Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 12

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 (talk · contribs)

End date: 5 January 2010, 01:43UTC

Final: (6/12/0) Withdrawn by candidate at 03:08 January 2, 2010. ···Katerenka (討論) 09:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I'm reapplying for adminship here because I believe that I have fixed all of the things that have been wrong with me in the past. I've been combatting vandalism here, making new articles, and I haven't left or done anything stupid in the past few months. Therefore, I think that I have shown that I am stable enough to be an administrator now. Furthermore, while I believe that there are still things that I can work on to make myself a better person, I believe that I have shown maturity, stability, and all of the other necessary qualities in order to become an administrator here. Thank you.

Candidate's acceptance:Self-nomination

Can you tell me why you have so many failed RfAs here and why you are a former admin/crat on simple.wikt? For those who don't know your complicated history, can you summarize your previous short-falls and how you have addressed them? Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start from the beginning. Back when I first joined the Simple English Wikipedia, I had no freaking clue what an administrator was or what it did. About a month later, after accumulating more than 1,500 edits, I was starting to get the idea of what being an administrator was all about. It was then that I thought that I might make a good administrator. I was dead wrong. I didn't know the first thing about being an administrator then, and I still didn't through several more RfAs. One of the reasons why my RfA count is so high here is because I requested them so often back when I first began. The first real RfA that I had was my 7th, which I thought went OK, but the issues brought up were maturity concerns and stability issues. I worked on these and continued to edit, and a couple of months later, I requested adminship again, thinking that I had dealt with these issues. I hadn't wavered from my editing, which closed out the stability concerns, and I had greatly imrpoved my maturity levels, but I failed my 8th RfA because people began thinking that my judgement might be a bit iffy. That is the next thing that I set out to work on. I carefully thought through every action that I had made between then and my 9th RFA and when AE nominated me for adminship for the 9th time, I thought that I was golden, and I was, until I made the mistake of writing those notes about the Romanian Rivers on three users' talk pages. That changed things. The main reasons for the opposition during my 9th RfA were from WP:OWN and WP:BITE concerns, both of which I corrected by illiciting the help of Afil on the Romanian Rivers, and from helping new editors here. I even offered to adopt new editors, which I still am, and I believe that those solutions have stood.

The main reason why people opposed me during my 10th RfA was because of the number of previous RfAs, which really had nothing to do with why or why I wouldn't be a good administrator. People still had judgement issues about me, and this carried through to my 11th RfA, which was made after I retired and unretired several times. This caused concerns about stability and maturity issues again, which I have worked on over these past few months, and I believe that I have shown that I can be as stable as a rock and that I am a mature editor. Judgemental issues are still present, but I am working on them very hard and I believe that I have finally solved my judgement problems because I've pretty much been thinking through everything that I do when I edit on all of the wikis that I edit on. I think through everything that I do and I make sure that what I am doing is the right thing at that point in time. I was taught that through my work on the English Wiktionary.

I hope this answers your question :) Razorflame 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - Razorflame has shown increased maturity and has not created any difficulties for a long time. He has a range of skills that would now benefit this wiki. I have opposed him in the past, but he has regained my trust and support. He is a competent admin on Simple English Wiktionary. Give him the chance with a mop here. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He gave up admin on Simple.wikt and failed two RfAs to get the bit back. Just FYI. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You also just have to look at his talk page on simple.wikt to see that he made mistake after mistake after mistake during his time as admin there. And seemingly never learned from them after people kept telling him about them, he would go and do them again. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support - I don't see anything wrong with him being an administrator. He has made nearly 32,000 edits, showing that he's very involved in this project. O.320939697.O 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support I only reappeared on Simple to help get the 25 required votes in the recent request for checkuser(ship) but this all seems a bit harsh. Razorflame is, I assume, a young adult/kid who has been battered about a bit here, mentally. What difficulties can he cause? If he makes a mess, someone else will undo it! If he makes a big mess, then desysop him. A mop is just a handle and an end bit, not a nuclear launch key! Soup Dish (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose Soup Dish (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support. Most of the oppose reasons are valid, but I just dont think he will break the wiki being an admin, and its not a big deal. Kennedy (talk • changes). 09:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Only three weeks since your last RfA? Sorry removing my support here, but won't oppose. Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, the RfA Barras is referring to was on Simple Wiktionary. ···Katerenka (討論) 10:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah that will teach me to double check my facts :) Think I'll leave my vote as is. Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I clarified it below. I forgot to mention it. I linked it. --Barras ^talk 10:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Only to be sympathetic ;-))) with an immature alter ego. ONaNcle (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - have always done good edits on Wikipedia.--Sinbad (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed and it's a pity there are other frustrated people like him inside the top 50 ONaNcle (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Weak support - Per this.--  † CR₉₀  20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Despite the fact that 11 users have opposed, many giving very good reasons for doing so?  GARDEN  18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Weak Support I think many of the opposes are based on difference in personality and difference in opinions. I don't know, I could be very very wrong. I have never personally had any problem with this editor, so don't want to oppose.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, like every other time. It's poor judgement to think running now is a good idea. It's unlikely you'll pass for a very long time, so stop wasting our time and your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   How is running now poor judgement and whoever said that I was wasting your time? Razorflame 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Answered on IRC.[reply]

   I'd like to see this answer on the RfA itself.--  † CR₉₀  18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. No. Majorly talk 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose During your 6th editor review, you said you would wait for a nomination. This has been your second RFA since then and both have been self-noms. Per what Peter said, you have sealed your fate for a long time. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If self nomination is a problem, then I would be happy to nominate Razorflame. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I will gladly accept your nomination. Razorflame 02:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   More than that, I believe that he is focusing too much on adminship (11 previous RFAs). I also question his judgment, for example, almost every single on of his RFA's starts the same way "I believe I have fixed everything and think I'm ready", and yet he fails each one. Another example, requesting that his rights be removed on SimpleWikt, and then changing his mind less than 10 minutes later. I just don't feel comfortable having him as admin (as he had issues with his tools at Wikt also). Griffinofwales (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The issues that I had with the tools over at the Simple English Wiktionary were all corrected as they popped up, so I don't really see what the big deal is. Razorflame 02:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   And you didn't get your rights back. Maybe SimpleWikt thought the problems were worse than you say. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I didn't get them back for reasons other than the issues with the tools. It was the whole removal thing that they didn't want me to get them back. Razorflame 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So lapses in judgment, No? Exactly what I'm worried about. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is something that I have been working on for the past few months, and I definitely believe that I have worked on my judgement issues enough to make the right decisions if I were to be an administrator. I understand that you might be worried about my judgement, and I can tell you from my own experience that I know that my judgement is better than it was several months ago. I've had sufficient time to work on it and I believe it is better than it was. Razorflame 03:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, let's see. When you lost your bit at wikt, you requested it back, then 2 weeks later, you requested them again, something you had done here during your weekly RFA period, which you claimed you had gotten over with. Also, why would you go against what you said at your 6th editor review (a comment that greatly improved my view of you), not once (in utter failure), but twice? Also, why would you request your bit be removed, but then request it back minutes later? All these issues raise serious questions in your judgment. You are a great editor, but I cannot support you here. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Poor judgment in use of rollback [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Rollback is certainly not something that should be used in content disputes. You use rollback in content disputes, which is a big red flag (one of the biggest as far as I'm concerned when it comes to adminship). Please work on this. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indented per PeterSymond's block yesterday. Goblin 15:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

4. Oppose sadly. I had wanted to support but those rollback blunders are so, so recent. Soup Dish (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In his defense, those edits were the edits of a community banned user which generally makes automatic rollbacks more palatable under the revert,block,ignore idea so that nothing of their edits get left. But it is understandable concern. James (T|C) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think these are blunders, both Majorly and I also rolled back some of these changes today, and Majorly also blocked the IP that was creating them. Removing a large number of useless cats is not a "content dispute". Peterdownunder (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   However, rollback is not allowed to be used to remove a "large number of useless cats". That being said, my oppose still stands. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I do appreciate that and the fact the IP is a banned user but the fifth diff is a content dispute not a cat issue. Clicking undo wouldn't take much longer and, given the sensitive politics involved with the cat situation, perhaps a little wiser? I suppose it comes down to judgement issues Soup Dish (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The fifth diff gives me more reason to oppose than the four prior diffs, though the four prior diffs still play a big part in why I'm opposing. Perhaps a change in rollback judgment would do some good. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Mythdon, the first four differences were all correct usages of the rollback tool. They were POV pushing edits by a community banned user who using his point of view to contaminate this Wikipedia. The fifth difference, sure, could've been undone instead of rollbacked, but when dealing with a community banned user, he shouldn't be editing in the first place. I was not disputing his content addition. I would never use rollback in a content dispute. Razorflame 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If a community banned editor removed material from a BLP which failed to meet WP:BLP, would you rollback their edit? Soup Dish (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course not, because the edit was made in good faith, even though the user is community banned. It goes to show that they are trying to turn over a new leaf and that they are trying to turn their situations around. Razorflame 03:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Conflict in your responses, if when dealing with a community banned user, he shouldn't be editing in the first place., then how does your second response work? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me rephrase what I said. In dealing with a community banned user, who is continuing to show editing that got him banned in the first place, he should not be editing at all. If his is interested in turning over a new leaf, then I am all ears, but otherwise, if he is just going to do the same things that got him banned in the first place, he shouldn't be editing. Razorflame 03:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Shows ridiculously bad judgement running again. After he threatened to retire again. With nothing changed since the last time he ran. Nevermind the fact that I saw what horrible judgement he had and a massive string of mistakes he made while he was an admin at simple.wikt. Clearly not admin material at this time. -DJSasso (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. April Fools Day is on April 1st, not before New Years. —§ stay (sic)! 07:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. No. Just 3 weeks after your lst failed self nomination (Please note that this was on simplewikt, not wiki. See here). You should wait at least 3 months before running for adminship on any wmf wiki. In 3 months I can think about a support, but clearly not now. --Barras ^talk 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. The fact that the community has rejected your requests for the bit eleven times in the past may be an indication that you're not going to get it.  GARDEN  10:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. No. Please listen to what we have said several times before running more RfAs. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. My oppose is more at the fact that you've had 12 RfAs here alone - not to mention the ones elsewhere - and you have gone against what you have said yourself about not running again. Please wait for a nomination and at least 6 months or so before running again, and then I am more likely to support. I don't doubt that you'll do a good job, I just can't support someone who clearly ignores other's advice on running and, while it's only minor, the SEWT incident is so, so recent. Sorry. Goblin 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
11. Too soon. Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Regretfully, and after much thought, per above. ···Katerenka (討論) 07:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the rollback differences, the first four of which were correct usages of the tool, I must admit that I should have undone the fifth edit. However, in my defense, I was reverting edits made by a community banned user who had a history of POV pushing editing, so I just figured that the change he made was POV pushing again. I've been dealing with the Pakistani editor for over half a year now, and I believe that I know the situation better than anyone. The differences brought up by Mythdon should not hold any sway over this RfA because they showcase the fact that I know when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate (regrettably) to use the rollback tool. I've been a global rollbacker for over a year now, and do you think that they would trust me with that tool if they knew that I would misuse it? Opposing over a simple revert is honestly not the way to go because one mistake does not mean that I am prone to making more mistakes. Out of every rollback I've done here (which is more than 3,500 rollbacks), I only make mistakes in about half a percent of those cases. I've also had the rollback tool on the English Wikipedia since early 2008, and I have made over 8,000 rollbacks there, and nobodys' complained about my use of the tool there. I just think that this is getting blown way out of proportion. Razorflame 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any reason why Razorflame shouldnt be an administrator, those oppose seems to have a very one-sided reason to why and that is some old mistake.--Sinbad (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wonder if this is a WMF wiki first. 12 RFAs in what... maybe a year or two? If IPs could vote, I'd oppose. 64.175.62.114 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Razorflame 09:08, 2 January 2010 (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.