Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 2
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Razorflame (2nd nomination)
[change source]Withdrawn January 20th.
I have been dedicating myself to helping this Wikipedia for a long time now. I know that I still don't have 3 months of experience, but I really believe that, thanks to many of the more experienced editors who have helped me learn so much about this Wikipedia, that it really shouldn't matter whether or not I have 3 months to my name. I am proud to say that I am an editor of this Wikipedia whenever someone around me asks me what I'm doing. Whenever someone asks me that question, I always answer with a smile: "I'm helping other people out by contributing what I know to a wonderful site". More to the point: I am active on this site, and I believe that with the administrator tools, that I would definitely be able to further the help that I can give to this Wikipedia even more. Back during the Jackjack issue some days ago, I felt helpless to prevent it. I don't want the tools just to have them; I want them to help protect this Wikipedia from vandals, to help block disruptive users, and to overall make this Wikipedia a better place. I have much experience in reverting vandalism (just look through my contributions), and I am a pretty friendly person overall. I do admit that I do tend to get a little caught up in things, but I really believe that, since the IamAR issue, I have learned to control my feelings and remove myself, or not even participate in discussions that I know will get me angry in. As for my contributions to this site, I have helped expand this Wikipedia by making many articles for this site. Even though most of them are stubs, there are a few that I am especially proud of: Lenzburg is just one of the many examples. I am also proud of my vast expansion of the Haskovo page. I have really learned so much from everyone here. Even though I only have 1 month and 26 days on this Wikipedia, I think that what you really should look for instead of how long a user is on a Wikipedia is experience. Thank you. Razorflame 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate's acceptance:Self-nominated
- Co-nominate - I would also like to co-nominate Razorflame's RfA, although he has already nominated himself. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[change source]- I think you'd make a great admin! You've really helped me get started here (more than the current admins!) Terry (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I don't care much for number counting. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Abstaining, per issues below. Majorly (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Support - Razorflame has done a lot of hard work on this wiki and deserves the tools. Good luck! Lights (talk) § 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, for many reasons unknown:) --§ Snake311 (T + C) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- mmmm --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit-countitis and number-crunching is all well and good, but I think Razorflame has shown enough to suggest there would be no abuse of the tools. Assuming we actually need more admins at the moment. MindTheGap (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[change source]Very weak oppose, I really wish that I could support you, but I think that the community agreed that a 3 month experience was a requirement. While I'm not 100% sure, since I didn't write the criteria, I would change my vote to support if the community decides to let you go as an exception:) --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users have to be active editors in this project for some time before they request adminship. There is no set time, but three months is preferred." Terry (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, I do not think that the tools should be a reward for hard work or be given by default. Razorflame, you have a lack of experience on the site. Rest of the three month period will show us how well you can cope with admin issues such as IamAR. Too much tunnel vision, evidenced by the fact that you spent longer complaining that I did not delete a category than it did for others to populate the category. As I have already said to you when you were thinking about withdrawing your self nomination, I do not think you are yet ready for the admin flag.--Bärliner 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree, he should stay here longer to gain experience. Hes been editing alot, but I think he should contribute a few months more.--Yegoyan (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lack of experience and foresight, tunnel vision. Razor has not shown his understanding of policy is good enough for the job. With two incidents just today, I don't feel the time is right. Razor tends to act on belief rather than facts. Rather than taking the few seconds to check the spelling of Dr Pepper (the en: link was right there on the page after all) he fell into the "I thought it was This" mode and got involved in an edit war. Questionable QD's have occurred recently - QDed a double redirect rather than pointing it at its correct location, the issue with the category today that took more time to edit the page than it took to find a valid target. Also, I am pretty doubtful that he watched that category for 4 days before making the request (as per the QD rule for empty categories). He does not tend to look ahead at his actions and take steps to prevent further problems (this very page, reverted then immediately re-edited to strike something out rather than doing both in one edit). Many times I catch an article tagged as {{uncat}} by him only to see that it also needs cleanup and wikifying but while he placed one template, he somehow failed to notice the blatant need for others. Choosing the moment he requests admin as the time to completely archive his talk page, including references to the incidents which happened mere hours before seems a bit strange as well, as if trying to hide them somewhat. -- Creol(talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assure you Creol, I did not archive my talk page for that reason. I archived my talk page because it reached around 33kb's, which is when I usually archive my talk page. Razorflame 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - A good editor you are, but you're not experienced enough, and not fully familiarized with our policies and standards. Sorry, may be the next time. - Huji reply 08:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above, and I believe that administrators should have at least 3 months experience on-wiki. Familiarise yourself with our policies, relax a bit as an editor, and then come back in a few months and put in a new RfA. Jordan - talk 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - Although he is a great contributer and a fantastic person, I just don't think he is as fluent as other admins. He is not quite ready yet, maybe a month or two more. Sorry Razor, it's just what I'm feeling. You're still the best. :-) I.Rosary 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[change source]- I am withdrawing from this RFA. I will try again in a couple of weeks. Until then, I thank all who voted. I hope to improve myself to be a better user in the future. Razorflame 22:42, 19 January 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.