Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 5

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

Razorflame (5th Nomination)

See previous nominations: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th

Ended on 13 April 2008 10/9 (with IuseRosary's vote), 10/8, without, 52.9% support (with), 59% support (without)

I would like to nominate myself for adminship again. It's been one month since my last nomination and I believe that I have made big steps in improvement in those areas that have been crucial for an administrator's job. I believe that I have been correctly tagging articles for deletion that need it; I also believe that I have learned about blocking. A block is not needed unless the user in question is being disruptive to the integrity of the Simple English Wikipedia. Protecting pages is not needed unless it is a frequent vandal target and even then, shouldn't be protected unless the mass amount of vandalism is frequent and recent (within a few days). I do not believe that I have been actively pursuing the FBI idea anymore, and I have practically ceased to use the WP:ViP page because there haven't been any IP's worth reporting lately. I believe that I have learned enough of the policies to be able to fill the role of administrator completely now. I also believe that I have started taking a look at every angle of a problem that occurs before posting a reply and that I have been objective and un-biast throughout the revolving issues that have been going on currently., and even though Tygrrr says that I should wait until one of the other respectable users here notices that I am ready because I believe that I am way past being ready, yet no one seems to have noticed it, so I decided to post up this self-nomination. Razor flame 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Self-nominated for now

Support

Support Fifth time lucky. Seriously, Razor is addicted to Wikipedia, and is really, really hardworking. He would never ever abuse the tools, and even if he makes mistakes (as everyone does) they can be fixed easily. He's made over 10 times more edits than me, and I think it would only be better if RF was an admin too. Majorly (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Switching to oppose.[reply]
Support-- Lights talk 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more admins. RF looks great. SwirlBoy 39 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't understand why he needs a fifth nomination. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Razorflame looks good and does multiple administrating. He has helped me out when asked and I had thought he was an administrator until now. Concern with his guidelines for blocking etc.? Check Jimbos changes on en.wiki and you will find many is the account that is lost forever after bold editing. Applying for a job is hardly a bad sign. Razorflame adds articles such as cities, rivers, artists, and science among his vandal scouting (seen it loads), welcoming, running bots and contributing in 8 languages (apparently?). I am new but I see that a newbie oppose swayed the previous RfA. Anyway, Razorflame writes about places and engineered stuff and goes all through admin motions. He doesnt seem to have fights or wars. I would give it to Razorflame. ~ R.T.G 07:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He has been a fantastic mentor to me, always helpful and patient. He is a fantastic user and I wonder why he did not achieve adminship on his earlier requests and I cannot think of a single reason why he should not be the administrator that he has worked hard to try and be and aspires to be. He has shown fantastic commitment to this website and has an obvious desire to help. I completely trust Razorflame 100% and i'm sure he will be a fantastic administrator. IuseRosary? ^(talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is a really good friend and helps others. Sharth (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Try to take Tygrrr's advice, I myself have had mistake QD's (it tipped Creol against me in my own RfA) so look before you leap. But I'm confident you'll outdo youself and have to make a Super Super Excessive Editor userbox soon. :) --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Razorflame is a great asset to SimpleWiki. He would be good with the "mop". -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe you are still a little too eager at times, and I still see evidence of getting too wrapped up in the wiki. However, I believe things have changed somewhat since your earlier RfAs and I believe you should be able to adapt. I'm confident that the other admins here are available and willing to help you if you do run into things a little quickly. My only advice is that you shouldn't be afraid of taking a wikibreak every now and then if things get tough - the wiki won't fall apart without you. If it seems like there's absolutely tons of work to do everywhere and you're getting stressed, just leave it for someone else with more time and less stress - do not let it impact on your life. Archer7 - talk 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support changed from oppose, I have my reasons. All the best MindTheGap (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should have been promoted months ago. He is also a model wikipedian:) --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 04:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, you can be a bit eager, but I think that you have learned from past mistakes and are not likely to repeat them. When you're an admin, others will be here to correct mistakes. Others correct while you learn. It's not hard. And also, please don't feel like you have to be here. As Archer7 said, don't let this interfere with your life. Wikibreaks are sometimes very helpful. I hope you will take this into consideration along with what everyone else has said. I think you will make a great admin. :) --Isis ♠(talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Who was the "newbie" oppose who swayed the previous RfA? - EchoBravo contribs 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might be talking about Christianman's oppose, but I have to agree with you, even then, I didn't think Christianman to be a newbie...maybe it was just a misconotation? Razor flame 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Christianman claimed he was new. Maybe Razorflame is to be longer here but he stands out as a good admin already to me and appears of good character. Anyway, the only valid concern for me was his short period and yet the oppose sections were like books... He appears to be actively pursuing a good job. His listing of action guidelines is eager but is also short and not incorrect. Being vague about rules would be unacceptable. If I were adminning I would have a fairly precise idea on dealing vandalism, license errors etc. as set out. POV, reference details, etc. are flexible stuff but straight vandalising and 3RR for protection etc. There is no harm in being able to say "I would start with 24hour block and know what the next step is" but add "I am human and open to discussion" (I dont question this but maybe people wanted to see it). I looked up what BrownE said about Barliners talk page and it was just new buddies shooting fun and Razorflame seeking advice - nothing like BrownEs "jumping in the admin". I dont think Razorflame is so obsessed with blocking and deletion as he is with other stuff and he is active in that stuff. Best of luck ~ R.T.G 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

*Oppose The habit of requesting adminship every month disturbs me. If Razorflame had waited to be nominated by an established user, as Tygrrr suggested, I would probably support. I would suggest waiting for 12 months or so before attempting again. MindTheGap (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to support MindTheGap (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Ugh, I dread having to say this. I'm sure this is opening a can of worms, but I feel I must express that I still have issues of trust with you, Razorflame. I feel like your tendency of (still) jumping in, sure of yourself before researching or thinking over issues thoroughly, makes you not well-suited for tools such as deletion and protection. It's nothing personal. I like you very much and think you've done a lot for this site. That's why it's so difficult for me to say these things. I think you are going to pass, regardless of my doubts, and that's okay, I guess. But I needed to get them off my chest. Although you didn't take my last piece of advice, would you please consider a new piece of advice? If you receive the tools, please make sure you "look before you leap". Don't QD without doing a bit of research, don't protect a page as the first line of defense, and think twice about your blocks before doing them. I hope there are no hard feelings between us because I've said this. I feel it's important to be honest and I think I'd be doing you an injustice if I had simply refrained from voting. I respect you and I truly hope that you'll prove my doubts to be wrong. :-) · Ty grrr... 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not appear to have good judgement needed for an admin. Majorly (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per setting such high-standards, we know you have over 15,000 edits but that doesn't mean you set a standard that high for adminship-requirements, you have previously made bad judgemental errors, and well I don't think you are ready..sorry..--Comet styles 21:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comet --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per a number of people's comments and personal opinion. I was solidly in the neutral category and then something like this popped up (popped up a few times actually). While not exactly earth shattering and wiki destroying, looking at the reasoning behind the QD request I have to wonder. Last I checked, that wasn't even close to a valid reason for a quick delete. Had he had the mop, those four would be gone. Realy, it would be no big deal as the are not needed, but what if the same judgement were to be used elsewhere? Highly arguable reasoning for little things hints at future issues with bigger things. While a majority of his tags are correct, its these little things that make me doubt. Questionable reasoning, requesting QD when a simple redirect is probably better.. little things... Rather than pushing out 1000 edits a day, slow down a little. Look at what you are sending. Think about things for a moment or two. Speed is reckless and causes more errors while not letting you think about things while you are doing them. -- Creol(talk) 09:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - In my opinion, Razorflame has matured quite a bit, since his last request. However I still feel like more development might be necessary. sometimes, I think it might be something to do with judgment. He sees many trees, but fails to see the forest they are part of. That way, we have an article on Alba-la-Romaine, a village of less than 1.500 people today. The history of that village goes back to Roman times (no idea from our article, French and English aerticles mention it though), when it was the capital of the Helvetian lands, for some time; similarly, we have various other settlements in Ardeche, but we lack its capital, en:Privas; we have articles for Bidon (a little over 100 people), or Le Chambon (about 60), but we lack en:Béziers (roughly 70.000 people) or en:Narbonne (a little over 45.000 people). Both cities have histories that go back to at least the Middle Ages. Notability anyone? - Thanks ;) - Besides this the things other people said also apply. This decision was not easy...but I personally think an oppose is better at this time, than a support vote. --Eptalon (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per this, that is not a valid reson for deleting something, and you still seem to jump into things a bit quickly. But you have improved since your last RFA. Oysterguitarist 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It took me almost a whole week to decide what to do here. You are one of the most improved editors we have here. You've improved a lot. The others have given some good reasons above and I have nothing to add for reasoning. I do have some advice. I think it would do you good not to see how fast you can reply to something on any talk page, discussion page, or anything like that. This whole week I've watched you correct a typo or move something on this vote just as soon as someone has made a change. People don't need or should not expect an immediate reply in a situation like this and I think you get a little ahead of yourself. I'm really proud of the progress you've made, keep up your good work. - EchoBravo contribs 04:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After thinking, I don't think you're up for it. IuseRosary? ^(talk) 11:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

12 months? Are you kidding? I can't think of any other editor better suited to be an admin than Razorflame, and you're not actually opposing him for any reason other than he's keen to help out. Sad really, but it's your opinion. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know, MindtheGap, that I would not have posted this nomination if I actually thought that people would say something like that. It is not a habit of mine, it is actually because I am pretty sure that I am ready to handle the job now; that is the only reason that I have posted this nomination now. Cheers, Razor flame 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Cometstyles: I'm entitled to my own opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, don't take it out on me. Razor flame 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I won't support/oppose seeing as I not been here for very long (and don't wish to be tagged as an SPA...) but I would consider my interaction with Razorflame to be positive. I assume good faith and that his execution of admin tasks would also be helpful and useful. EJF (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported this candidate in a heartbeat. I think he'd make a great admin. However (I'm sorry, Razorflame), but he canvassed me about it, and some of the other things mentioned in the email make me unable to support at this time. нмŵוτн τ 22:51, 12 April 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.