Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 8

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (8th nomination)

[change source]

Ends on 2.55, 20 June 2008

I am going to be going for the admin position again. I really have put my heart into editing this Wikipedia and I really believe that I have gained the trust of the users on this site. I've tagged well over 1,000 articles for quick deletion, made well over 2,000 vandalism reversions and have been an overall good user to this site. I believe that I have a real use for the tools and I believe that I have matured enough for the position. People say that I should wait for someone to nominate me, but the truth of the matter is is that nobody really wants to nominate me because they all believe that I am incapable of doing the tasks that an administrator has to do. To those people, I cannot believe that you would think that. Sure, I still make a few mistakes sometimes, but I am only human. Humans make mistakes. Why keep the sysop flag from me if you really believe that I could use the tools to their fullest potential? I do not believe that I am still leaping into situations without thinking anymore. In fact, I do not believe that I do that at all. Please let me prove to you that I can be a successful admin on this site. Please let me have the opportunity to prove to you that I can handle the tools, because I believe that I am qualified to fill the position of sysop. The areas that I wish to help the community in are helping the community block vandals that are listed on the WP:VIP, helping to close requests on the WP:RFD page and the biggest factor is that I would like to help with the patrolling of new pages. Several prominent users over on the English Wikipedia have stated that I have an excellent grasp of the policies that are relevant to administrative duties, and I believe that I have made an impact on the workings of this Wikipedia with the creation of 2,130 articles, correct tagging of more than 600 articles for quick deletion, more than 1,000 correct vandalism reversions, and the general want to help this community. To those of you think that I am power hungry, I am not power hungry. I am far from it. One of the only reasons that I request adminship is so that I can help the Simple English Wikipedia more than I already have and will continue to do from now until several years in the future. I know that I can handle this job now. I know that I can. Thank you. Razorflame 19:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Self-nomination

  • While I believe that a good portion of the community trusts me, it is apparent that I do not have enough trust yet to be able to handle the tools posed by the sysop flag. While disappointed in the results, I will make it a point to not nominate myself until a minimum of 2 months or more into the future. While I believe that I have the understandings of the workings of the tools and of the policies that are relevant to administrative duties, it is apparent that the community does not think that way. I will use the time in between now and my next RfA to show and prove to you that I can handle the sysop flag and that I can be just as stable as any other user. I will show and prove to you that I have the self-control needed in order to not post an RfA anytime in the future (I won't try again until at least September or so) and that I can have a cool head and make rational decisions before I make another RfA. I thank the community for bearing with this RfA and I just wanted to say that I will try hard before I make another one. That is why I am withdrawing from the request now. Thank you again. Cheers, Razorflame 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  • Support - slightly worried about another self-nom, but I do trust you. Adminship is no big deal; so if someone is trusted, surely adminship follows? Oh, and you didn't accept. Microchip 20:01, Friday, June 13 2008 Utc
    • After reading comments below, I feel that, as I am not 100% sure about the idea of Adminship, I feel that I cannot outright support. Please consider my !vote as a wild card, so interpret it as a Support or an Oppose according to what you feel the essence of adminship is. I fully trust Razorflame, but I am not sure if that is enough. I personally think it is, but consensus, and previous RfAs, do not seem to agree with me. It is not my own personal wiki, and therefore I am not sure whether my !vote states valid reasons. If it does, interpret this as a support, if it does not, then flip the switch to oppose. Microchip 14:20, Monday, June 16 2008 Utc
Previous RfAs, and what other people in the community thinks, should not affect your vote. Your vote should clearly say your personal opinion of whether or not he should become an administrator, for your own reasons. I don't quite understand how you'd like us to deal with this, but what you seem to be saying is "let a bureaucrat use my vote any way they want" - we just don't do that. Archer7 - talk 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Microchip 07:41, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc
Just because you do not think that consensus and previous RfA's make you believe the other way doesn't mean that you should stop believing what your heart has to say about it. Listen to what your heart is telling you; don't let others' actions get to you. Cheers, Razorflame 08:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
 Comment: - No, Razorflame was right with that. He just pushed to far. -- America †alk 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe that I apologized for pushing it too far in that thread, which shows that I have the maturity to realize that I pushed it too far. Razorflame 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to push too far and then apologize quite a bit? Why should I trust not to repeat such behaviour (I don't mean this in a way that my opinion here is settled, I simply want to hear from you more). Maxim (talk | editor review) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't think that I push it too far that often. That was the only instance recently in which I went too far. I believe that if I were given a chance at being an administrator, that I wouldn't be pushing it too far anymore and that I would be more helpful than I have been in the past. Razorflame 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is something you have to prove before you become an admin, not after. I don't doubt you will be better in the future as you learn. But being as this was only a week ago it shows you haven't changed yet. People don't change that quick. You need a few months of proof IMHO to show that you won't be like that anymore. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I've learned more from this whole situation than I have in my entire tenure here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Just because something happened a week ago does not mean that I could not have learned from it by now. In fact, I already have learned from it. I am a very fast learner and I believe that I am capable of learning from my mistakes within a few hours of making them in the first place. Cheers, Razorflame 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see it as a reason to oppose.--  † ChristianMan16  20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I read you. You said that four minutes ago. Not that I agree. Maxim (talk | editor review) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE is probably the most important reason to oppose an admin candidate. -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am sure you are a good guy and do great things here, but you WP:BIT me pretty hard when I first started editing here. And you came off in quite a big way that you were the owner of this wiki. This was only a couple weeks ago. And had I been a regular newbie and not an extremely regular editor at en.wiki you probably would have scared me off from editing this wiki permanently. This sort of thing is very bad for an admin to do. Especially on a wiki that needs all the edits it can get to help it grow. While you did appologize and that is great, it should not have happened in the first place. I am sorry but admins need to know better. I would personally suggest holding off for atleast 3-6 months before applying again. 8 times is starting to get rediculous as well. It stinks of power hunger. -Djsasso (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IMHO adminship should'n be neither a big deal, nor a point of honour. Excessive desire is not generally advisable for this kind of position. --M7 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Change my vote per Djsasso.--  † ChristianMan16  20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I were going to nom RS last week. But the whole debarbkle that has gone on here has changed my mind. Sorry :( --  Da Punk '95  talk  03:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Eptalon has said earlier, you shouldn't base your opinion solely upon what happened below. This was not the way that I usually act and I believe that you should base your opinion based upon how you feel about me as a potential administrator, not about what happened below. You should base your opinion on what your heart is telling you and not about any kind of comments that have been said below. Cheers, Razorflame 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per M7 --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per M7 and a whole bunch of unproductive yelling. While I do not totally agree with Djsasso opinion on the whole thing, this line kind of scares me -"I believe that if I were given a chance at being an administrator, that I wouldn't be pushing it too far anymore" and his reply was dead on. Proof before trust, not the other way around. -- Creol(talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Power hungry. Mønobi 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per "self nomination". --Gwib -(talk)- 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm sorry but eight RFA applications in seven months shows a kind of desperation for the tools. I understand it also shows a huge enthusiasm to help Simple English Wikipedia but I'm also taking into account the slight instability in Razorflame's contributions during these processes. Being an admin requires a level head and I'm not 100% convinced yet. Only one month ago RF withdrew from an RFA stating "I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again." Just a little too unpredictable for me right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I said that message was because I did not believe that I was ready for adminship at that time. Sure, it was a little theatrical, but I am quite stable. In fact, ever since then, I have been helping other users out, including yourself, learn the quirks of this site, and I have been making articles, reverting vandalism, and helping to tag articles for quick deletion. I am not unstable, but a person with a rational level of thinking and a clear mind. As Tygrrr used to say, I believe that my mind is, and has always been open. Cheers, Razorflame 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per reasons above Bisquits (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Same user as Tycoon below) --Eptalon (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just created an account a minute ago and you oppose? Chenzw  Talk  11:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have watched this for a while and this is what i think Bisquits (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above noms. Also, I am less inclined to vote support due to the fact that this is the 8th nomination, and it is self-nominated. The greater the plurality of previous nominations, the less acceptable it is for a self-nomination. --Electronixfreex (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - having read the above comments and Past RfA's, it is apparent that razorflame seems to think that adminship is more about respect, power and move up in the Wikipedia Hierarchy than using the tools for the good of the project. I would like to see atleast two months without an RFA before I will support this user. Tycoon (talk) (Same user as Bisquits above) --Eptalon (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

*I withdraw from this RfA. Razorflame 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razor, come on. -- America †alk 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Readding this but striked out, because the yo-yo of withdrawing as soon as someone opposes, possibly goes to show they take being admin as a badge of honour. Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take it as being a badge of honor. I take it as the community's trust that I can handle the job and do it right the first time. Cheers, Razorflame 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why would you retire when an Rfa doesn't go your way? -Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso, lose 8 straight RfA's and then try it. To Razor, don't go overboard. I know what you must feel like, not from an RfA, just by real-life experience. And to the rest, you all need to leave him alone. He does one slip-up a week ago and you all beat him down. Cool off. -- America †alk 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would have realized after two that maybe there is something I need to work on. If it was one slip up it wouldn't be a big deal, but looking back he obviously has a pattern of this sort of behaviour. If he can't handle the pressure of failing Rfa's how is he going to handle the pressure of being an admin where no matter what you do people think you are often wrong? Being an admin isn't all sunshine and fun, there is real work and real pressure involved. -Djsasso (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you may think that there is something that I need to work on, but believe me, I have worked on everything that people say that I need to work on and people still oppose me, even after that fact. So what am I supposed to do? Just ignore the facts and act like nothing ever happened? That isn't the way that I work. I work on everything people tell me to work on and I try to not make mistakes. But it is in a human's nature to make mistakes. Cheers, Razorflame 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One key thing that people have mentioned you stop doing is self-nomnig yourself and to wait awhile before you apply again. From what it looks like, you apply every month. General rule of thumb for time between noms is 3 months minimum. The fact you keep applying can look like you just aren't listening. -Djsasso (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are just going to keep pegging me for small things like me self-nominating myself? To tell you the truth, the RfA process here is not like the English Wikipedia RfA process at all. Just because someone self-noms themselves does not mean that they are not suitable for the tools. I've had such comments as I can't think of anyone more suitable for the tools than Razorflame in the past. Are you just saying this to be argumentative, or are you actually going to be responsible and are going to stop making condescending statements like this? Cheers, Razorflame 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was like English Wikipedia, however, to self nominate yourself so many times is still applicable here. Sure it doesn't have as much stigma here as it does on English Wikipedia. But self-noming yourself so many times so close together still smacks of power hunger or status hunger. People are most likely going to keep opposing you as long as you keep self nominating yourself each month. Especially when you are still exhibiting attitudes like the ones mentioned above. Let another editor nominate you, and don't ask them to do so, just let it happen. And then this condescending comment basically telling me I don't know how this place works just goes back to the biting issue. You wonder why people keep opposing you and yet you basically shoot off an argumentative comment to me when I am trying to give you constructive feedback that will help you in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think that I am power hungry, I am not. I have absolutely no reason to want the sysop flag other than to help out with the workings of the Simple English Wikipedia by providing services to the Wikipedia that I am not able to provide without the flag. While you may think that I am not ready, others both here and on the English Wikipedia say that I have an incredible grasp of all the relevant policies needed for the sysop flag. For an editor like you to come on and say that I bite the newbies, that is your own opinion. The opinions of other editors on this site will all tell you that I don't WP:BITE the newbies. In fact, most editors will say that I like helping out the new people on this site. The only reason why you think that I WP:BIT you is because you weren't able to take the fact that we use the BD template here to mind when editing. You were defiant and you even claimed that it wasn't as simple as just using the categories. How is it not as simple for a newbie if a newbie doesn't even know how categories work in the first place?

Also, how is it constructive when you continue to give me negative comments? Cheers, Razorflame 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't as simple as categories. A category is easy to read and simple to figure out what its doing. The template BD is not simple to figure out how to use. It makes it even harder for a new user trying to learn wiki sytax which is already hard to learn. Knowing the policies is one thing, and having the attitude for being a sysop are two very different things. Yes, it is my opinion that you bite the newbies. If you would read that page about biting you would see that even offering constant corrections on the way they are doing things is biting. Heck you even told me to stop creating articles because you couldn't keep up with the vandalism watch. -Djsasso (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...'sigh' -- America †alk 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you two quit arguing...this is ridiculous. Razor if you want the RfA to continue let it be and see what others think. And Djsasso, I'd probably block you right now for disruption if I was an admin cause that all your doing is being disruptive. If you oppose to his RfA then cast your vote add a LITTLE to discussion and let it be...you two are acting like 6 year olds. That upsetting for an Admin-to-be and is a bad first impression for a newbie.--  † ChristianMan16  22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, not a vote. So if I just voted oppose without discussing the reasonings then my vote should rightly be discounted. Remember Rfa isn't a vote. I was offering reasonable suggestions on how he could avoid being opposed next time. And he was attacking me personally. So this only goes to show my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking you personally! I am merely stating the fact that you seem to have a problem with certain editors on here and that if you don't like something, that you can't be flexible and just change your ways. Razorflame 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you were attacking him every time he would defend himself you would come and bite him again. Stop arguing and if you want to give tips do it in a non-biting manner.--  † ChristianMan16  22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with anyone on here. In fact if you look at the first few words of my oppose I actually said that I don't doubt you are a great person and do great work here. However, you continued to tell me I don't know how things work here is attacking me. Just because I don't want to use a template whose only benefit is to save time typing and has cons which far outweight the benefits does not mean I am inflexible. -Djsasso (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STOP! This has to end. No more fighting. -- America †alk 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Looks like this is a heated debate over one incident; Please do not let this fervor let you vote one way or the other; Remember that there is another human being at the other end. Razorflame is a very prolific contributor. He is amongst the best vandalism-taggers out there. And please think twice before you write something here. The human at the other end might read it the wrong way. --Eptalon (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you American Eagle, I tried to break them up and Djsasso just started fighting with me.--  † ChristianMan16  22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fighting with you. I am defending my position. If anything you just fired up the fires more. And I agree with Eptalon, he is prolific and a very good vandalism fighter I am sure. However you can do both of those things without being an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following what is written above I think we all need to cool down. For the next hour, only administrators can edit this page. Please cool down. Topical discussion on the RFA or the admin-in-question are OK, hickhack and general attributions of guilt ('You did it'-'No I didn't'-'Yes, you did') are not the way to go. Sorry folks.--Eptalon (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a point of fact: While he has tagged a large number of pages, Razorflame has not QD tagged "well over 1,000 articles". Deletion logs show closer to 675 total pages (not all article). The largest part of his deleted all comes from deleted user space edits (mainly ArticleArchive1 with 720 deleted edits). -- Creol(talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • At this point the vote is looking like it is 9 to 5 (64% - borderline fail but many regular contributors/admins absent from the vote). The problem is that people are constantly striking and moving or vanishing and it is looking more and more chaotic. People - think about the whole situation, chose an opinion and decide. Do not change your mind every few minutes along with your vote. A matter of either supporting or opposing any candidate should not be made on a whim which you flop about an hour later. If you think he would be a good candidate, say Support and say why you think he would be good (saying "Support - why not" is useless). If you think he would not, say "Oppose - and why" (same thing applies - explain why you feel that way) Either support or oppose reasons may always get a "that is not a valid reason to ... reply, but screw that. It is your reason for why you did it and quite frankly why you feel one way or the other should not be debatable - you feel that way, those are your opinions and that is all that matters. But for the sake of all that is holy, form an opinion and stick with it unless you feel you have been presented with evidence that you feel is enough to change how you feel on the matter. Don't just go with the crowd or flip-flop with the moment. Think about the matter and form an opinion. Do not be rash. -- Creol(talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you read through the above {{oppose}} votes, it is obvious to tell that many voted off what was said in the arguments. Unlike last time, there is not reasons given to oppose. That is why three opposes changed to support - they were basing their vote off the emotion of the argument - not the qualification, trust or contributions of Razorflame. Now that it has blown over, strongly consider (1) why, and (2) how you voted. Thanks -- America †alk 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those of you who do not thnk that I have the stability to be an administrator at this time, consider this: If I didn't have the stability needed to be an administrator, then why would I, by myself, disengage myself from the argument with Djsasso? Why have I never taken a Wikibreak longer than 5 days from this site? If I truly was unstable, then I wouldn't be on this site as much as I have been in the past. I would be hopping on and off of this site and my changes would reflect that, but my changes do not reflect that. They reflect a user who has been making many stable and rational decisions over the past few months and a user who has been stable and very willing to help out newcomers, as pointed out by Creol in his response to Kanokas. If you truly think that I am unstable, then by all means consider me unstable, but I believe that I have given you reason to believe that I am stable enough to handle the sysop flag. Cheers, Razorflame 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Gwib: If you think that just opposing because it is a self-nomination is a good reason to oppose, it isn't. In fact, most nominations on this site are self-nominations. So if you think that penalizing someone just because they make a self-nomination that may be a little controversal, then why bother even voting? Your vote not only does not say very much, but it is very unhelpful and to tell you the truth, I think you know better than that. Just because this RfA is a self-nomination does not mean that I was expecting people to oppose it just because it is a self-nomination. Cheers, Razorflame 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) No matter what the checkuser says: accounts that were created after a request cannot vote in that request (per our policy, link above). On another note: Razorflame seems to be well-known in the community, at currently 9:7 (if I counted correctly, he is a controversial candidate. --Eptalon (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been that way. The last RfA that I had that was like this was my 5th nomination, which ended with 59% support at 10/7, I believe. I have always been a very controversial editor here on this Wikipedia, and therefore, I guess these RfA's reflect that. Cheers, Razorflame 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually 9:8, from what I counted. --Electronixfreex (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote most likely won't count because of the fact that you don't seem to have very many edits. !votes from accounts that are new or that don't have very many edits aren't counted because it would be unfair to the candidate and/or the community for someone to just spontaneously come back and !vote in an RfA. Hope this helps and cheers, Razorflame 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Candidate withdrew Razorflame 00:50, 21 June 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_8&oldid=8892437"