows a good edit history thusfar (sufficient experience in project namespace, particularly XfD), but I'm concerned about the lack of civility expressed here. SalaSkan 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support I do not see any convincing reasons to oppose him. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, answers to questions don't quite do it for me. ^demon[omg plz] 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I know this will sound like I'm trying to get back at your nominator but frankly, accepting a nomination from someone who had just left this nice addition to my user page is not showing great judgment. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I can certainly understand that, and may well do the same in your place. I'd just like to say for the record, though, just in case there's any doubt, that I had nothing to do with that.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I certainly did not intend to insinuate that you had anything to do with that. But it seems a bit careless to accept a nomination without checking your nominator's history a wee-bit. Pascal.Tesson 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I was aware of some of Coallen's problems, and in fact I actually did consider not accepting the nomination for that reason. However, I decided that I'd like to see what the community's had to say, which is what's happening now. In retrospect, perhaps I should have made a statement to that effect. Thank you for bringing that to everybody's attention; I certainly want everybody to have all the facts when weighing in.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is it really fair to judge a candidate by the quality of their nomination, or by your personal feelings towards the nominator? – Gurch 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Insufficient projecspace participation to gauge familiarity with the relevant policies. Nor do the less than stellar answers inspire confidence. If you do not pass, please try again after you gain some more experience in administrative areas. -- Y not? 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose switched from support, per Pascal, and from your answers you seem to not fully grasp policy here at Wikipedia. BH (Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Just too little overall experience for me to support. Get some work done in various areas around the project, and try again a few months from now. Jmlk17 05:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose based on contributions. Fyre2387 is clearly doing some diligent cleanup work, but he lets it get to him too much and doesn't seem to maintain civility while doing it. I found these edit summaries: "Think, will you?", "Idiot.", "What the crap?", "ffs", and the list goes on. Civility is very important in an admin, so I think Fyre2387 just needs more practice at keeping a cool head. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Some additional links: Can you read?, Prove it. Oh, wait, you can't. Nevermind, Please learn to read (twice), What exactly do you people not understand? etc SalaSkan 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Pascal and Rspeers. Civility is of paramount importance for an administrator. A few months diffs of level-headness and you will be ready for the extra tools. —Ocatecir Talk 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. The above is far too worrying for me to give the tools. We don't need condescending admins. Daniel 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I cannot tolerate incivility. Learn to vent elsewhere, not in edit summaries or anywhere else here. KrakatoaKatie 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Apparently I was wrong when I assumed that the civility issue was addressed after your editor review. The examples given above are too many and too recent to ignore. Sorry. - TwoOars 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose For administrators (IMO) civility is just as important as experience, if not more so. Incivility cannot be tolerated. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The large number of uncivil edit summaries suggest that at present this user lacks the temperament needed for an admin to be able to relate satisfactorily with his co-editors.--Anthony.bradbury 10:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. He has done a lot of great work but the repeat civility issues bother me.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:41, 9 June 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.