Meta:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

This is obviously not going to happen, so let's stop this now. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User withdrew the request shortly after closing. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame (2nd RfA) edit

Razorflame (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hello there all. I've worked out all of the kinks based on my last RfA here, and have continued my SWMT work both here and elsewhere, and I have prevented vandalism here in the past, and I believe that I would be able to better help the community if I were granted the bit here. I've reverted a decent amount of vandalism here, as well as report things for speedy deletion in the past, and I believe that I would make a good sysop here now that I have more experience. Thank you, Razor flame 04:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, Razorflame certainly has the best intentions but I am not convinced that this user is ready to be admin here. Finn Rindahl 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 11(.5) RfAs on a project and about 15 RfXes overall show that this user is /too/ interested about being an admin. I'd advised him to stay out of selfnoms in his last SimpleWP RfA and I'd again like to advise him about his again. While he has the best intentions, I'm sorry to say that I can't support him at this point of time. Maybe later, but not now. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serial RFA runner. Has run and failed on so many wikis its not even funny. He appears to be running on other wikis so that he can get flags there to proove he should be able to have one on simple.wiki where hs has failed 11 times. -Djsasso 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the concerns DJsasso, but I am not running here just so that I can say that I am a sysop at Meta. I am requesting adminship here because I know that I can do the job and do it well and correctly, and I know that I am more than qualified to do the job correctly. I've been an administrator on the Simple English Wiktionary for close to nine months now, and I have only had two instances where I used a tool incorrectly, both of which were resolved without much incident. I was also recently elected a bureaucrat on the Simple English Wiktionary, where I have not abused those tools, so I really don't see what the big deal is. Sure, I may have run 11 times on the Simple English Wikipedia, but I've was a naive kid who didn't understand what adminship was back when I first started editing the Simple English Wikipedia. The reason why there are so many requests is because of things like running too often back when I first started editing the Simple English Wikipedia. Does having run 11 RfAs on the Simple English Wikipedia make me more likely to abuse the tools here? No, I can't say that it will, so using the arguement that I've run so many times on another Wikipedia as justification to oppose here isn't really a valid arguement to oppose this RfA, as it has no bearings on this request. Razor flame 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest yes, the more failed noms a person has, the more likely I think the person will abuse/misuse their tools because it becomes clear they have bad judgement and crave the perceived power a little too much. And the continuing to self nom when it has clearly backfired so many times in the past also shows poor judgement and the inability to learn from your mistakes. -Djsasso 18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Razorflame asks whether "having run 11 RfAs on the Simple English Wikipedia make me more likely to abuse the tools here". The answer is probably not. Such a high number of failed self nominations for adminship though leaves me with concerns about this user's judgement. Adambro 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I have too many concerns regarding your judgement. PeterSymonds 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Razorfalme's last fail with the admin bit on simple.wikt: link Deleting of a MediaWiki page with 20 revisions. I think an admin should know that such pages just need to be emptied instead of delete it. I don't think he is the best person for the mop. I also agree with the comments by the others above me. Barras 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Griffinofwales 02:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I respect the contribution of RF, the above concerns regarding judgment vis a vis serial RFA's I will validate. I am not comfortable granting this user the tools affecting many hundreds of wikis when he does clearly not have the support of some of those wiki. Best, NonvocalScream 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I have pulled your cross wiki contributions, so I did a fair review. My above applies. Please take heed to the suggestions, and thank you for your good work. Warmly, NonvocalScream 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i was inclined to support Razorflame but i can't deny opposers argument also , i so would be happy if he withdraw this request and does his best in next couple of months in the areas which he can gain other users trust --Mardetanha ^talk 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]