Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 10

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

Razorflame

Ended: January 23, 2009

Result:Editor withdrew. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame (talk · contribs)

Old RfAs: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, (7th closed early), 8th, 9th

End date: 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll make this simple. Razorflame is an amazing contributor to Simple English Wikipedia. He knows our policies, abides by them, is very helpful, and so on. For those approved, Special:DeletedContributions/Razorflame lists many QD tags, I counted 55+ QD tags this month alone. So, obviously he could use that button. Also, he has also done many VIP reports, for example, here and here.

In his previous RfA (essay mania), he was accused of WP:OWNing articles and WP:BITE-ing new users. However, I believe he has worked that out, and has matured greatly in the last 5+ months. Also a positive, he took a long wikibreak after the one RfA, which shows he is very stable and doesn't blow up when things go wrong. I think doing this shows great administrative qualities.

In short, Razorflame is a great user – thousands of pages created (which shows commitment), many QDs and VIPs (which shows a need), very helpful and friendly (which shows character), and great understanding, and application, of key Wikipedia policies. While discussing this with him, he said he is open to recall, so to quote the cliché, "Adminship is no big deal," and I don't think it should be. It's buttons, of which can be removed. But, I do not see that ever happening. Thank you. TheAE talk 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Candidate's acceptance:I accept this nomination as a sign that I have definitely worked on all of the qualities that came back to bite me in my last nomination. I have changed dramatically and for the better over the past few months and, as promised in my 9th RfA, I decided to wait for about half a year before requesting adminship again. I definitely believe that I have totally removed all qualms that others have had about me in the past. Thanks go out to AE for nominating me again, even after what happened the last time. Razor flame 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. TheAE talk 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Razor is a helpful and friendly user, and I suppose the 5,000 created articles should be mentioned, as well. :) I really hope this passes. Juliancolton (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Creates so many asteroid pages. Welcomes so many users. Many more good qualities for an admin. P.S., you've failed so many RfAs in the past, so I hope this is your lucky one ;) Turbo Golf 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I still don't get why he's not one already.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose I don't like having to do this, Razor. You're a really great guy. But i have a couple concerns: 1) 10 RFAs is generally not a good sign. This concerns me a little. 2) You have a lot of edits, but many of them are short stubs that will probably never be expanded. Since you have that many contributions, I'd like to see the ratio of stubs -> larger articles go up a little. Shapiros 10 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. Look at the editor and weather or not he will be a benefit as an administrator, or not. TheAE talk 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having 10 RFAs makes me really question how he views adminship. Shapiros 10 00:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake early on and self-nominated myself foolishly. Now, I wish that I had not done that because it greatly inflated the number of RfAs that I have had. I have learned from this and have not repeated it since about my 6th or 7th RfA. I was a child then; now, I am an adult.

Furthermore, while it is true that I create a lot of stubs, I have recently helped Romania to become a Good Article. While one article isn't really all that much, I can say this much: Wikipedia editors come in many different kinds, shapes, and forms. Some Wikipedians are better suited for writing stubs, while some Wikipedians are better at expanding articles. I find myself with a bit of both, but much more of stub writing than expanding. That is not to say that I haven't created longer articles: Amor asteroid and Dolphin Stadium are two good examples of longer articles that I have written. Hope this helps you! Razor flame 00:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles were originally created about stubs. The great thing about a wiki is that all stubby articles are bound to be expanded by various editors, so creating 4,000 stubs is an excellent way to get the ball rolling. Juliancolton (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Maturity concerns. Creating a list of friends close to starting an RFA looks like a cheap attempt to garner favour, however hilarious! Soup Dish (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was re-adding it back on. I used to have it on my Userpage, but I took it off about 7 months ago to shorten up my userpage, while looking for a way to be able to re-add it back on without having it take up the amount of space that it used to take up. It has been on my list of things to do since about 5 months ago. It is not an attempt to gain favor, I assure you. Razor flame 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That something as "Myspacey" as a list of friends has been on your "to do" list reinforces my oppose on maturity grounds Soup Dish (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a friend/great user list isn't myspacing. Many, many admins do. TheAE talk 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's a difference between MySpacing and engaging in a sense of community. Juliancolton (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice use of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, guys! Anyway, there's my !vote, I'm sticking to it. Either Razor gets the mop and he admins the place, or doesn't and no doubt disappears for months before going for RFA 11 after 10 minutes of being back on the site! Soup Dish (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to respectfully ask you this: does his friends list lead you to believe that he will abuse the tools? Cheers, Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me believe, combined with his general demeanour, that he lacks maturity and I would rather admins had maturity as a lack of maturity can lead to a misuse of tools Soup Dish (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Come on Razor, why have you run for adminship so quickly after coming back from a long break. I didn't want to oppose you, but come on, do you really think that was wise? Kennedy ^(talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basing a vote just based upon when I am having this RfA is kind of missing the point of a RfA. The point of an RfA is to make votes upon whether or not the user in question would be able to use the tools to their fullest without misusing them and whether or not making the user in question an administrator will be a net positive for this site. Razor flame 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I see it as a bearing on your judgement. Running for an RfA stating you have not run in 5 months when in fact you have only been active for 2 of those is an error in judgement in my eyes. I need to trust someones ability to make decisions (under pressure) in order for me to support. Right now, because you have run so quickly, I am doubting your judgement. Know what I mean? Kennedy ^(talk) 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what you mean, however, I have a question to ask of you: Do you think that that would hamper my ability to correctly use the tools that administrators have access to? Do you think that that would lead me to misuse the tools? In the past, I have shown that I have been able to make great decisions under pressure (The Benniguy incident and others). Do you truely believe that that would make me misuse the tools? I can tell you right now that I would never misuse the administrator tools. They are there to be used according to policy and community consensus. They are serious tools that need to be taken seriously. I definitely would take the time to make sure that the decision that I make that involves using the administrator tools are correct before I make them. Razor flame 14:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that point alone would hamper your ability. I have stated many times before, in previous RfA's. I have supported you, even co-nom'd you. However, running for admin so soon is asking for trouble. I'm sure you would have thought it through, and pre-empted these opposes. If I were you, I'd have waited about 10-12 months before running again. Not 2. Anyway, sorry Razor, I won't be reconsidering my vote. I do however still think you will make a good admin in the future. Emphasis on "the future". Good luck and kind regards Kennedy ^(talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I did figure that some people would still oppose based on this fact, however, I thought that people would have also looked at my edits and actually based their votes on whether or not I would misuse the tools and whether or not me becoming an administrator would be a net positive for this site. Furthermore, while you might say that I have only waited 2 months, that is not the case. I have waited 5 months. While I have only edited on this site for 2 out of the last 5 months, however, I took the time that I was away to re-read all of the policies concerning administrators before I came back and edited on this site again. Razor flame 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all. I just think that 10 RfAs is a bit too much. I'd wait until you've been active for several months (3-4) and dealt with all the things raised in your previous RfA. Thanks, B G^7even 14:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already dealt with all of the issues that were brought up in my last RfA. I have eliminated my WP:OWN and WP:BITE issues and have improved upon my understandings of the policies on this site. Cheers, Razor flame 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but I still think that it is too early. If you'd left it another couple of months I would have fully supported. But I just get alarm bells when I see 10 RfAs and just 2 months re-activity. Sorry, B G^7even 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that me running an RfA a month early would lead you to believe that I would abuse the tools? Razor flame 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing: I don't know. I don't trust you enough yet to fully know whether you would or wouldn't. I wasn't a SEWP editor when you last RfAd so I can't go on then, but in those two months you've been back I just don't yet trust you enough. Sorry, B G^7even 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor on Meta once told me that you should only vote on a candidate if you know him/her and have seen them editing on this site. If you don't know the candidate well enough, that could potentially lead you to oppose an otherwise perfectly supportable candidate (not talking about your vote here, but rather, in general). Cheers, Razor flame 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's another very valid point. I do know you though and have seen you editing. But taking all that into account I personally just don't trust you enough... yet. As Kennedy said, you will make a good admin one day, just not now. B G^7even 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If not now, when? How long do I have to wait before you will be satisfied that I don't have an error in judgement or won't have any issues that would make you not trust me? I've been editing on this site for a year now. Razor flame 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. A couple of months perhaps. I'm aware you've been here for a year but again that's another thing - 10 RfAs in a year? Do you want adminship that much? Also, I haven't known you for a year, only the time you've been back, so that's maybe why I don't fully trust you yet. B G^7even 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bg, who's to say you wouldn't oppose him then when he hits his 11th? It should never be about the number ad the end of the name (the one indicating the number rfa it is), it should be about whether this user has improved enough to entrust with the tools.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to keep out of this, but I think Razorflame, while he's been here over a year, and has thousands of edits, is still fairly ignorant when it comes to doing what is right for the project. An example that just pushed me over the edge was an apparent demand that I warned an editor four times before I blocked them, despite the fact they are a returning vandal creating the exact same pages. Instead of blocking as should be done, RF would give a ton of pointless warnings for a disruptive editor that has no interest in improving Wikipedia. RF is far too reliant on the rules (guidelines), and appears desperate to please people (use of barnstars, friends lists, "Hi there, I'm back again, look at me!" type comments on people's talk pages). It seems RF's goal on Wikipedia is to become an admin. Everything done is not done for the encyclopedia, but his ultimate goal, adminship. He seems far too unstable for this position, and has an over reliance on guidelines instead of common sense. Instead of waiting between RFAs, do not have another one for at least a year. It's fairly tiresome to keep seeing you here, if I'm honest. Majorly ^talk 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are some statements in your oppose that simply aren't true. was an apparent demand that I warned an editor four times before I blocked them That was not what I said and I was not demanding anything. I was suggesting that you warn them once or twice before blocking if they are a returning vandal (depending upon the issue) before blocking them. Secondly, I can't believe that you would even say something like this: is still fairly ignorant when it comes to doing what is right for the project. If I didn't want to help the project, why would I write articles and revert vandalism and warn users and mark pages for quick deletion? Why would I spend countless hours here trying to make this project better? The goal of this project is to help build an encyclopedia in Simple English, and I believe that I have followed that goal since I started editing here. Thirdly, I am not desperate to please people. In the case of me saying hello on those talk pages, I had just come back from a long Wikibreak and I wanted to initiate contact with users that I hadn't seen editing the Simple English Wikipedia before and I wanted to let all of the editors that I remembered from before I took the long wikibreak that I had come back to edit again. I was not trying to please people. Furthermore, every single barnstar that I give out is given out honestly and without the intention of pleasing people. I was giving notice to the hard work that people have given to this site. Thirdly, while I do not deny that I follow the guidelines pretty closely, that never means that I will completely ignore all common sense. The reason why I posted what I posted on your talk page, Majorly, is because A: I never saw any reverts of vandalism, and B: I never saw the text of the article that you posted on IRC because I am unable to be on IRC at this time. Therefore, I did not know everything that I could possibly know and that is why I posted what I posted on your talk page. I will not deny that I do want to become an administrator, but I will say this: I want to become an administrator, but never at the cost of anything else. I do not want to become an administrator simply for the tools; I want to become an administrator to further my abilities to help the community out and add to the amount of help that I am able to give to the project at this time. I never wanted to buttons just to have them or the sysop flag just to say that I am an administrator; instead, I have only wanted to become an administrator to help the Simple English Wikipedia more than I already do currently. Further, if I were unstable, why would haven't I done any of the things that I have done in the past, like withdraw the RfA and then unwithdraw it or retire and then unretire myself during the course of the RfA? The answer to that is because, simply put, I am more stable than you think. Razor flame 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 10 RFA's over the course of 12 months is concerning to me. Additionally, I feel you would stick to exactly what the policy says, rather than using your judgment first. I feel admins should use their good judgment first, rather than following the letter of the policy, rather than acting in the spirit of the policy. There are other concerns, but they're already listed above, so I won't regurgitate them. Steve^Talk 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just in case anyone wants to know, I estimate my edit count to be around 28,500 edits. I got this taking the number of edits that it shows in my settings and subtracting around 2,900 edits or so from that to account for deleted edits. Razor flame 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to note, while you were asked to wait 6 months. And it is about 5 months since your last RFA you didn't actually edit during 3 of those months except a couple edits in October. Just thought I would point out that you really haven't waited all that long to show us how you have changed. That being said I am not !voting one way or the other at the moment. I am thinking on it. -Djsasso (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit that, even though I was inactive for a few months, I took the time to study up on the policies that administrators deal with each and every day. I re-read intensively Wikipedia:Blocks and bans, en:Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Protection policy, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and I have worked on resolving all of the problems that people had with me in my last request for administrator. You also have to admit that I have improved on my self-control in that I waited 5 months this time instead of 3. I also took the time to read over WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:CANVAS before this nomination. I never would have accepted this nomination if I had any doubts about whether or not I could perform the tasks required of an administrator. Razor flame 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I am thinking on it and not flat out opposing per Rfa #10 or whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note to everyone: no matter of whether you think Razorflame should become an admin, please stay civil, and remembers, there is a human at the other end of the line. Opposes can also be formulated so that they are not hurting or insulting to the candidate. In an ideal world, previous RFAs should not impact this one. --Eptalon (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw this. It is obvious that people still have issues about me becoming an administrator, no matter how hard I try to fix those issues, people always seem to find more issues. I am sick of the RfA system here. As promised, I will not have another RfA for at least another 6 months from now, if not more. And no, I am not going to unwithdraw this. I have my mind set on this and I will not reverse it. Razor flame 21:50, 23 January 2009 (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.