Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 4

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Razorflame (4th nomination)

[change source]
See nominations one, two, and three

Ended 3 March 2008 - 50% support

There has been some dissent about me becoming an administrator in the past. I have been working on these things very, very carefully and completely over the past few weeks. I have decided that it is now time. I will explain to you exactly what I've worked on and exactly what I've done to fix the problems that people have expressed about me in the past.

  • Blocking policy-After careful review of this page, I now understand about blocks and bans. 24 hours for IP vandalism and indefinite if it is a named user that does nothing but vandalism. I will try to be sympathetic towards users in general, but these are the concrete facts.
  • Deletion policy-I have learned from my mistakes in the past and have only been placing the QD and RFD tags onto articles that don't meet the requirements listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and at the deletion policy page. I have learned all of the deletion policies, and if you need proof of that, you can look at my deleted contributions.
  • Vandalism in Progress-I have learned to not post every single vandal onto this page now. I have only been posting vandals here if there isn't an administrator on and the vandal needs to be blocked as a sort of note to administrators when they get back on again.
  • Protection policy-I have learned that protecting pages is not necessary, unless it is getting a large amount of vandalism in a short period of time. I have learned that the protection tool is one that doesn't need to be used very often. I will ask another administrator first if a page needs protection; that way, I can be sure that it needs to be protected.
  • Article help-I have learned to either put templates on articles that need them (mainly talking about the {{wikify}}, {{complex}}, {{cleanup}} and other such pages), or if I can, do as much as I can to help the article to get rid of the templates. I have already shown you that I can do this with my expansions of Haskovo, Sudoku, and Ethylene. If you need more proof, I will definitely be willing to continue to help with this.
  • Deep-rooted issues-I have learned to not take sides in a situation or deeply-rooted issue like the Benniguy fiasco, and if I start to get angry, that I should just walk about and leave the issue to the other administrators. I have learned to identify exactly when this starts to happen, so that I can leave the issue before it harms me mentally or emotionally.
  • Messages-I have learned to only leave messages for other users when it is absolutely necessary. I have started doing so myself. I have also learned that not every message needs a reply. I have learned to only reply to messages that are of some import to either myself or the Wikipedia Community as a whole.
  • Experience-I have shown that, now that I am more than 3 months old, that I have the experience necessary to become an administrator. I have shown that I have the experience necessary for the position through my QD tagging, comments left of users' talk pages, and my involvement in the GA and VGA processes.
  • Range blocking-Even though it is not required to be an administrator, I have taken it upon myself to read the Meta's page about range blocking. Although I was a bit off on the range listed in the AN, I was at least right in the fact that the range needed a range block. I have also decided that I will leave the range blocking up to more experienced administrators, because I am not very comfortable range blocking.

I have listed out all of the issues that people have had with and how I have fixed them to make myself a better, more well-rounded editor here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Add into the mix the sheer volume of vandalism that I've reverted and the sheer amount of correctly placed QD tags that I've put onto articles, as well as the massive amount of Barnstars that I have recieved, and I think that you can safely say that I am ready for the flag. Even though some people have said that I am obsessed with the idea of becoming an administrator, that is simply not the case. I am not obsessed with becoming an administrator. I am obsessed with helping this Wikipedia flourish and become a big part of peoples' lives. Thank you for you time. Razorflame 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:

Support

[change source]

Oppose

[change source]
  • Oppose. I still do not trust Razorflame on a number of issues:
Blocking policy: Based on your post on this board, it seems that you still think there is some sort of mandatory "sentence" for vandalism. There is not, the admin does what is best to curtail the vandalism, whether that block is 3 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, indefinite, etc.
Deletion policy, I think you have improved, but I still think you will delete things too quickly.
ViP: Again, improvement, but I still think you think that a block is absolutely necessary after a test4 warning and that a warning is needed after every bad edit. There is no "3 or 4 strikes and you are out rule."
Protection policy. There is plenty of evidence of you asking for page protection on things that in no way, shape, or form needed to be protected. Your offer of not to protect pages without another admin's concurrence is helpful, but page protecting is a basic task.
Deep-rooted issues and messaging: I think part of the problem here is your enthusiasm. You jump right in on problems without regard to long-term effects. I think the biggest problem I have in this department is you acting like an admin. If someone asks a question on an admin's page, you will answer it for the admin. You did it just today with Barliner. You talk and reply to things on the Administrator's Noticeboard like you are an admin. I have no problem with you helping new users, you generally do fine, though I think you from time to time mistake new users for vandals and warn them without trying to reason with them first, but I've done that before. After a awhile, it does become hard to assume good faith. I think you can improve in this department as you've shown improvement on the QDs and ViP.
I still think you think we are some sort of "FBI" of wikipedia when in fact we are really just "Citizens on Patrol." (Yes, that is a reference to Police Academy 4.) You have shown improvement in a lot of areas, but I think more needs to be forthcoming before I can support promotion. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to say that the reason why I answered LB22's post instead of Barliner is because LB22 asked me to do so on my talk page before hand. As for the blocking policy, I do not think that it is mandatory. Those were just examples of the types of blocks that I would do if I were to become an administrator. It is on a case-by-case basis. I would only block a user if it was absolutely necessary in order to preserve the peace of this Wikipedia. Razorflame 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in addition to Browne34's points, I think User_talk:Razorflame#Closing_RfAs shows enthusiasm but not forethought. Although LB22 also asked you the question mentioned above, by now you should know that there will be a follow up to your answer, so should have given extra info. If you only answer when needed, why make the comment you made below? I thought you were going to wait longer before making another nomination. I would have been happier with that, as you have improved a lot. --Bärliner 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean by 'authority'? Oysterguitarist 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tygrrr's wording not mine --Bärliner 15:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking to Razorflame, so he could clarify that. Oysterguitarist 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that? Razorflame 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
diff, the wording is kind of confusing. Oysterguitarist 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I was meaning by that was overstepping what I could and couldn't do here. In truth, I actually didn't know at that time that I can't close RfA's myself. Now I do know that, so I have learned from it. That was what I was getting at there. Razorflame 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it sounded like you said you had more authority over other users, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't what you meant, so thanks for clarifying that :) Oysterguitarist 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would never say that I have more authority over other users. I am just a user on this site, with my only authority being to vote for people who would like to be administrators or voting for deletion. Other than that, I have no authority on here. Razorflame 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm disappointed to see you didn't follow my advice. I still have serious doubts that you can be trusted to follow policy on essential things like deletions, protections, and blocks. You still have the tendency to look before you leap, to jump to a conclusion before examining the situation closely and making an informed decision. You are on the right path to adminship, but you keep jumping the gun, imho. Perhaps you'll think about my advice again and wait until another respected user is willing to put his or her own reputation on the line by nominating you. I'm sorry, but I feel you simply are not ready yet. · Tygrrr... 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking to nominate Razorflame several weeks ago, but decided not to since several people have been nominating him w/o his permission or his willingness to run a RfA at the time. I decided to let him run his RfA on his own so that he would feel sure when he felt that he was ready to run for adminship. But am I a "respected" user or did you mean it that it was only admins? --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having rights that other users don't does not mean that they are respected more. Oysterguitarist 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to imply that admins are the only users in this community who are respected by others. I don't feel that way and I'm sorry if it came off that way. What I was trying to convey when I passed along the advice originally given to Spiderpig0001 was that another user who has been around for a long time and is a respected member of our little community might have a better perspective or insight into when he might be ready for the broom. · Tygrrr... 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Personally, I think you are a good user, who dedicates a lot of his time to this Wikipedia. However, I'm still not sure you've learned everything you have to know, and I think it is still a little soon for you to become an admin here. Before your next RfA, I expect you extend your knowledge of rules and standards significantly. - Huji reply 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry, Razor, I don't think you have enough experience. Maybe another 3 months. I'll take another 2 to 4 months before requesting/posting my first RFA (which more than likely will fail). But back on topic, not right now, Razor. Sorry!--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 06:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Browne34. My interactions with Razorflame, they haven't been all that pleasant. Maxim(talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not just yet...--Yegoyan (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons set out by Browne34. I can see a massive improvement in you recently, but I still see some evidence of the "FBI" idea, as well as the "mandatory sentence" thing for blocking. I think these are things that you will gain perspective of in time. Keep up the good work, Archer7 - talk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
And based upon what I've seen of your contributions in the month or so that I've been here, you have earned them. TheWolf 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I would like to bring up from the fact that most of the people who opposed Razorflame's RfA, mentioned improvement in his editing, but stated it to not enough for sysophood. While I understand the people's concerns, I also feel that people have been exerting too much pressure on him, as if they expect him to be a perfect user. While no one is perfect, per Tygrrr's userpage, I think that several people have overly raised the requirements for adminship on Razorflame too much. Its because going back through the past successful RfAs, I think that those users have gotten their adminship way easier than what Razorflame is experiencing now. I'm not going to point out names or accusse anyone, but I think that Razorflame is going through the hard way for adminship. I'm not saying that the people who opposed Razorflame are being mean, but I think that there could be a little bit more sympathy to someone who has working 24/7 on this wikipedia with more than 10000k edits in a mere 3 months. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see how it could look that way, but I can only speak for myself in reply to your observation. In voting in this RfA, I have used the same criteria I look for in all users during RfAs. I look for dedication, a proven need for the tools, and my trust in a user that s/he will use the tools appropriately. I've already explained in my vote above which of these personal criteria that I feel Razorflame still falls short in. I don't feel that I'm holding Razorflame to any higher expectations than any one else who has run for adminship. Like I already said, I can only speak for myself, though. · Tygrrr... 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snake, I'd also like to say a few words in response to your sayings above.
Firstly, I fully understand how much pressure this may put on Razorflame to see people opposing his fourth RfA (although I have never experienced it, I can undestand it); something that is more known as "empathy" rather than "sympathy".
I appreciate Razorflames helping here 24/7 and as I already said, I think he is a good person. However, should everyone who dedicates a lot become an admin? User:Cethegus has helped this wiki a lot more than many of us, yet he is not a sysop. Adminship is not granted to thank people for their helps. If we are grateful about Razorflame, we should thank him in the correct way.
Last but not least, I didn't (and don't) say Razorflame can't become an admin here. What I'm saying here is that it is still soon for him to be granted those permissions. If his fourth RfA fails, I recommend him to postpone his fifth RfA to some time when he is certain he is ready for it (let alone the fact that when I or someone else notice this, we may nominate him too).
Hope this clarifies my views, - Huji reply 08:42, 28 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Razorflame_4&oldid=8899389"