Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 11

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

Razorflame

Razorflame (talk · contribs)

End date: 26 Oct 2009; 07:38 UTC

I believe that I have matured enough for the position now. It has been eight months since my last request and I think that I have worked out all of the kinks that I have had in my previous requests. I believe that I will make a good administrator now and if you want, you can check out what I have done with the tools on the Simple English Wiktionary. I still help out around here and I believe that I will be able to help out more than I do already if I were granted adminship here. I am currently an administrator and bureaucrat on the Simple English Wiktionary. Thank you, Razor flame 07:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Self-nomination

Support

~~# Support You seem to be active at times when others aren't (because of timezones) --Bsa dow ski1 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support - I can't really comment on the leaving for a while/coming back/leaving thing, and I think he is overall a positive, helpful user here, so why not? Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Can't support someone who so frequently retires, especially since the last unretirement was just 12 days ago. Either way (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Either way. Majorly talk 12:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't support someone for the same reason as the previous two. Also not sure about your tendancy to lash out at things that upset you, after your asteroid stubs were deleted you immediately tried to delete the stubs of many others. Now perhaps those stubs should have been deleted, however you probably should have left that nom to others. This makes me concerned that you would misuse your deletion abilities. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Either way and Dj. Also per his last ER where he stated that he'll not go with another self nom. And while your work on SEWIKT is greatly appreciated; I can't trust you here with the tools. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Your frequent retirements and unretirements, together with the fact that retiring is only meant for someone who is leaving for good (or an extremely long time, not in your case), show a bad problem of indecisiveness, which I wouldn't want to see in a future administrator. Chenzw Talk 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symondsy about sums it up: No. Gob lin 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
I don't support users who can't decide to go or to stay. Furthermore, I think you don't understand the difference between wikibreak and retired. It is always funny to see how fast you change your mind. At all per all above me. Barras (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

RF, you've retired and come back to SEWP a few times this year alone (8 April retired (for a minute)), 8 April 2009 unretired, 7 July 2009 retired, 9 August 2009 unretired, 30 August 2009 retired, 18 September 2009 partial unretired, 24 September 2009 retired, 7 October 2009 unretired) - we don't really need admins to retire so often, what assurance could you give us that this won't happen again? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am grounded now and I assure you that I have no intentions of leaving this project again. While I agree that in the past, I have been a bit unstable because of hectic family life, now that family life has settled down, I can devote more attention that is warranted without the hectic lifestyle that I used to lead. I haven't stopped editing the Simple English Wiktionary once in the past month and a half now and while I do admit that I have done stupid things in the past without thinking, this is not one of them. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I definitely feel as though I belong to this project now. I've reviewed the deletion policies and blocking policies again and I also feel that I have worked out all of the kinks that I have had in the past with requesting things to be speedily deleted. I have gotten over everything that has happened to me in the past on this project and I want to help this project as much as I possibly can now. I hope this gives you the assurance you were looking for, Razor flame 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why retire all the time, though, when you can't edit? You could just take a break. No one is saying you must edit... but retiring is usually reserved for the times when someone really intends not to come back. -- Menti fisto 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I don't know whether to change my "vote" or not because of the Opposes above. Can someone strike it out until I come up with a decision? --Bsa dow ski1 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but you can do it yourself too, you know ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

I guess that I have to withdraw from this RfA. 1/9 is a WP:SNOW closure, so I am going to take the high road out of this. Thank you for your feedback. Razor flame 20:39, 19 October 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.