Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 6

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

Razorflame (6th nomination)

See previous nominations: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

Ends on May 17 12:05PM

I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again.

I believe that it is now time for another request for adminship. I believe that I have completely redefined the reasoning behind the reason that I want to attain the sysop flag. I believe that I have completely worked on everything that others saw in me the last time. While many people say that I still make mistakes, this is what I have to say to them: Isn't it in a human's nature to make mistakes? If everyone didn't make mistakes, then how could they learn from them? I believe that that is the case. Even though I still request deletion for pages that don't really need to be deleted, I believe that I haven't been doing that nearly as much as I have in the past nor without thought. Every single QD tag I have placed since my last RfA has been thought about for 5 minutes before I request it for deletion. I make sure that they conform to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before I request deletion and if it doesn't meet the deletion policy, then I work on the article to make it more fit for this Wikipedia. Ever since my last request, I have mulled over the things that people said that I needed to work on and that is exactly what I have done:

Incorrect QD's Even though I still make an occasional incorrect QD, at least it isn't as much as it has been in the past. This is one of the main things that I have worked on, and as I said before, I have given each and every QD tag that I place on a page 5 minutes of thought before I place it onto the article. I believe that even though I still make mistakes, that it is in human nature to make mistakes. How else am I to learn?

Bad judgement Though people say that I don't have the necessary judgement needed to fulfill the role of administrator, I believe that I do have the necessary judgement needed to fulfill the role of administrator. If I didn't have the necessary judgement that every administrator needs, then why haven't I been banned already for being disruptive? Why haven't I been argumentative? The reason is because I simply don't have bad judgement. If I did, I would've already been banned for disruption. While some people may say that I don't have it, I am completely positive that I do.

Some people may think that requesting adminship every month and a half means that I am eager to become an administrator, and to those people, I would like to say this: That is not the case. I simply believe that a month and a half is the perfect amount of time to work on the things brought up in the previous RfA, address them, work on them, and fix them so that it isn't the problem for the next RfA.

Thank you for reading this long request.

Candidate's acceptance:Self nomination

Support

Support Great Wikipedian, who could (and always had) be better with the tools! Keep it up! -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user has made more edits than almost everyone. He has edited in very good faith, and I haven't been noticing any trouble. Everybody makes mistakes, only the best fix them. This user finally should be given the administrator position. He deserves it -- AmericanEagle 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the condition he is open to recall (any editor in good standing can ask him to stand for recall). If you've had no issues after 3 months, I'd be willing to let you go out without people keeping an eye on you. Majorly (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, but you are a tad to eager. SwirlBoy 39 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Grave danger you are in. Impatient you are. It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to admin people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made Admin should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Creol(talk) 00:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - You should wait for someone to nominate you. It is just a matter of time. Slow and steady wins the race. Chenzw Talk 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I will think about it again. Chenzw Talk 07:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me to have nominated him. He really deserves it. -- Da Punk '95 talk 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto -- AmericanEagle 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't know what more I can say that I haven't said in your other nominations. I'm afraid I still feel the same. · Ty grrr... 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; here is the reason: In the first glance, you are a good user who makes lots of useful edits, creates good stubs, improves existing articles, and marks approximately 5 articles for quick deletion every day. But on the other hand, I reviewed your past nominations and believe some of the reasons people have given to vote in your oppose in the previous nominations are still valid. And it is only about one month from your previous nomination, so may be it is too soon for a change to take place. So for now, I'm not sure if we should give you access to admin tools. - Huji ^reply 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- At least for this month's Razoflame for Admin request; besides, Huji has stated some very valid reasons. You will not get adminship sooner; If you deserve it, you will be nomimated; besides, the tabs are not that great, they also bring big responsibility. --Eptalon (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me to have nominated him. He really deserves it. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The exchanges we have had on our user talks make it seem like this is your own personal wiki, and have said on at least one occasion - "I would rather...". This isn't your own personal wiki, and thus consensus overrules personal opinion. mC⁸ 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To tell you the truth, I do not think that this is my own personal wiki. If that is the message that has come across during our discussions on both your talk page and my talk page, that is not my intention. Cheers, Razor flame 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you just had an RfA a couple of weeks ago which shows that you think this is a game and getting adminship is what you crave for, slowly by slowly I'm doubting your ambition and your motives and because of this I believe I will never support any of your RfA's in the future if this continues...--Comet styles 07:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –

"Some people are hard to discourage"

"Sometimes persistence pays off"

"But mostly it's just annoying."

The above quote (not exact wording, from memory) tells how I feel with this...it's used in a totally different context, but it works here, too. You've made administrator requests almost every month. I think that persistence can pay off in some cases, but in others it gets really, really annoying and makes people less likely to give you whatever you are asking for (in this case, administratorship).

So what do I think? I think that the more requests you make, the less people will support you. Personally, I believe that if you had not made so many requests, you would have been made an admin ages ago (or maybe not, but it seems that way). Of course, you are gaining experience as time passes, but making requests every month shows that you are way too eager to be an admin, and may sway people's trust in your capability to handle the job. Really, it's not as big a deal as you seem to think (no offense). There's nothing wrong with waiting for an admin for a few minutes or so until they check the QD page, or block a recent vandal. You don't have to do everything! Relax and breathe a little, please!! It hurts to see someone trying so hard. Don't ever give up real life for something like Wikipedia. It's probably the worst mistake you'll make. Ever. if you don't get to something, someone else will. :)

I agree with many others here. That is...past RfA's have brought up pressing issues, and while you have improved in many areas, some of them are still relevant. But then, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress made by real people. There are always going to be mistakes and always going to be people to correct them. It would just make everything slightly more pleasant to not have to fix mistakes that could be easily prevented (like, say, by opposing an RfA).

My advice to you: don't make any more RfA's for yourself until you are sure enough people will support you to gain the tools. And when enough people support you, you will no doubt be nominated by someone else. Hmm...so I guess I'm saying just wait until someone else nominates you. :) I think another problem is that you take guidelines and policies a little too literally...remember that every situation is different. Every vandal is an individual person who will react differently to wanrnings, blockings, etc. Every non-perfect, wikified article that is created has the potential to be fixed by a solution other than deletion. It took me three weeks away from Wikipedia to realize these things. Spending some time in the real world isn't too much to ask, is it? If you must, try a wikibreak to clear your head a little.

Take to heart every single correction, every single mistake (both yours and others), every single piece of advice, until there is no reason for you not to be an admin (or, minimal reason...nobody's perfect). When people correct you, they are not trying to be rude or offensive, even if it comes off that way! They are trying to help you. Remember this. Also, an old wise man once said, "Patience is a virtue..." :) Not too hard, right?

So, now that I've written a novel...sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. It was a close call to make, though. Too close to take chances. But don't let this get you down! Keep working hard...but for everyone's sake not too hard, okay? Making 500 minor edits a day isn't really helping anyone. --Isis ♠(talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As I have stated on Tygrrr's talk page, I believe that if you really are unsure about how I would handle the flag, why not impliment something like en:WP's Administrators open to recall? If you are that concerned that I would not be able to handle the flag as well as I think I can, then you can remove the flag. I would be willing to do that if you are willing to give me the chance to prove to you that I won't do the things that you are still concerned about me doing. Thank you, Razor flame 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give him a chance. He has given so much to wikipedia. Remember, if he is as bad as you think, than he can be demoted. But he could assure you, he step up his game. Give him a chance. Please? -- AmericanEagle 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to be clear, but I did not ask anyone to back me up. They did so under their own volition. Cheers, Razor flame 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True -- AmericanEagle 00:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Razorflame as a good editor and I would definitely support if Creol and Huji hadn't had given pretty good reasons to oppose. I'll stay neutral on this one, unless some other good reasons to support or oppose pop up. The life of brian (talk) 15:48, 14 May 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.