Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 9

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 (9th nomination)

[change source]
Razorflame (talk · contribs)

Ended August 22nd 2008

Earlier tries: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th (, 7th closed early), 8th

Note: Before giving your opinion, you may want to read this. Longer comments (called essays) have been moved to the talk page.

This is American Eagle (you may remember me from all those years ago, lol), and this is something I have been waiting to do for a while now. I would like to nominate Razorflame (talk · contribs) for adminship. Over the past few months, we have corresponded and talked to one another, for the most part, by e-mail. Through talking with him, I have been convinced that he has both the commitment and experience needed for adminship. Up to this, which is his 9th RfA, I’ve noticed that several users oppose because he was hasty and self-nominates himself (I understand why now). But I believe he is ready, and I will nominate him.

With 24,000+ edits, I don’t think anyone would question his commitment. Many have commented about his lack of experience. But now with have been coached on EN:WP for adminship, and with how he has fixed problems that other users could see, he has greatly grown. He has a very great understanding of how things are run, how to enforce our policies, and he has the experience and trust needed. He was the nominator of Lights, Gwib, and myself for adminship, and all were successful. So he obviously knows what is needed for Sysop privileges.

He has also been very friendly and kind, he has given out (I believe) more Barnstars and has welcomed more new users than any other anyone else. I want to encourage you to consider Razorflame for adminship – he is very helpful and friendly, often acts like an administrator, ends conflicts and apologizes for his part in them, likes to help articles, has created thousands, a great vandal-fighter, tags pages for deletion (all deleted edits), and overall a very excellent user for this Wikipedia. He has proven to be an excellent user since he started, and I believe he should be granted sysop to better aid in his helping of the Simple English Wikipedia. Thank you. — American Eagle (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a Co-Nomination. To be perfectly honest, I do not have much more to say other than what American Eagle has already. The only thing I would say is that there is no real reason to oppose his RfA. The WP:OWN issues are all way overblown. He asked if he could be allowed to work at them at his own pace. He has shown that he is to be trusted, and will not mis-use the admin tools. And is that not the main criteria for Admin? Kennedy (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:I humbly accept. Thank you, American Eagle, for taking the time to write this very, very amazing nomination and I am very honored to have been nominated by you. While it is pretty uncommon to have a co-nominator about halfway through the Request for Adminship, I am very grateful and am very happy that a user that I have had great times with on the Simple English Wikipedia in the past, present, and most likely in the future to have co-nominated me for adminship, even in the face of the opposition. It takes a lot of mental fortitude to co-nominate me when drama like this happens in a Request for Adminship. I am very happy and grateful that Kennedy has co-nominated me, and I am thrilled that he has co-nominated me for adminship. It really means a lot to me. Cheers, Razorflame 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short version

[change source]

Because of the size of this RfA, a short version of the votes has been included. The full votes with all the discussions about each one is in the sections below.

Support
  1. American Eagle (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TBC 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chenzw  Talk  06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Minor or Prime 09:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gwib -(talk)- 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SwirlBoy39 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Da Punk '08  talk  08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. tholly --Turnip-- 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bstone (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. RyanCross (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  † ChristianMan16  15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Beefball Talk 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kennedy (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mitaa ya Cut RekOrds (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Giggy 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly talk 12:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)2[reply]
  3. MindTheGap (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Creol(talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~Jennavecia (Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)1[reply]
  7. Jonas Rand · (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. vector ^_^ (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  EchoBravo  contribs  20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1: Struck by Eptalon due to low edit activity. 2: Self-struck.

Result: 14 valid support votes, 12 valid oppose votes; 53.85% support. The limit to become an administrator is set at 65% support - see the criteria for adminship page. I therefore have to declare this request as unsuccessful. Razorflame: Please work on your communication skills, the main issues mentioned seem to have been WP:OWN and WP:BITE, you yourself have said that the comments you left were not intended that way or were misunderstood.--Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full version, with comments and discussion

[change source]
Support
[change source]
  1. Strong Support - as nominator. — American Eagle (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. Has matured enough not to nominate himself every month. Also, adminship should be "no big deal"; he knows his policies, give him the mop.--TBC 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for WP:OWN as shown below I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more concerned with it being a WP:BITE issue than an WP:OWN one. Disappointing for sure, but not enough to make me oppose.--TBC 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His rebuttal to the WP:OWN conflict demonstrates that the Romanian river incident was not just a simple mistake, and that he generally does not have a good understanding of the WP:OWN policy. As such, I reluctantly withdraw my support. I will not oppose, however, and would be glad if Razorflame does get adminship. --TBC 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Back to a weak support. As long as RazorFlame is open to a recall and willing to change if any of these ownership or WP:BITE issues occur again (as per comments below), I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, this will not be in vain; I've had good encounters with Razorflame, I know he can do this if he puts his heart into it.--TBC 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Per TBC and nom. Chenzw  Talk  06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seen around very often. Minor or Prime 09:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per User:Razorflame/AWARDS and his recent unactivity. --Gwib -(talk)- 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yes, great user. Very productive. And heck, he has the second largest edit count :) SwirlBoy39 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very (x1488) Strong Support - per all my earier supports for Razor. There are at least two editors on this site who should have the mop but everyone is too chicken of them! (No NPA breach intended) --  Da Punk '08  talk  08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support I know Razorflame can be trusted with the tools and has shown a need for them in paces, and after all his contribs deserves them by now. The reason for weak is the edit that took Suceava County from here to here. It removed encyclopaedic information and put in a complete copy/paste from part of the enwiki article that was full of red links. However, Razor did tell me on my talk page, and said I could put stuff back in if I wanted. I haven't seen any other examples either, so it's a support overall. - tholly --Turnip-- 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Yes. Bstone (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - After thinking this through, I have decided to support Razorflame. Razorflame has done great things for this wiki. He has been here for nearly a year, has amassed over 24,000 edits, has worked on a WP:GA, and much much more to help the Wikipedia community. I looked through this candidates archives, the WP:VIP history, and much more to actually see what this user has done. I was impressed to see how many VIP reports that Razorflane has done. In fact, basically all of them were blocked at the time. This shows he will use the block tool for good use. He even has more VIP reports than me (me having about 30+). :O I've seen some pretty nasty things in his archives, but he handled the situations rather well in a civil manner. I assure you, Razorflame acts very well civil and kind like any other administrator should be, even with all that drama in the past he has encountered, particularly his past RfAs, which I beleive has has improved adaqu. Razorflame has many of the qualities an administrator should have in his nearly a year of activity to Simple English Wikipedia. People have mainly opposed Razorflame due to the WP:OWNership problems and the WP:BITE-y edits he has done. Watching, looking, and reading very closely from what Razorflame has said throughout this RfA page, I am convinced that he has learned what he has done wrong and I highly doubt he will ever act like he "owns" articles again, as well as not biting newcomers (Tholly, Spaghetti, you reading this?). He has shown to me that he is very sorry for his actions and what he has done, and he will never do it again, IMHO, from what he has said. In the past, he has actually welcomed, assisted and guided new comers, even users like me, and look how much I've grown just by Razorflame's help in the past. He will, in my view, continue that as a administrator, and this BITE-y comment he left to some users can be behind us and Razorflame, and I would assume Tholly and Spaghetti are okay about it and what happened (am I right you two?). Anyway, Razorflame has been in a lot of drama in the past, mainly just through the adminship process, and I think this RfA is the final one. I believe Razorflame is a indeed good candidate for adminship and he has my utmost trust. Razorflame, if you make a mistake as an administrator, which I highly doubt will happen, we will be there to clean it up, we'll be there to fix it. Like what Gwib said below, blocks can be unblocked, protected pages can be unprotected, rollbacks can be reverted, and deletions can be undeleted in a matter of seconds. Just don't delete the Main Page. :P I believe in you Razorflame, and that your words are true, just don't do anything that will make me regret this support. Don't misuse the tools, that's what you have to remember. I trust you, and most others do too. You are a very dedicated contributer to Simple English Wikipedia, now, and in the past, and in the future as an administrator which I foresee will happen in a matter of days. I believe you'll do just fine as an administrator, Razorflame, and you have shown me exactly what you can do and what your made of! Thank you, RyanCross (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well summed up, I agree with that. - tholly --Turnip-- 07:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongly support - Should have become one last time.--  † ChristianMan16  15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Nom. Beefball Talk 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as Co-Nom - Kennedy (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support He's having an experience. He deserve to handle the tools!--Mitaa ya Cut RekOrds (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) (Vote struck out by Eptalon; This editor not very active, less that 100 edits since mid-march of this year)--Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (I made an error: valid vote; sorry) --Eptalon (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[change source]
  1. The discussion at WP:AN#w:WP:OWN is rather concerning, and probably the worst part of it is that this isn't something that can be written off as a one off as it's something I see somewhat regularly from the candiate. (Not endorsing the hyperbola of the comment there, but its actual content.) Sorry. :-( —Giggy 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate it if you can rephrase what you have written into Simple English. I don't quite understand. Minor or Prime 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll try (and sorry!). I'm a bit worried that the candidate might have some "WP:OWN" issues with adminship, because of what is said at WP:AN#w:WP:OWN. Because of this, I can't support him, as he might do something that would not improve the encyclopedia. —Giggy 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry if this isn't clear either... I try. :-)[reply]
    There is one more point Giggy forgot to simplify (that has an impact), and that is Razorflame, having WP:OWN issues, cannot be just forgiven over this matter as it is something most people who are applying for RfA will do (think an article is their own).
    Disclaimer: I am not saying anything about Razorflame, I am just stating what WP:OWN is. My vote shall remain the same for now. Chenzw  Talk  09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand now, but my vote stays the same. Minor or Prime 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I applaud him for being Romanian though, since I am too :-P —Giggy 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggy, how can you say that you see this somewhat regularly from me if you are hardly ever here in the first place? And yes, that is something that can be written as a one off because I know that everyone is able to edit all areas of this Wikipedia. I am not trying to change that. The only reason why I want the tools is so that I can better help to protect this Wikipedia from vandals and to better help the community so that we can all be as productive in making an encyclopedia as we can. That is my only goal with becoming an administrator. I am not trying to become an administrator to hold sway over other editors or to prevent people from editing in a certain section; I am trying to become an administrator to help the community more than I already do without the tools. Cheers, Razorflame 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: I moved Razorflame's 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) comment down a bit as the threading up above was confusing otherwise. Now I reply to Razorflame.) The fact that you start off your rebuttal by saying I rarely edit here is incredible, as you are clearly incapable of doing basic research (like, say, checking my contribs page). Furthermore, the fact that your statement ("... I am not trying to change that. ...") contains something obviously contradicted by your asking two users to stop creating articles gives me plenty of reason to not trust the goals you have proclaimed as yours for adminship. Sorry, strong oppose from me. —Giggy 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Minor Contributor: Sorry, I just realised this isn't really simple! :-) Basically; he said I don't edit much here, but I do, and he said something not true in his statement, so I think he might be lying in other places and might make Wikipedia worse as an admin.[reply]
    Your saying that I am lying and might make Wikipedia worse of a place if I am an admin is completely uncalled for and downright rude. You also said something that is not true in your statement: I never lie about anything on this site. Me saying that I am not trying to change the fact that Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit does not contradict the fact that I sent those 2 side notes to other users. In fact, those should not have even caused any concern with WP:OWN, because frankly, it is not a policy nor a guideline on this site, and therefore, cannot be used as a reason to oppose. The fact of the matter is that you, too, have been completely unrational and very, very, very critical of small things like this and you are continuing to be rude towards me when I have not been as rude back to you as I have been in the past. Wikipedia is meant to be a place for creating an encyclopedia. If the only reason that you come onto this site is to oppose an RfA just to create drama (like you have in this instance), then maybe instead of you doing that, you should stick to creating and improving already existing articles on this site instead of arguing over petty things on this page. Cheers, Razorflame 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again. Look at my contributions page. Here's a link: Special:Contributions/Giggy. Accusing me of only coming to Wikipedia to oppose your RfA, on your RfA, is evidence of the behaviour others have concerns with here. I hope you understand why they have these concerns. —Giggy 10:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "In fact, those should not have even caused any concern with WP:OWN, because frankly, it is not a policy nor a guideline on this site, and therefore, cannot be used as a reason to oppose."???? This is Wikipedia, for everyone. Warning other editors off creating pages because you're going to create is a perfectly good reason to oppose I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - this unfortunately demonstrates a lack of understanding of one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggy has said the same above. I don't understand why a simple request can be so severe to all of you. Minor or Prime 10:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because we need to trust our administrators to uphold the principles of Wikipedia. We can't bestow adminship on people who don't understand those principles and, worse, give other, newer editors the wrong impression as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I agree, but to me, any regular user who doesn't vandalize is okay. I respect your decision, but I'm keeping my nomination. Minor or Prime 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, administrators can't just be "regulars that don't vandalize". Generally, candidates have to show that they are experienced in adminy areas and that they would do good with the tools. If you say "regulars that don't vandalize can become admins", we'd all be admins now... and we wouldn't be good ones if all we did was stick around and not vandalize. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, that one other point, being good with with code and MediaWiki tools. Minor or Prime 11:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, there is much more than just that. MediaWiki editing isn't done much here anyway. There's deletion, knowledge of policy, good judgement, blocks, and... that's all I can think at the moment. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got it. By the way, when I said MediaWiki, I meant like all the tools you use in editing, not the MediaWiki software. Minor or Prime 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - you've had nine nominations in eight months, so more than 1 a month. That must be a record. Please wait a year before having another RFA. I'm personally getting tired of seeing these requests. Majorly talk 12:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Stricken per Archer7 - I don't think this oppose is helpful. Majorly talk 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    American Eagle nominated him. Minor or Prime 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He accepted the nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, while I appreciate your concern, I think that your request is compeltely ridiculous. The only reason why I have 9 nominations is because of the fact that I made 2 within the first month that I was on this site and that I made those self-nominations without knowing about the consequences of having them. Another reason why is because my 7th nomination was closed by M7 right after it was posted because it was meant to damage my chances of becoming an administrator in the future, which it obviously has. Instead of basing your vote on things like this, base it on how well I understand the policies which all administrators must know. Cheers, Razorflame 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the WP:OWN concerns. Either Simple is free for everybody to edit in all areas or it isn't. MindTheGap (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Withdraw oppose. I find it impossible to oppose when, further down the page, we are being told to consider supporting as to oppose would be to damage the wellbeing of the candidate. MindTheGap (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Unstrike oppose per Creol. Not realising that, in the abscence of SE policy, EN policy is followed makes me even more concerned MindTheGap (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that they could not edit in those areas that I posted in my note to those users. I was merely trying to inform them that they are not copypastes, and that while they are close to being copypastes, I had the permission of the person who created the articles on the English Wikipedia to port them over to this site pretty much close to the way that they wrote them. I was not claiming ownership of a part of the Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers, Razorflame 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry RF, but you don't even need permission to "port them" across, especially as they're not copypastes. A copy would need sufficient paper trail for GFDL but no "permission" needed to be sought. You really were claiming ownership by trying to make sure other editors didn't create the articles before you did. That, no matter how you look at it, is an assertion of ownership. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And so far you've quit this RFA and unquit twice. This isn't stable behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To you, it might not seem like stable behavior, however, to everyone else who has participated in many of my previous RfA attempts, it is quite stable. Cheers, Razorflame 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've seen half a dozen of your previous RFAs. Your behaviour is inherently unstable and that makes you a poor candidate for an admin. If the going got tough when you have the tools will you just ask to be desysopped and then resysopped every other hour? Combined with the problems of ownership, I must oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The Own issue has popped up before (mc8 in nom6) as had the stability question (TRM in nom8) and here both are still present. I am more worried that you do not realize that it was an OWN issue than that it occured. You have stated time and again that you didnt tell them not to create the articles, you only told them they should let you create the articles "because I have a great understanding of the pages and I believe that I am the best person to create the pages here". That is the same thing as telling them not to create them. You have withdrawn and reinstated your RfA three times in the last two RfA's and your reply to the stability issue - "to everyone else who has participated in many of my previous RfA attempts, it is quite stable". Your constantly changing opinions on the matter are not stable. WP:OWN was not a policy, unless of course you look at the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Rules. By that concept, WP:CIVIL is not a policy either and biting was perfectly ok just a short time ago. Then we get to the constant infighting on this page alone. This is hardly the actions I would want from a person who is trying to become one of the people who are supposed to be dealing with these problems. Last and certainly not least - Archers essay pushed me from weak oppose/keeping silent to full/strong oppose. As was brought up in a recent (also highly contested) RfA, the persons actions here are what matter (barring things like known vandalism issues). How you are affected by not being voted in support does not matter at all. However, personally, if this is causing as much of an issue for you as you indicate in your reply, you need to quit now, forever. If you are getting this worked up, Adminship is not for you and most likely, the entire process is likely causing you too much harm and you should just walk away. If this is the difficulty you have with a negative comment, imagine you email full of vandals blasting away at you daily because they didn't like you block, or just because they didn't like the fact you were an admin. Heck we even get randomly mentioned such as "There is also Creol, a retard who was sysopped after two times of crying out loud: "God Save The Wiki"!" (Thanks for that goes to Ionas - although I got it first time and am essentially atheist - He couldn't come up with something witty so he just replaced Tdxiang's name with mine). With all the difficulty, this place can not be good for you and making you more of a target is the worst thing we can do. -- Creol(talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Creol, do you know how much vandalism e-mail I've gotten? None. Just because of some haunting users (I don't know much about it, I wasn't here) doesn't mean he'll be constantly attacked. And all this talk over "he's so obsessed" and "he needs adminship" is pathetic. I know him well, it's not true. Archer7, I really disagree, from experience with him. Guys, can we end this, once and for all? He may or may not pass, I fully believe he should, he just needs a chance. I really trust him, he's not what you say. I mean it, he's not evil. :P — AE (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends what adminship stuff you do. (And note you haven't haven't been an admin for a long time yet.) On Commons where I'm an admin, I've gotten quite a few threats for blocks, deletions, etc. It really depends on who is affected by the work you do. —Giggy 07:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "can we end this, once and for all?" - No we can not. You nominated him for Admin, remember? As long is there is a nomination, it will be discussed. If you did not want people to say negative things, you probably should have rethought the idea of nominating him as negative things tend to be said at RfAs. If this is all too much, it just reinforces my point. -- Creol(talk) 07:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true about the e-mails, I got hunrdeds from Benniguy and IuseRosary telling me how to fix my physical appearence ("Gwib needs a jaw augmentation, hair straightened and some fake tan"), but isn't the tone of your essay relatively the same as Archer's essay? Archer (very basically) says that RF has an unhealthy addiction and helping him reach his goal would ultimately satisfy that addiciton rather than hurting him again. Your oppose (also very basically) says that the crushing onslaught of e-mails would hurt him just as much as another failed RfA. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The onslaught of offensive emails directed towards admins is by far and away worse than the kind of analysis an editor goes through during an RFA. If RF has to quit and restart this, his 9th/10th/11th RFA twice because the analysis of his recent behaviour is unpalatable for him then I shudder to think how he'd react if someone threatened him anonymously. Sysopping should not be used as a cure for obsession. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly shouldn't be used as a cure, and I do not propose that we should throw him the admin flag to make him feel better. The point I tried (and apparently failed) to make was that his problems may be solved when he becomes an admin, and also to try and help you guys understand what's going on for him. I don't want everyone to change their votes because they feel sorry for him - I'd like them to understand him so that his life can be a little easier. Wikipedia is not a mental health service, but we can be nice without giving him an unfair advantage. This must be torture for him, and I hoped that by giving you my view on it that you could understand him a little better and be able to more easily interact with him. I do not want everyone to immediately jump to support just because he's going to be upset, and I'm sure Razor doesn't either - from my chats with him on IRC, he wants to go through the same process as everyone else. Let me repeat one final time - vote on your honest opinion, support or oppose. Just try and think about the way things are working for him. Archer7 - talk 10:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But Archer, that's the whole point. We can "be nice". Why should we be nice? As the Flying Spaghetti Monster said, if he ran for admin ten times should we therefore just "be nice", overlook the shortcomings like instability (e.g. quitting this very RFA twice already), ownership and biting new editors? Or should we treat it like we treat all other RFAs and ask questions, determine why the editor needs the tools, if he's ready for them, if he understands the policies, if he will show Wikipedia in a good light etc etc. I don't need help to interact with him, it's clear that this is a big deal to him and it shouldn't be. Creol got it right. If it's that massive, then he should pack the whole thing up. As you said Archer, we're not here as a mental health service. We need admins we can rely on, stable and knowledgeable. We don't need to be "nice" to get them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AE, it all depends. Like Giggy said. Image-related work probably has the fastest burn-out rate ever; Durin (admin) and Abu badali (not admin, but had an arbitration case thrown against him for extensive image work) have both retired from Wikipedia as a result of such work. I always thought Simple was a much safer place, at least because page protection is rarely enacted and you don't have the extensive nationalistic pride and edit warring that leads to such death threats. You don't have people hell bent on trying to destroy the encyclopedia (I know that Grawp sometimes issues death threats to admins who clean up his move disruption). Alison as a prominent checkuser was once stalked in real life and her user pages are regularly vandalized (I realize that's an extreme example of being on the front lines, with a fairly extreme example). Apparently, we have our own minor breeds of people like IuseRosary and Ionas. Me? As I've said before, I only delete pages on en, rarely protect and never block, the worst I get is the occasional YOU DELETED MY PAGE, WHY DID YOU, CAN I HAVE IT BACK? comment on my talk page. If I attempted to mire myself in major disputes, I'm sure I'd probably get a lot worse than that. Cassandra talk 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I came here to support and saw quite an unusual looking RFA. I read the opposes and checked the link and decided as I'm new and have sporadic editing, I would just not participate. However, as I read further, I saw where RazorFlame said that he never asked the new users not to create the articles. To quote him: "... if you could please allow me to work on it at my own pace and not create any Romanian River articles, that would be much appreciated. (emphasis mine)" Clearly that is a message not to create articles, which is surely not a message we, as a wiki, want to convey. So, with that said, I want it to be clear that I'm not opposing for the WP:OWN issue, rather I Oppose because RazorFlame didn't own up to his mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, of this we can all be sure. A sign of maturity and responsibility is to acknowledge those mistakes and learn from them. The latter is a trait I expect in admin candidates on any project, and a trait that, sadly, I don't see in RazorFlame. ~Jennavecia (Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like me to apologize for posting those two side notes onto Tholly and TFSM's talk pages, then that is exactly what I will do. I am sorry that I posted those two side notes onto both Tholly and TFSM's talk pages as I realize now that they were mistakes and as RyanCross has said, I have learned from this mistake and will never act like that again. Everyone makes mistakes, and I realize that I made a mistake that I am truly sorry for and have learned not to do that in the future. Even though I think that I did not word it correctly, I realize that it came across as owning those articles and I am not going to do that again. I have often been accused of biting newcomers in the past, but these instances are far outweighed by the amount of help that I have given newcomers both currently and in the past.
    I assure you, I am ready to handle the block/delete/protection tools and I am ready to become an administrator, because I feel as though there is nothing more for me to learn without becoming an administrator. I have learned about WP:OWN now and I am well aware of that policy, as I have been since I have started editing on this site, and I definitely will never post a message like I did on Tholly and TFSM's pages again. Cheers, Razorflame 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Razor, what I would have liked to have seen was you own up to your mistake from the get-go. A lesson learned, but one that will take time to exhibit to others. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will keep that in mind the next time something like this comes up, if ever, in the future. I have already owned up to how poorly I treated Giggy over the course of this RfA the day after it happened, and I will own up to any other mistake that I might make in the future as soon as I realize that I have made a mistake. I promise you this. Cheers, Razorflame 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose OWN and BITE mistakes can be overcome as an objection to a RfA on their own. But when combined, they make one of the most dangerous combinations of policy violations - and can hinder the working of the encyclopedia. Now, I believe that adminship is no big deal, but such policy mistakes, when combined with an apparent ignorance of WP:Rules (policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia, when the issue is not covered on Simple Wikipedia, should be used as a guide) cast serious doubt on his ability to use the tools in accordance with established policy. Unfortunately, his reply to Giggy above tends to indicate that he still doesn't "get it". I agree with Eptalon below that the use or abuse of the tools is the only important consideration, and therefore must oppose - a lack of policy understanding in these areas makes me suspect that he will have a similar lack of policy understanding in areas involving use of the tools. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (User is very knolwedgable, and left a very helpful comment here; but the account here is younger than a month) --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (Valid vote, this is like Philosopher's 25th edit, sorry for not counting it) --Eptalon (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this response left by Gwib somewheres down that section, and also read the section that states that I would be willing to be open for recall first before you vote. Also, read the last section of this RfA. These three things should show you that I have learned from my mistake and that I have already pledged not to WP:OWN or WP:BITE, with the punishment being that I lose the sysop flag if I breach either one of these policies in the future. Also, I have already stated that I would be willing to be open for recall, as well as being under the watch of a more experienced administrator so that your concerns are well monitored. You are saying that you will still vote against my becoming an administrator, even when I have already pledged to these things, as well as the fact that I will be desysopped if I do anything that is against policy in the future? You are still saying that I won't be a good administrator, even when I have to do all of these things in order to keep the flag? Please rethink about your vote and if you still think that I would not make a good administrator despite the things that I have told you in this message, feel free to keep your vote the same, but please read the links that I have provided you and please take these things into consideration. Thank you, Razorflame 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption that you would lose the flag if you abused the tools is a given, imo, regardless of whether you agree to recall. That's not my problem. My problem is that abuse of administrative tools, even if they are reversed, can cause irreparable damage to the encyclopedia. In short, every trusted user should be given admin tools; your record, which I referenced above and which includes comments made in this RfA, doesn't place you in the "trusted user" category at the moment. The base problem isn't that you violated OWN or BITE, it's the lack of policy understanding that caused you to misuse the (very limited, I understand) tools you currently have access to as a user and which I fear will cause you to misuse the additional tools that come with the mop. The section on guidance by an administrator would help (the other points in the last section are irrelevant to my decision, as stated above) but having that kind of condition on a RfA in essence creates a new category of user rights - the "probational administrator" which is unnecessary. Wait those 6-12 months, demonstrate you can read, understand, and follow the policies, and I will be more than happy to support your RfA. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that the assumption that I would lose the tools is irrelevant in this instance and I know that you do not trust me yet, but here is a question that I have for you: How can you even say that you don't trust me if you just joined this Wikipedia about a week ago? You haven't been around for the whole two and a half months that I have waited to post this RfA to see that in fact, I do understand the policies quite well. In fact, the only times that I have been told that I have done something wrong in the past half a year or so has been the WP:OWN and WP:BITE issues. That is the only issue that I have had in the past concerning the policies. Also, if you still doubt that I don't know the policies well enough for you, please take a look at my administrator coaching page over on the English Wikipedia and read that page thouroughly, and you will see that both Useight and Keeper76, as well as Iridescent say that I have a very good understanding of the policies already. I am not having trouble with the tools that a normal user has access to. Every single one of the times that I use the move tool, I use it correctly and every single time that I use the undo tool, it is always for a very valid reason. I can and have already demonstrated that I understand and know the policies that all administrators have to adhere to on Wikipedia, and to tell you the truth, IMHO, WP:BITE isn't that serious of an infraction. People can be in bad moods sometimes and people can sometimes be bite-y, but I am usually in a good mood. I hardly ever BITE anyone, and in fact, I love helping new users to understand this site better. I have a very good grasp on the protection, deletion, blocking, and rollback policies that administrators must adhere to and I definitely understand them and know when and when not to use each of the new tools that I would get with the mop. While I know that I have a very low chance of changing your mind, at least bear this in mind: I have, both currently and in the past, demonstrated that I fully understand and know each of the major policies that all administrators must know (Wikipedia:Blocks and bans, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and I do know how to use the rollback tool correctly (see my huggle contributions over on en:WP). Thank you for reading this and cheers, Razorflame 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Last reply - this is getting too long) I may be relatively new to editing on Simple, but am familiar with the policies here, if not all of the traditions - particularly as many policies are similar to policies on en.wiki where I am an administrator. My philosophy on trust is defined by "assume good faith" - if you have a fair number of edits, I "automatically" trust you. Unless you do something to make me not trust you. As for the information on the en.wiki, I didn't see anything to change my mind (mooting the question of whether contributions should be considered across wikis). The heart of my oppose is the lack of understanding of WP:Rules (and to a lesser degree BITE and OWN) shown during this RfA. If you aren't familiar with the basic policy of the simple.wiki ... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [Also, no offense and sorry for the (possible) irrelevancy, but I would remind you of one of your own standards for Administrators - bullet 5 here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]
    You say that if I have a fair number of edits, that you would "automatically trust" me. I have nearly 25,000 edits on this Wikipedia, 3,000 of which have been creating new articles. I create a lot of articles for this Wikipedia, and I can tell you that I know the policies and WP:Rules quite well already. After nearly 9 months of editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, I can assure you that I understand the rules of using this site quite well, and definitely enough to correctly use the extra tools that administrators get. I am very familiar with the basic policy on this site, and I know for a fact that I know them, as I have known them for quite some time now. People should be allowed to make one mistake (the side notes that I left on the talk pages of Tholly and TFSM) without having this big of a consequence come out of it. If you would note, I have never before had a problem with following WP:OWN before during my tenure here on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I am never going to have one again. I made a mistake, and this is pretty much what happens when I make a mistake...people jump all over me saying that I don't understand the policies that I need to understand in order to make a good administrator when, in fact, the complete opposite is true. I know and understand the policies well enough that I know that I will be able to make a good administrator. It is in a human's nature to make mistakes, because without our ability to make mistakes, then how are we to learn from them? I have learned from the mistake I made, and I needn't say it again, I definitely understand the rules that govern a Wikipedia as well as you do.
    I know that you are an administrator over on the English Wikipedia, and I know that you are a very good administrator over on the English Wikipedia, however, I do not believe that you quite understand my situation here. Every single Request for Adminship that I have posted (My 6th, 8th, and this one) have all had opposes that are centered around a single problem that I end up fixing within a few hours after the Request for Adminship fails. Every single one of my requests have ended in this fashion. How I am supposed to show you or anyone else that does not believe that I understand that policies well enough to be an administrator wrong if I am not allowed to prove to you that I can be a good administrator? I am at the limit of what I am able to learn as a normal editor on this site, and I do not think that I can show you or any other user of this site that I am a good administrator if I am not given access to the tools to prove you wrong. I know that I can correctly use and handle the tools given to me when I become an administrator and I know that I can do it right. You just have to give me a chance. Cheers, Razorflame 03:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out, that although Razor's message on my talk page was a bit OWN-y, I didn't feel at all bitten, as it was polite and I wasn't all that new. Also, I'm sure that now Razor will never make those mistakes again, and out of 25,000 edits, 2 bad talk page messages isn't that bad. If you can try to forget about them, there's no real reason to oppose. - tholly --Turnip-- 16:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    #No, nobody has to give you a chance. Adminship is NOT an entitlement, and a failure to understand that automatically disqualifies you in my book. Swatjester (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (User has done many edits since voting here; real contribution started after voting here though) --Eptalon (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect summary, in my opinion MindTheGap (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Seems to be eager for power "...I am not allowed to prove to you that I can be a good administrator", also evidenced by his prior adminship requests, 6 (3/4 or 2/3) of whichare self-nominations. This seems to be one of this user's chief priorities, and we don't want anyone who desires the power that much. I do not dispute that he is a good editor, just that he is always stable on-wiki. His unfounded allegations of canvassing are ridiculous. There is a Wikipedia Review thread about it, but this is not canvassing. He can get a bit incivil and defensive at times, as shown above in his reaction to criticism. On top of all of that, he uses "Cheers" almost all the time, even when he's angry, just look at this RFA. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it". 9 RfA's is just absurd. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (User with few edits, less than 100 this year) --Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (Wrong criteria: this is a valid vote) --Eptalon (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your reason? Majorly talk 10:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not change my ideaa from the last time --vector ^_^ (talk)14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't you ask Bstone his reason for supporting? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in Cassandra's RfA when I asked generally the same thing. (Why are only opposed votes challenged?") -- Creol(talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because we assume good faith here; in an ideal world, every editor would have admin rights. Since this isn't an ideal world, we make do with a few admins. We should support automatically unless there is a good reason not to. There's no reason to support someone, other than appreciation of their good work. An oppose is simply being negative, and so will require more explanation. This both helps the candidate and the rest of the people commenting, especially if something important is brought up. --Majorly,Cassandra's RfA.
    Thank you Creol. I don't question Bstone because he obviously thinks there is no issue with the candidate, thus defaults to support. If Vector wrote so much as "Per above" it would be more helpful than just a signature. I'm kind of disappointed you'd need to even ask that, as an enwiki bcrat. Majorly talk 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're disappointed that Creol asked it too then. As a 'crat you need to weigh up the arguments by both the supports and opposes - if this is borderline, the "yes" votes don't even propose an argument while the opposers have made it very clear (except Vector) why they feel that way. And by the way, the fact there's a 65% pass mark here as opposed to the unofficial 85% region on en-wiki makes me question such pile-ons as it is clearly a lot easier to make the grade. And why is questioning the reasoning behind a support not an assumption of good faith anyway? Perhaps all the opposers would be enlightened by the supporters expressing more than just a "yes"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't disappointed Creol asked. He is someone who opposes quite often, and therefore is the kind of person who would expect supports to be "reasoned". Why should the supporters argue? It's the opposers who are saying "no". As I said, we should promote everyone unless there's a good reason not to. Now, I'm not going to comment on whether the opposers have provided good reasons, but Bstone clearly thinks they aren't reason to oppose, as have the other supporters. It isn't up to the supporters to provide an argument. We should be defaulting to support. If the supporters want the opposers to be enlightened, they can add more reasoning. It's harder to provide a reason to support than one to oppose "Does good work/high edit count/active/civil" etc are pretty vague don't you think? It's the burden of the opposers to find an argument to think of a reason why not. We should only be questioning why if the voter thinks there is a good reason to. In this case, Bstone thinks there isn't a good reason to, so defaults to support.
    I don't know where you get 85% for enwiki, it's 75%. Majorly talk 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Too many people have too many issues with him for me to be comfortable voting support. Also I feel like many times people have been coerced into voting support by personal issues of the candidate and I feel that is totally out of order so I oppose. Also the canvassing issue was ridiculous. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Unfortunately I still oppose for the reasons I opposed before and the reasons above. I would like to be able to support this candidate, but seeing a nom from him almost every month is extremely troubling to me. Beyond that I don't have much to say as I don't wish this to devolve like the last time. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make a nomination for two and a half months previous to this nomination and I have already fixed the self-nomination aspect. Cheers, Razorflame 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't fix the WP:OWN issues. Now that I see you have told another person to stop creating articles. That was the biggest reason for my oppose last time and you appear to still be doing it. You didn't self nom this time so that is an improvement, but you accepted a nom. 2 and a half months where you had a huge chunk of time where you weren't very active is not a wait. I would like to see 6+ months at this point. Most people I would like to see less but with 9 failed noms that bar has to be raised. -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done no such thing. I have not told anyone else not to create articles on here besides the two that were originially brought up in the first place. Secondly, if WP:OWN was a big issue in my last nomination, why can't I find any mention of that policy when I look back over my 8th nomination? Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else. Thirdly, I already have signed a partial agreement with TBC on this pages' talk page under conditional resolution not to request the tools again for a minimum of 4 months from now, however, I am not even going to request even 4 months in the future. I am not even going to request 6 months from now. In fact, I won't even being thinking about requesting again until at least 6 months from now, and I won't start accepting nominations until at least 8 months from now, if not, longer. It all depends upon how well I am doing in my editing on this site from now until then.  :). Hope to see you in my next request, whenever that may be :). Cheers, Razorflame 18:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you didn't look close enough as I clearly said you acted like you owned this wiki. And if you look through a number of your other Rfa's, it has also been mentioned in them. In the case above its more about individual articles than the entire wiki but its still the same idea. I am not mistaking you for someone else as its on my talk page from you that you told me I should slow down/stop creating articles. The seeing that you did it again was me referring to the fact you basically did the same thing again which is linked above. Unfortunately you have don't seem to have a clear grasp on main wiki principles. I wanted to support you on your next Rfa, I truely did. But unfortunately this is a major issue. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose. Per most of the above. My objections have been noted in several prior RfAs. However, I'm almost tempted to change my mind based on the participation of non-regular editors. Sorry Razor. -  EchoBravo  contribs  20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[change source]
  • I haven't quite made up my mind yet, need to look at his edits more, but this was bit odd to say the least. It comes uncomfortably close to discouraging new users from editing in my opinion. I won't use it as the sole criteria to vote oppose but it made me think more about voting support... The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 11:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly say, I was going to be very happy to support Razorflame... but the WP:OWN issue is a problem. It also seems a little WP:BITEy if your saying this and this to FSM and Tholly, since they are pretty brand newish users. I'll have to think things through before deciding to support or oppose. For now, I'll stay nuetral here. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Hello all, I am also adding a short notice, but my notice is different from that of Archer7 (that is why I add it). Administrators can do the following:

  • They can block (or unblock) users; ideally because these users have been a problem beforehand
  • They can delete pages. In an ideal world, these pages are deleted because they do not belong here, or because the community has decided that they had better be deleted,
  • They can protect pages (There are three levels of protection: all users, only autoconfirmed users, only admins). Protected pages can only be edited by the respective crowd.
  • They can rollback changes; this will undo the most recent changes by a specific user.

This RfA is to ask you if you trust Razorflame to handle these tools in the way they are intended to be handled. Please note that all the administrators are a team. In short, if you think Razorflame capable to successfully handle these tools, then you should support him, if not, then please oppose him. This decision is up to you. I am not a psychiatrist, I am not qualified to talk about addiction; Your vote should only depend on whether you trust Razorflame to handle these responsibilities. I also want to bring your attention that Razorflame is the number 2 editor is this wikipedia; according to his own account, he has done over 24.000 edits; He has been with us for about 10-11 months, if memory serves me right.

I also want to bring up fairness: Please be fair: There are many things about adminship (such as judging the right time to block a user for) that can only be learned on the job. So, when you make up your mind about Razorflame, please be fair. We all make mistakes; Making them is the only way to learn things.Try to judge him the same way than you judge other editors.--Eptalon (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tone of this RfA has degraded from temperate to poisonous. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia that I've come enjoy being at and editing. No, this has morphed into the English Wikipedia. I am protesting in the only way I can by laying a black rose on my user page. Cassandra talk 05:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the co-nom arrived a couple of hours after you emailed Kennedy. Wouldn't like to think you've been canvassing for votes... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. I forgot that I said that Kennedy could co-nominate me in my next Request for Adminship, and so I thought that it would be better late than never. I did promise him that he could co-nominate me for adminship. I did not expect him to, so therefore, it cannot be canvassing. Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course. Sending someone an email to remind them to co-nom and hence vote for you could not be canvassing... could it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A co-nominator isn't required to vote for a candidate as far as I know. It was up to him as to whether or not to vote for me. I was just reminding him about my promise to him earlier in that I said he could co-nominate me. I did not say anywhere in my email that he should vote for me. Therefore, since I did not ask him to vote for me directly, it is not an infraction of WP:CANVASS. Cheers, Razorflame 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Show me one RFA were a nominator or co-nom hasn't voted for the candidate. If you're sure this couldn't be misconstrued as canvassing then that's just fine, but in my opinion you're deluding yourself - it's another lapse (along with the ownership, biting and instability issues) and reinforces my opposition to your candidacy I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A private email to a person whose stance on a vote is known to inform them that a vote is taking place falls under Votestacking (audience is biased) and Stealth canvassing (private email - no transparancy). Both are considered canvassing. Telling him to vote is not needed, just informing him that the vote is taking place is sufficient. -- Creol(talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly a violation of canvassing. And, to be honest, I back The Rambling Man 100 per cent here, to the extent I cannot believe this RFA is still running. In my view, Razor should do the honourable thing and fall on his sword - unless Simple going to be "The encylopedia everyone can edit...as long as they don't upset Razorflame by performing edits to articles he wants to own?" MindTheGap (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it was a mistake to uphold the promise that I made to a friend in the past, and I am pretty sure that it is somewhat agaisnt WP:CANVAS. However, I do not believe that it is that big of a mistake that I should not get the flag. I will not withdraw from this Request for adminship because 2 other good users have nominated me for the position and therefore, I have to honor their nominations by allowing the RfA to run for the whole week that it is supposed to run. Cheers, Razorflame 19:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So given what Creol has said to you above, you admit to canvassing during this RFA? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to one instance of it, however, I still do not think that it is a big enough mistake that it would cause the Wikipedia to be destroyed if I were to become an administrator. In fact, I think that I have already learned from this RfA in that I am actually following other peoples' advice and admitting to a mistake that I made. People make mistakes, that is how we learn. I have learned from this and will not repeat it in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)This is rediculous. I asked Razor to let me know when/if he was running again, to let me know. The reasons for this is:
  • So I can co-nominate
  • So I can vote
  • So I can watch the RfA

If you want to bring up the fact he emailed me, then blame me, as it was I who requested it. It is hardly canvassing when I asked to be notified. He did not ask me to co-nom, or to vote. He simply told me RfA Razor 9 existed. I didn't realise that it would cause this much hassle. Kennedy (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any other RFA on any other Wikipedia, a candidate canvassing any number of votes would have their candidacy removed. I suggest you withdraw now instead of using the RFA process to learn how to respect guidelines and policies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
En-wiki's definition of vote-stacking, for those who aren't aware : "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." - note the "predetermined point of view" - e.g. a co-nominator. Meanwhile, "Stealth canvassing - because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, and this is just my observation, that some editors dislike Razor, for whatever reason, and seem to find something to oppose for. Kennedy (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy, I understand your concern but this RFA should not be used to learn how to pass an RFA. Even in the middle of it we've seen non-admin behaviour from RF, regardless of how you look at it. RF has admitted to biting newbies, claiming ownership and now canvassing. These may all have been unintentional but they happened nevertheless. All in the space of a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This is not about liking someone or disliking them. It is about evaluating somebody's ability to be an administrator. Would you want a policeman who casually breaches the law? No. Razorflame is a great article writer, sure, but adminship isn't a "reward" or a "level up" as Wikipedia is not a game. He can be a great article writer without having the mop. And I'm sure many are somewhat uneasy about the dash for adminship - and still remember the time he tried to bypass the RFA system to get the mop without an RFA! MindTheGap (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) As I have already stated above, I will not withdraw this request. This request is valid until the end of the week because I have 2 other editors on this site nominating me, so therefore, I have to keep it open because if I were to close it, people would get mad at me. Eptalon said to me that there is a reason that the RfA process is 1 week long and that is to use the whole of the time to its' fullest extent to allow for a maximum of discussion to occur. To tell you the truth, TRM, you, too, have been in breach of a policy/guideline. You have not been acting very civily towards me since this whole issue got brought up. You continue to attack me and beat me down with phrases like: "I suggest you withdraw now instead of using the RFA process to learn how to respect guidelines and policies", "but in my opinion you're deluding yourself - it's another lapse (along with the ownership, biting and instability issues)", and several other instances where you are constantly attacking and prodding me into doing something that you want me to do in order to make me look like a complete fool or a person who does not know any of the rules about being an administrator when the exact opposite is true. I know the policies and guidelines required for an administrator: Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. Any other guideline, in my opinion, holds no sway over an RfA unless it is a serious breach of policy, in which both the WP:OWN and WP:CANVAS issues were not. I have demonstrated that I know the three main policies that all administrators must know in order to successfully be an administrator, and even though it appears as though I do not know all of the guidelines on a single Wikipedia, that is not true. I know about both CAVNAS and OWN, as well as BITE, and I have known about them for several months now. I am not the person who needs a reality check in this RfA, it appears that it is other editors on this site who do not know what it means to be fair and impartial because frankly, only 3 or 4 of the opposes were actually fair. A few of the opposes, in my opnion, are not very fair and are very biast towards opposition based upon a few simple mistakes that have already been corrected. Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am certain that through both TRM and MTG's replies to this RfA, that they were already personally biast towards me and are now trying to find every little thing that I do wrong to completely undermine all of the good that I have done for this site. Cheers, Razorflame 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the attitude I'd expect from an admin either. I'm telling you the truth RF, and if it hurts then so be it. I can't help you with that. I'm in no way "attacking" you, I'm bringing a number of flaws to the attention of the community, and I'm staggered that you go from mistake to mistake here, the canvassing being the final straw. A few simple mistakes? Perhaps, but that's just "a few simple mistakes" in the course of this one RFA. This is the 9th attempt so one would hope you'd have eradicated these few simple mistakes. Your opinion on the opposes is well documented as you have questioned each one essay-style. As is always the case, no-one is questioning the supporters, most of whom have provided no valid reason for your promotion. I don't want anyone to look like a fool, that's why I've suggested you withdraw this. I understand you're here until the bitter end. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(TRM -conflict x2 - x3)I understand that. I fear he is admitting and apologised to all these to avoid a conflict. Kennedy (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(MindtheGap)- Where does it say in the rules that if a user does not need the mop, they should not get it. Similarly, where does it say that if he looks as if he needs it, he still does not get the mop? Rules and regulations are being made up on the spot. WP:INCONSISTENCY anyone? WP:OPPOSEFOROPPOSINGSAKE Kennedy (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy, I don't think there's a "rule" or whatever to say a user must "need" the mop, but the community must be sure that the candidate will make good and proper use of the tools and the position of admin. It's no big deal but it's a position of responsibility which requires maturity and stability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has he given any inclination that he would miuse the tools? Kennedy (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the potential to misuse the tools per se, it's more of a problem with these numerous "simple mistakes" he keeps making without the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Swatjester has it right. Razorflame, for all the great article work he does, does not seem to understand the basics on Wikipedia. Telling someone not to create certain types of articles goes against everything we stand for and hold so dear. MindTheGap (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unless it is a serious breach of policy, in which both the WP:OWN and WP:CANVAS issues were not How can you say that RazorFlame? WP:OWN is an extremely important policy as this RfA demonstrates. Surely with so many people voting oppose over this issue you can see that? That just makes me agree with Mt's point about not understanding the basics. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) (@Kennedy:) Per our criteria all users are welcome to comment; unless they have a named account (and some other conditions apply), a user cannot vote in requests. What this IP editor does however is point out something; this may influence other (named) editors to vote in a certain way; so this action is perfectly legitimate. I would suggest you look at the criteria again if you are uncertain about how an RfA works. --Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay civil
[change source]

AmericanEagle has nominated Razorflame because he believes Razorflame would make a good admin:

  • This RfA is there to see what the community thinks of this proposal.
  • Being criticised is not easy for anyone; therefore please keep in mind that when you bring up criticism you do so in a civilised way; Insulting, accusing and humiliating people does not get us where we want.

I have personally protected the discussion page on this last RfA after emotions got out of hand. I would hate to do it again. May I suggest admins do that, nevertheless if they see hostilities flaring up again? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on this RfA
[change source]

First of all, let me say this: I believe that this RFA has been the most controversial Request for Adminship that this Wikipedia has ever seen, and with it came heaps upon heaps of drama. I would first and formost like to apologize to this community for unfairly making you witness this amount of drama which could have only been found in an English Wikipedia RfA. I had no intention of this Request for Adminship getting this far out of control, and I deeply regret having to have this community bear the brunt of the drama in this RfA. Now to get down to my thoughts about this request:

There are several key areas of this Request for Adminship that I would like to bring up, and to start things off, I would like to start off with the very first oppose vote that was given in this vote by Giggy. I would first and formost like to apologize to Giggy for my reaction to his oppose vote, but to tell you the truth, the wording of his oppose vote was what made me a bit irritated in the first place, which was why the big firefight erupted when his oppose vote came into the fray. I would also like to say that I did not think that there was anything wrong with those two side notes that I posted on either of those 2 users' talk pages at that time, but as time went on, and several more arguments broke out between both me and The Rambling Man, as well as me and Philosopher, all the while becoming more intense on my part with my vehemently declining that it was a mistake at that point in time, their hard work in trying to make me see that I made a mistake paid off for them and I finally admitted to making a mistake and then owning up to that mistake a day later, as well as apologizing to Giggy for the whole fiasco. However, little did I know that my actions would turn an already toxic RfA environment into a completely noxious and poisonous environment with the introduction of the news from a user on this site, who posted a link to a forum.....this wasn't until after Swatjester, Daniel, and another user who has not edited here since this past February decided to come on and vote oppose after little to no activity on this Wikipedia.

This bring me to my next point: I think that that forum caused an unfair advantage to the opposers because this RfA was unfairly, and unjustly advertised on those forums (which, by the way, I have visited, and think that it shines a very bad light on it when none of the people that go to the forums there edit on this site frequently if at all), I feel as though this RfA was rigged to fail from the beginning of the surfacing of that forum site. To tell you the truth, even though the votes are valid, they should not be because they were unfairly directed towards this RfA from the forums. I am being completely rational here and I am not accusing the site of doing anything wrong. I am merely stating my opinion, and my opinion is shared by several of the other active editors on this site. If this vote was constricted to just the people who actively edit this site, it would be a very different result, because 2 or 3 of the supports and at least 3 of the oppose votes, if not more, were made by users who are not active on this site, and have not been for some time. Even though their accounts are older than my own account, they were largely inactive until a couple of days after my request began. Then, as the days kept on going by, and as more and more oppose votes were being generated by this unfair broadcast, I began to despair, which was why the WP:CANVAS issue happened.

However, while all this was going on, several of the oppose votes again set me off and I angrily replied to several of their oppose votes, even going so far as to accusing Swatjester of being canvassed into voting on this site, which was a big mistake on my part. I sincerely apologize for accusing you, Swatjester, of canvassing because frankly, that just did not seem possible. Also, the surfacing of a possible sockpuppet of either Benniguy or IuseRosary started mimicking my editing and talking style and proceeded to try to completely derail my own Request for Adminship with a possiblility that that might be a sockpuppet of mine trying to influence my Request by multiple voting, which is absolutely false, which a checkuser proved after I consented to being checked. However, I would just like to point out, and I don't like pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but this instance requires me to do just that at this time, but the responses that I got on the talk page of my Request for Adminship by one of our own administrators, The Rambling Man, were completely uncivil from my point of view and close to being insinuating and inciteful towards me by his nonchalant replies of mmhmm and sure (pretty much what I was feeling was your message that you were trying to get across), which again, set me into another angry state, which proceeded to deteriorate as time progressed.

I also have one final note to Eptalon: Without you, Eptalon, and without your help over the IRC and your support (not support in the terms of the request for adminship, but in a kind of coach supporting his or her protege) was greatly helpful and much appreciated. I greatly appreciate your coaching and support over this hard and stressful request, but thanks to your help, I managed to pull through it. Without your help, this Request for Adminship would have already been over by many, many days. Thanks to you, I was able to wait this entire week to see the final results, and while they were disheartening, I will forge on for another 6-12 months and try again then. Thank you all for reading this very long message, and cheers, Razorflame 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. As a named "bad guy" I'm happy to apologise should my tone have gone out of control. Your behaviour has been inconsistent in the extreme (twice quitting, once saying you wouldn't edit until the end of the RFA, all forgone), and there are some odd timings for editors appearing, disappearing and reappearing on this Wiki. I guess my attitude was shaped by a number of unhappy coincidences. One thing I'd advise in the future is reduce your IRC presence, minimise your emailing and let Wikipedia know who you're talking to and what you're talking about. RF, I respect your persistence. Good luck in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While IRC can be a good thing in terms of dealing with issues that can't be dealt with on Wiki, I think a lot of us worry about things happening "behind closed doors" due to the obvious danger of cliques forming. But overall, this whole situation has got more poisonous than it should have done and, while I've tried not to get personal, I would like to apologise for any upset I have caused. Best wishes MindTheGap (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody beyond myself got me upset. I only got upset at myself for posting this RfA too early. I should have waited about another month and then tried it. And to RyanCross: Yes, you were right :). Anyways, lets' all get a fresh start for the next years' worth of editing :P. Also, all me and Eptalon were talking about over IRC was about whether or not I should withdraw. That was pretty much the whole entire basis of talking to him over IRC, because I did not feel like it was fit for the Wikipedia to know about because it would just continue to prove my inconsistencies and I did not want to worsen my case further by questioning whether or not I should have withdrawn, which would make me appear inconsistent, and I had already had enough of that. Cheers, Razorflame 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unidenting): On a couple of unrelated notes:

  1. This is by far, the longest Request for Adminship ever to have happened on the Simple English Wikipedia, with total page lengths for both pages maxing out at around 160 kilobytes, which is about the size of a 10-18 page report.
  2. This is by far, the most oppose and support votes I believe I have gotten, but not the most support/oppose in a single Request for Adminship.
  3. I believe that this is the first request for adminship page that needed to use the talk page.
  4. The preceeding comment left by me is the longest comment I have ever left on this Wikipedia.

If you know about any other records this RfA has broken, please state them here. Cheers, Razorflame 23:57, 21 August 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_9&oldid=8870737"