Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apology

If everything that people are saying about me not knowing WP:OWN is true, then you are mistaken. I know that policy quite well and I didn't word my side note well enough. I did not mean to say "please don't create any Romania River articles", I was trying to say "Please make sure not to create them because it could cause edit conflicts, which is something that I was and have been trying to avoid since I started creating them.

If you think that I am not a good enough editor to become an administrator because of this one incident, then I am sorry that I ever wrote those side notes and I am sorry that I ever attempted to try to become an administrator on this site, because it is obviously unattainable. All you people ever care about is to make people feel bad about themselves and you never take all of their actions into account. Are you saying that the 800 some articles that I have marked correctly for quick deletion are not good enough, or that the 1,000+ vandalism reversions that I have made is not good enough to become an administrator? Are you saying that the more than 2,800 articles that I have created for this site don't count because of one minor mistake? Are you saying that all of my ViP reports are not good enough to prove to you that I understand the policies well enough to be an administrator? Take a look at the larger picture and take into account everything that I have done, not just that one minor thing.

Have you ever once seen me trying to assert ownership of articles before in the past? No. I have never asserted ownership of any article that I have created on this site. Sure, I might say that I have written over 2,800 articles on this site, but I have never asserted anything more than that, and even when asserting that, I was not asserting that I own any part of this Wikipedia.

If you people can't even take in the whole picture and you would rather dwell upon just one simple mistake that someone has made in the past, then maybe it isn't worth editing on this site anymore if this is just going to continue in the future. Razorflame 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN concerns

Thank you all for voicing your concerns about the fact that you think that I was trying to prevent people from editing in a particular part of this Wikipedia. That, in fact, was not my intention for posting those side-notes on each of the users' talk pages linked above. The purpose of those messages were to politely ask if they could let me be if they see me editing in that section. If it came out as "Don't create these pages", that was completely not my intention. I was not trying to persuade them to not create those pages. In fact, I was posting that on there mainly to let them know about the potential for them to mark the articles that I create as copypastes, because they are very, very close to what the English Wikipedia says for each of those articles and that I had permission from the editor who created the articles over on the English Wikipedia to pretty much port them over to this Wikipedia without changing much.

I know that I do not own this Wikipedia and I try to demonstrate this in every aspect of my editing style here on the Simple English Wikipedia. I always enjoy watching new editors edit on this site, and I always try to do my best to let new editors know about the quirks and other changes that the Simple English Wikipedia has. Please do not base your vote solely on the fact that you think that I think that I own this Wikipedia, because that is entirely not the case. I hold no sway over other editors and I do not try to control other editors. If you think that those side notes that I left on Tholly's and FSM's user talk pages were meant to bite them and dissuade them from editing this site, that is entirely not the case. I merely was informing them about the fact that I didn't want the articles that I was making to be deleted for being copyedits.

To everyone who opposes me for the WP:OWN conflict, please understand this: I do not own this Wikipedia and if I were to become an administrator, I would not use the mop as a tool to promote ownership of articles on this site and prevent new editors from becoming better editors on this site. In fact, the complete opposite would happen: If I became an administrator, I would use the mop for the betterment of the community: by blocking disruptive and vandalizing users, helping to delete articles posted on the RfD page, by deleting articles that do not meet the Wikipedia's standards as outlined on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and by helping new editors learn how to better edit this site.

It pains me to see that one little note that I leave on someone else's talk page means this much to everyone else. I was not trying to bite the newcomers, and I was not trying to promote ownership of articles with my messages on those user's talk pages.

Thank you for reading this long message. Cheers, Razorflame 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like the template {{Inuse}} have sufficed? Telling users to "not create any Romanian River articles" is a bit BITE-y, and could easily be perceived by other editors as a WP:OWN issue.--TBC 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would have worked. That is probably what I should have done. Razorflame 22:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, your statement: "I had permission from the editor who created the articles over on the English Wikipedia", continues to demonstrate your failing to understand w:WP:OWN. That editor did not own the articles on EN. You did not need his permission to copy his edits from EN to simple. All articles on Wikipedia are available on the GNU Free Documentation License.--TBC 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that really wasn't his point. — American Eagle (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid he's not explaining his point then because that's how I saw his explanation... I think the fact that you had to wait until an RFA to explain this course of action means you run a risk of misguiding new editors here, whether you meant to or not. The ownership issue is a big problem and certainly something I'd never expect to see from an admin. Your quote "one little note"... dangerous. One little note, depending on its content, can result in an indefinite block so that's no excuse. Admins are human and make mistakes but this is a basic misunderstanding, made worse by your "advice" to other (new) editors I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to say that I owned a part of the Wikipedia and I did not wait for an RfA to explain myself. I explained myself on the AN yesterday because that was when I saw it, and I also explained my actions on my own talk page, so I did not wait until the RfA happened. Cheers, Razorflame 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough essays

I'm afraid to say this RFA has become farcical. To have a bureaucrat pop by with an essay which results in editors removing votes for fear of causing harm to the candidate is incredible. And then to have the opposers made to feel they are acting personally against Razorflame is worse still. There's a lot of patronising comments here which are unhelpful - the people who vote here are entitled to their opinion and the continued "be fair" and "we all make mistakes" reminders are becoming tedious. Sorry, but (potential) admins need to show they are fair, stable and not make mistakes which could result in new editors leaving the site. Creol's right - if the going gets tough and RF gets abuse from his admin actions, it'll probably cause more harm than a failed RFA. It is the responsibility of the people here to think about the future, not the present. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Any abuse that I get from my administrative actions will be dealt with according to the policies that govern what administrators do on this site. Mostly, if I get threats through email, I will generally ignore them because I know that it is just their way of telling me to become a better editor. If it progresses into things like death threats, then I will bring it to the attention of a steward to be dealt with as death threats are not allowed via policy :). Nothing anyone can say or do will harm me any more than the bullying that I have had to deal with throughout the time that I was going to school. Cheers, Razorflame 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can deal with all this so easily, why do you continually quit and restart RFAs? That's the not the behaviour I'd expect from a potential admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What about our retirements? My retiring, then coming back. Your inability to handle Creol's criticism, retiring and coming back. AE retiring, coming back (semi-active). I acknowledge that an RfA is more important than simply retiring, but the frequent instability about being active is synonymous with this quitting and restarting. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What about them indeed? During an RFA I would expect stability and a level-headed approach. Which isn't being displayed here. My retirement was symptomatic of how "unusual" this place is (and, incidentally, quite irrelevant here). Quitting and restarting RFAs indicates an unstable character, one not best suited for adminship. And, after all, that's what we're talking about here, whether RF has exhibited the qualities of an admin. And, quite simply, he hasn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Using your own argument, you don't suit adminship either. At the first sign of an article of yours not becoming a VGA on the spot because of our "flawed systems", you leave. During a voting process, I would expect stability and a level-headed approach, especially from a newly hatched admin. Which isn't being displayed here. Reitring and returning indicates an unstable character, one not best suited for adminship. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's cool this one guys. This isn't leading anywhere. Archer7 - talk 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarize

May I have a concise summary about what is going on here? As The Rambling Man has said above, "Enough essays". This discussion is going way to far, and if everyone is ready to oppose than so be it, as this is giving everyone a headache. I hope we can reach a conclusion soon. Minor or Prime 09:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would give a summary, but it might end up being an essay :-P But the key points, from I see it, are that some think the candidate should pass now because he's done a lot of work for Wikipedia, has been around for ages, has plenty of edits, lots of good edits, etc. etc. Others think he shouldn't be sysopped because there are concerns with ownership, and also with his "thick skin", for lack of a better phrase. —Giggy 09:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, is that good or bad for Razorflame? It seems he has many more opposes than supports. Minor or Prime 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, people think that it would be a bad thing if I were given the mop, however, I do not believe that that is what most people think on this RfA. The current standings are 11 supports and 5 opposes, which is 68.75% support, which is enough to pass. Cheers, Razorflame 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any 'crat would see a consensus in the discussion on this page. —Giggy 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues

May I point out, this is actually Razorflame's 11th and not 9th nomination. There were in fact two deleted nominations. I am sorry, but someone who has gone up for adminship 11 times is clearly not worthy of even touching a mop. Over at EN, someone who had reached this high a nomination count would be deemed unnacceptable on all accounts, so the fact you are even considering it here is beyond me. This, coupled with the user's sheer ownership of articles, and of the wikipedia in general it would seem, makes me give a very strong oppose. I suggest waiting a year before nominating again.

And how exactly does this work? "If everything that people are saying about me not knowing WP:OWN is true, then you are mistaken." No, if what people are saying is true, then only logic alone would tell you... it is "true", not "mistaken".

Also, I really don't find "Please make sure not to create them because it could cause edit conflicts, which is something that I was and have been trying to avoid since I started creating them." much better than "please don't create any Romania River articles".

"All you people ever care about is to make people feel bad about themselves and you never take all of their actions into account." - Certainly not the words I would want to hear from a future admin.

"If you people can't even take in the whole picture and you would rather dwell upon just one simple mistake that someone has made in the past, then maybe it isn't worth editing on this site anymore if this is just going to continue in the future" - Oh, threats too? Don't feed the Divas people.

--85.214.105.196 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that this IP is from Germany so I'd assume it's not the banned editor who has harassed Razor in the past. Given this is a discussion and the IP raises some useful points, I would like to suggest this comment is retained for all to see MindTheGap (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The two deleted nominations were added by vandals...--TBC 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If this was true, then the "vandal" would surely be blocked. --85.214.105.196 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't block people for vandalising once. Anyway thats totally off the point. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well nominating a user for adminship is not vandalism, so I count Razorflame (as do the others discussing this on IRC) as on his 11th. However, even if this were to be his 9th, that is still a ridiculous number, and I can't name a single case where there have been anywhere near this nominations on EN without there being some kind of intentional disruption. As I said before, I expect a year before the next nomination, unless the user can show under exceptional chances that they are no longer so persistent, to the point of even being disruptive, in chasing adminship, as though it is respective of some kind of "ultimate power". The user needs to learn that they will only be given adminship after they show that not only can they use it right, but that their mentality for seeking it is right too. --85.214.105.196 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine is too much. He shouldn't accept another nomination for a year at least. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Two of the RFAs were started without his permission and acceptance of the nomination, so they were never vaild to begin with. As far as en goes, TenPoundHammer and Benon have been up six times, while Tecwiz/R and Siva1979 has been up five times. Baggage from RFAs heaps on a lot, as was the major case on Milk's Favorite Cookie's fourth RFA this year and TPH's sixth RFA. TPH 3 was actually closed early because it was too short of a time before 2. Cassandra ^talk 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Important message - READ THIS

OK, here's my input on this - I think most of us can see it, but someone needs to say it. Razorflame's problems are not caused by any fundamental flaws that cannot be easily fixed. The entire thing that causes the WP:OWN issues, along with every other problem we have ever had with him is his perspective - he is obsessed with Wikipedia. I mean that seriously, a full obsession with Wikipedia that makes this place a major part of his life. This obsession comes from a massive desire for adminship. It's not an uncommon thing - we've dealt with many people in the past with the exact same problem. I've had the unfortunate experience of some OCD symptoms in the past (although I don't actually have OCD, and Razor probably doesn't either), and it is plainly obvious to me what is going on. To take Wikipedia out of his life would be absolute torture for him, and he must feel like an absolute failure every time he gets an oppose vote here. Each failed RfA will not deter him, it will just make him feel terrible until this obsession goes away. Note that when he left Wikipedia after failing another RfA, he redirected his obsession to Yahoo Answers - this shows that he must have felt absolutely terrible and shifted his attention somewhere else, until it caught up with him again and he returned. I feel absolutely horrible saying this about Razorflame on-wiki, and I'm sure it's not going to make him feel very good either, but I'm saying this in the hope that we can judge him fairly. Obsessions like this are really hard to understand, and we must sympathise with his position. The reason why he acts in a bit of a strange way sometimes, particularly around RfAs, comes entirely from his perspective on issues.

The normal tactic is "He's obsessed, so we can't let him be an admin" - this is the right thing to do for editors that come here, edit like crazy for two months and then leave and live happily ever after when they realise that adminship doesn't happen that easily. For Razorflame, things are different. Granting him adminship would satisfy the obsession and probably fix his perspective problem as he begins to realise that we're not all that special. On the other hand, giving him adminship could cause him to want more trust, and head immediately for bureaucrat and CheckUser. I don't know how it will work - I'm not a psychologist and we can't make massive assumptions about him when we barely know him.

Razorflame, I'm sure this is a difficult message to read and I'm sorry if it upsets you, but I know what you're going through and it's really tough to sit here and watch you any longer - I know exactly how bad it must feel. Getting obsessed with things happens to everyone about something at some point. It's not a flaw (and it's almost definitely not OCD ), it just shows that you're human.

The rest of you, please think about this when voting. He's not crazy, and his editing issues just come from a perspective problem. I don't know whether Razorflame should be an admin or not, but you all need to think about this when voting and make up your own minds. Archer7 - talk 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I get the sentiment but all of a sudden editors are changing their minds based on this mini-essay, concerned for the health of the candidate. It appears to me that this has undermined the process. It's like saying "ok, there's something that looks like starving dog, and it's not the dog's fault, but if you don't throw the dog a bone, it'll die, even though it probably isn't starving". RFA isn't about that. If you want an admin who quits and restarts his 9th RFA twice in a couple of hours and who doesn't quite get WP:OWN then vote for him, but when it comes to this... I thought PVGA was broken. That now seems to be the tip of the iceberg. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind WP:OWN didn't even exist until recentlyyesterday. It's hardly the candidate's fault that they didn't follow a non-existent guideline. Majorly ^talk 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But it existed on enwiki and I'm pretty sure he knew he was meant to follow it. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would he follow a policy on another project? That's about as logical as applying a policy on the German Wikipedia over here. We can't expect editors to revise other projects' rules. That's silly. Majorly ^talk 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I would be right in saying the arrangement for when a policy does not exist on Simple is to use the equivalent policy on EN. However, I may be mistaken and would appreciate clarification on this matter MindTheGap (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, found it. See the second paragraph at WP:Rules MindTheGap (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins must understand the fundamentals of a wiki, regardless of whether it's Wikipedia or not. The fact a 'crat has entered the fray to warn us that this is detrimental to the health of the candidate bucks the system. This is all wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I think this whole thing is becoming less of a discussion of Razorflame's RfA and more a general discussion of what works and what doesnt work on this wikipedia. Shouldn't we deal with the issue in hand? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing now (well, one of) is that I feel, following Archer7's post, I am being asked to support the candidate because to oppose would be to put their health at risk MindTheGap (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we can't be appointing admins on the basis that if they are not made admins it may not be good for their personal life. This is an encylopedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 21:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And I admit the same (obsession). Thats why I have a EN ban. --  Da Punk '08  talk  21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the message? It can really only be interpreted in one way. A sentence in particular stands out: "Granting him adminship would satisfy the obsession and probably fix his perspective problem as he begins to realise that we're not all that special". This is more about fixing Razorflame's perspective than pushing him to do the worst.

There is nothing Razorflame can spoil which can't be undone. Deletions can be restored, pages unprotected and IP's unblocked. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually correct. An admin abusing the tools can drive away legitimate editors, something that can really hurt the project. It can take the time up of other admins to repair his damage, allowing vandalism to get through. And it brings disrespect upon all the other admins. Better that we actually be selective in the first place, and not grant the tools out willy nilly if people are going to be at-risk of abusing them. Swatjester (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So if I applied to be an admin 9 times in the next two weeks would you promote me on the basis that I might be obsessive? No. I wouldn't expect you to either. If Razorflame merits your vote in your opinion go ahead. I think he might make a good admin. I just object to anyone having their votes influenced by personal issues of the candidate in question. That goes for anytime, not just for this specific RfA. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking someone might make a good admin is problematic. You should be 100% absolutely sure they will be a good admin. Swatjester (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Archer7's essay I believe that you are correct in your assumption in this case. I am only posting this message to dissuade other editors on my urge to go for bureaucrat or checkuser. I know for a fact that I will never attempt to become a bureaucrat because frankly, I do not like that position. I have been thinking about possibly becoming a checkuser in the future (much, much farther into the future (1+ years from now), because mainly, I do not think that my personality is much suited for the checkuser flag, and I doubt that I will be able to get the 25 supports needed for the tools, as well as the fact that I haven't taken much classes in the way of learning about computer sciences and the such, which means that I would not be well suited for the checkuser tool. I hope this makes you believe that I will not be going for any other flags at any point in time in the near future. Also, Archer, you did not offend me in any way, shape, or form. You pretty much got it in your essay up above. Yes, I guess you can say that I was obsessed with this site from the moment that I came onto it, however, I do not believe that my obsession is a bad thing. I think that my obsession has been, overall, a benefit to this Wikipedia, because without my obsession, you guys would still be back at the 32,000 article mark, and you would have had a lot more vandalism to deal with. I am sure that you all think that I have made life on the Simple English Wikipedia much easier since I have started editing on this site, and to tell you the truth, Archer7 was only partially right about how each oppose vote that I get dissuades me from editing here.

There are some oppose votes which dissuade me from editing here more than others. Giggy's, TRM's, AND Majorly's votes all hit me very hard emotionally and greatly upset me because of the fact that they were using policies that they know that I know and just slipped up on in just one instance. Giggy saying that I have had a tendency to not follow this policy is just completely ridiculous because of the fact that Tholly's support vote goes to show that I do follow the policy quite well. Yes, I did remove some encyclopedic content from that article, but only because I wanted to make it similar to the other articles that have been created previous to that one. I was not trying to claim ownership to the article, as was clearly stated by his/her's saying that I contacted him/her (Tholly) on his/her talk page to let him/her know about that situation, and I did say that he/she is free to add anything that I removed back if he/she thought that I was wrong with removing it in the first place.

Archer, the reason why I went over to Yahoo Answers for a period of 2.5 weeks previous to this RfA was not because I lost my obsession in the Simple English Wikipedia, but rather, I felt as if you guys were doing alright without me and that I could take a break from this Wikipedia to pursue doing something else that I loved doing even before I left the Wikipedia. It was not because of the fact that I lost my 8th RfA, but rather, because everyone else was doing so much to help this site that I felt as if I could take a break from this site while not losing anything in the process.

I hope that this message helps you understand my feelings about this process, and I wish you all the best :). Cheers, Razorflame 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to make people vote support just because they feel sorry for Razorflame. I am asking that editors consider what I see (as I have some experience with getting obsessed with things) and make their decisions taking that into account. If you believe Razorflame will not be a good candidate, oppose him. If you believe Razorflame will be a good admin, support him. I am simply asking for you to understand the obsession when thinking about his situation. This message was meant to inform editors of what's going on for Razor, not force through his RfA. As I said before, I don't know whether Razor should be an admin myself - I'm not going to ask you to support him just for this. Archer7 - talk 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation you describe, but still must oppose this RfA. —Giggy 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(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.

Another thing I want to bring up is 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) 01:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall

This is an important issue (and I apologize for bringing it up so late), but are you willing to have your adminship "re-confirmed" if a large number of established users request it? Due to the recurring stability and ownership issues listed above, recall might be the best option for you if you do become an admin. This isn't just a special case; tons of users on EN are open to recall, and hopefully you will too.--TBC 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with TBC. Due to the concerns above, there might be a slight chance that you will do something that might want the community to desysop you... and I would suggest being an admin "open to recall" if this RfA does pass. You've had your problems in the past, and if you do become an admin, and those problems are still in you and you do something "bad", then I would suggest you going for admins open to recall. Your choice... but I would recommend it. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I will gladly put myself open to recall if I do not perform the way that people want me to and I will gladly give up the tools if I do not satisy others on this site. Cheers, Razorflame 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Resolution (at last?)

Based upon the discussion above, here's a layout of the four following conditions that Razorflame must meet if he wants to be promoted as an administrator:

1. Razorflame must agree to "think before he leaps (edits?)", and not make any more remarks that bite the newbies or imply ownership. If that means deterring his "obsession" over Simple, then so be it.

   Razorflame's reply: I have already learned from my mistake about the WP:OWN thing, and I definitely will not bite newcomers, as I like to help newcomers out more than anything else. If I am trying to teach a newcomer something about the Simple English Wikipedia, and I choose my wording wrong and it comes out bad, then I will automatically change the wording to a better tone and I will apologize for posting something that could be seen as biting the newcomer. Razorflame 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

2. If this RfA fails, Razorflame must promise to wait four months (at the very least) before he decides to accept another nomination. If he fails to meet this condition, then it's clear he lacks the patience to be an effective administrator (assuming that there's going to be a RfA/Razorflame 10).

   Razorflame's reply: I will gladly not accept any nomination for a period of 6-12 months if this RfA should happen to fail. If I break this promise, any administrator/bureaucrat is allowed to close it automatically without any questions asked. Razorflame 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Razorflame must be open for recall, in case any of the issues above ever pop up again.

   Razorflame's reply: Yes, I am willing to be open for recall. Razorflame 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Razorflame must be guided/overseen by an experienced administrator for the first few months of his adminship.

   Razorflame's reply: I would gladly allow myself to be guided by any administrator for the first few months of me attaining the sysop flag if I get it. I would be glad for this help as it would help me learn faster, better, and it would help me to better understand exactly what it is that I do wrong (we are human after all), and what it is that I do right so that I can become a better user/administrator. Razorflame 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{A bit off topic) Unfortunately, Simple's RFAs lack the question section that EN nominations feature. As such, perhaps they should be added to Simple as well? --TBC 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to add questions yet, not now at least, IMO. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that adding the first three questions that are automatically asked over on the English Wikipedia when you post an RfA would be a good idea to be added onto our RfA process because it would help other people learn and know that you know and understand the relevant policies that all administrators must adhere to. However, I do not think that allowing other editors to ask questions beyond those 3 questions is a good idea right now because I do not think that we have enough active users to justify adding them in yet. Cheers, Razorflame 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So what will the consequences be if Razorflame violates any of the above conditions? De-sysopping? Second chance, but not a third? Discussion to desysop? — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If I don't meet any of the requirements listed above, I believe that the first time, there should be a warning, and the second time, desysopping, unless the first time was too big of an error, in which I will immediately give up the flag. What do you think? Cheers, Razorflame 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)I personally agree, unless the rest of the community disagrees with your desysopping at that time, which they probably won't, as you know that you are to stay within these conditions, a second violation most probably will not happen. — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you on that count. I most likely would have already learned from my mistake that I made and would not repeat it. That is exactly how I work. Cheers, Razorflame 02:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Aren't you just re-creating the de-sysopping process? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What??? — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your proposed recall process states that if someone misuses the mop repeatedly, it's taken away. I don't know what procedures are used on simple.wiki for that...but wouldn't any admin who repeatedly misused the tools have them removed regardless of whether they agreed to this recall process? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While that may be the case, that is just one of the conditions that I would have if I were given the mop. I would be open for immediate desysopping if I violate any of the problems that people in the oppose section have stated. Cheers, Razorflame 03:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

<--- I found something interesting to read, for what Razor believes, see here, and especially here. Great idea, TBC, by the way. But #3 contridicts them all: if he succeeds, then #3 is not needed, if he fails, #1/2/4 is not needed. :) But I like the idea and approach, it puts everything into perspective. Arguing put aside, it makes this all simple. Just a side note, "WARNING: This page is 95 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." I was thinking, maybe the "oppose" section should go first? :P LOL Really, longest RfA ever on the Simple English Wikipedia? We may need to begin archiving... not. Fellow users, I ask that you put all aside for a moment and study this section, as I said, it puts everything into perspective. Thanks — AE (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's interesting to read, it doesn't detract from the fact that people need to consider whether Razorflame is sufficiently knowledgeable and stable to be an admin. The rest is academic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of this should be on the talk page. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Look now

Wow, guys! Guess what? It appears as though people are now enlisting other editors from the English Wikipedia to oppose me. Does that not also qualify as canvassing? Cheers, Razorflame 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's that happening Razorflame? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm interested. Canvassing should be stopped immediately and I'd like you to show me where it's happening - I'm an admin on en-wiki so I can take the appropriate action there too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked SWATjester's and Philosopher's user talks and there are no messages on there. Swatjester came out of left field, but Philosopher has been somewhat active here, and we all know Jennavecia has been around but busy. Cassandra ^talk 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RF, can you point me to the canvassing activity please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That does not mean that they could not have emailed each other about it. Furthermore, I find it very coincidental that a user who has been inactive on here for more than 6 months just happens to come onto this site and just happens to vote in opposition of me becoming an admin. Cheers, Razorflame 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So there's no evidence of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is a very real possibility that someone is canvassing for oppose votes. How else could Swatjester have just happened to come onto this site at this point in time just to oppose me? Cheers, Razorflame 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what Swatjester does? Have you read his userpage? "I'm a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communication's Committee, a WMF Press Contact, and an OTRS representative for the legal queue. This means that when newspapers and TV shows want to interview someone from the foundation, they email me; and also means that when someone wants to sue the foundation, I answer them." - do you think he'd be canvassed?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what he does, however, just because of that does not mean that it is an impossibility for him to be canvassed. Cheers, Razorflame 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well even you would need to admit someone like Swatjester would be mad to be caught up with that kind of behaviour. So I think your over-reaction to his oppose is yet more reason to oppose I'm afraid. Don't get mad and start throwing unfounded accusations around when you have no evidence whatsoever. You were guilty of canvassing. You've admitted it. End of story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're just jealous YOU'RE not up for admin-ness! |_ oserrrr Electronixfreex (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly offended to be accused of canvassing. After all that I've done around Wikimedia, I should think that to be a clearly inaccurate statement. It even further supports my belief that Razorflame is clearly not ready to be an admin. For the record, I found this via New Changes, not because anybody requested me to be here. Swatjester (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for implicating you into this discussion, Swatjester. I was pretty sure that you weren't being canvassed, however, there could always have been the possibility that you could have been. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, and not a real one. Cheers, Razorflame 20:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opening statement in this section is in no way related to a hypothetical situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard about this on the grapevine, before anyone asks. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

From the sublime...

And now a support from a single-purpose account User:Electronixfreex, their first edit in a month. This RFA is like a cross between Dallas and Facebook. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that user is the same one who created an abusive nomination for Razorflame (not counted among the eight previous) in the past MindTheGap (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is. An odd kind of single-purpose account who arrives at curious times. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no connections to this user at all. I will even consent to a checkuser to prove my point. Cheers, Razorflame 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I should hope an admin candidate would realize that is an inappropriate use of checkuser. Swatjester (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems he keeps adding his support even if it was reverted in the first place for threatening users... -- RyanCross (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain you wouldn't fall foul of WP:SOCK Razorflame. This account behaves curiously and appears and disappears at, well, curious times. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no connection to myself and Razerflame, if that's how you spell his name. I have no objection to a checkuser, since I know it will come back negative. You are obviously just biased against anyone supporting razorflame, and it needs to stop. Electronixfreex (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The duck test suggests it's User:IuseRosary MindTheGap (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's no connection at all. You and he just mis-spell "biast" exactly the same way. Just another coincidence I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can correct that mis-spelling, but it's there in the history forever, courtesy of GFDL. Some coincidence, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it is purely coincidence. Biast on google returns 61,600 results, so it is clearly a common spelling. Besides, when you do your checkuser, you will see that it will come back negative. Electronixfreex (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, pure coincidence. As I've already said. I'm not initiating a checkuser, I don't think I need to somehow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now if you don't mind, I would like to have my vote added back to Razorfire's support, which would put the percentage at a win-point. Cheers Electronixfreex (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your account is used purely to vote in RF's RFAs. It's a single-purpose account. Sorry about that. And please stop deliberately mispelling - it's tedious now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you must Assume Good Faith! Just because I cannot spell well, just as was the case with "biased". And the google results show a similar result with everyone else too, showing the chances of me being Electronixfreex are 61,600:1 Cheers Electronixfreex (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "me being Razorflame"? Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That does not prove anything. It was a slip of the tongue. Only a checkuser can prove. Cheers Electronixfreex (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. If it looks like a duck... Oh, and "cheers" to you too RF! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TRM - seriously, it won't be Razorflame. It will be one of two users who seriously disrupted the project in the past (check out banned user Iamandrewrice on EN for starters, it'll be him or his mate) MindTheGap (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(2 e/c) Your a single purpose account, and you threatened users in your support. That's enough for your support to not count, and it has been reverted anyway. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In every major discussion that has gone on here, I feel that I'm the sane user, that only a few users get a grip and would rather do what's right vs. argue and win these arguments. The vote is currently at 13-8, which is a borderline fail. Daniel, Swatjester, Philosopher, Jennavecia and MindTheGap all opposed him. All of these are (fairly) new users. The reason they opposed was mostly because they don't know him, and thinks "he has so many RfAs in the past" and "these users tell of so many things against him." But to you guys: read "Conditional Resolution (at last?)" section above. 13 active user here fully trust him, and want to give him a long waited Sysop flag. Don't think I've gone lightly in this RfA, I want so much for him to be granted adminship. Ask TBC or RyanCross, I've been giving this my all, please trust me, he should become one. Thank you. — AE (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Waiiit a second. Are you saying that I'm insane? That's a little inappropriate don't you think? Does anyone on this wiki have even the remotest clue about how an admin is supposed to act? You have an admin candidate who has accused anyone who opposes him of everything from bias, to canvassing, to sockpuppetry. What happened to Assume Good Faith? That's a policy. You have an admin candidate who thinks he is entitled to adminship. He's not. You have an admin candidate who has tried 9 times to become an admin, and STILL is not ready. So, no. We're not insane, we're the voice of reason. RFA is not a popularity contest. The candidate does NOT know the policies and procedures, he does not have the right temperament for being an admin, and to be perfectly honest, were he on English Wikipedia acting like this, I'd probably be giving him warnings on his talk page for his behavior. And then, to mischaracterize my oppose as being because I don't know him? No, my oppose is because he's certainly in the running to be the worst administrator candidate I've seen on any Wikipedia project in any language. It's not like he's being turned down for reasons of "not enough edits" or "not being ready yet." No, he's being turned down because he can't be trusted as an admin. You have 13 active users who support him, and about as many that oppose him. For the record, I had 81 supports in my first english Wikipedia RFA, and it still didn't pass. My second one went 97-1. That's an example of being trusted by the community. Sorry, but Razorflame hasn't displayed near the level of trust necessary to be an admin, and frankly the actions of certain people in this RFA similarly don't show a great deal of trustworthiness. The issues in this RFA are one of the reasons I think this RFA is getting a lot of attention from people who haven't been as active in the past on Simple. Swatjester (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because an RfA has issues, doesn't mean it will suddenly make inactive people suddenly show up out of nowhere. This has obviously been advertised somewhere, and unnecessary attention has been drawn to it. Majorly ^talk 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was advertised here. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AE, everyone one who opposes is entitled to their opinion. Your whining is not going to help, in fact I'd suggest it does more harm than good. 13 active users "like him" and vote for him because "yeah, he's been around" and "look all those barnstars" while the opposers have examined his behaviourial traits and his conduct during this very RFA (including the recent canvassing) and don't like what they see. Please leave the opposers to their opinions. It's not a matter of trusting you, it's whether the community can trust Razorflame and right now his litany of "little mistakes" during this RFA alone means that many can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

TRM: Not to get into an argument, but I really wasn't talking to you. :| I was asking that these fairly new users read and consider that section, not that they shouldn't be permitted a vote. I love having new users, and they should be given a vote. But (to them, for the most part) consider TBC's proposal above. Thanks — AE (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AE, I appreciate that, but really RF's request needs to stand on its own two feet. After all, if he becomes an admin he won't have a dozen friends who will back up his every move. He shouldn't need it, nor should he need it now. Everyone here is capable of appraising the whole scenario, there's plenty to read and you should trust all users to make decisions appropriate to how they feel. Continually questioning the opposers is bad form - how many people have questioned the supporters e.g. Gwib supporting based on barnstars and "unactivity"? None. That type of pile-on support is far worse than opposing based on logical reasoning. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Side point - Of the five "(fairly) new users", four of the accounts are older than yours. Jennavecia's account dates back almost a year (sept 07). Most also have extensive experience and understanding of what is required of an admin (4 En:wp admins, 2 OTRS members, a Meta:admin, and the Chair of En:wp's mediation committee). On the other side of the coin, there are 5 support votes from newer accounts (2 April, 2 June and one July) as well as multiple votes from people with a history of sockpuppetry. Throwing stones may not be the best strategy at this point. -- Creol(talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Side side point - my oppose was based on the candidate's actions, including actions in the current RfA, not based on any of the reasons AE implies it was based on. Also, my oppose comments include why I don't think TBC's proposal is sufficient to change my mind (or even relevant to passage of an RfA). As a courtesy, please read the comments carefully before lumping users together. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to number of edits, not other Wikipedias and registration date. Sorry for saying that, as I said it. Well, this sure has been a stressful night. Guess what? It's my birthday today! What a great present; my first argument here, ever. Thanks y'all, it's been swell. No hard feelings, we just think differently about him - I trust him and, seemingly, you two don't. No? Anyway, good-night, guys. (Nobody online wished me a happy birthday, but it was pretty good day, I didn't eat anything, just fasted. Night!) — AE (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement of opinion is hardly an argument worth getting upset about. Daniel (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My support is valid. Inactivity shows a lack of obsession, the ability to take a rest and think things over via Wikibreak and his awards from a myriad of users shows valid contributions.

Others have just as good reasons to oppose, and as TRM said above, each is entitled to his own opinion, although he has whined himself if someone's opinion doesn't match his own. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 10:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(@Creol): Those users may have experience elsewhere, but not here, which is what matters. They may have created an account ages ago and never edited, that doesn't make them any better than the supporters. Who in the support section has sockpuppeted? Majorly ^talk 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy39, Da Punk '(95)08 and ChristianMan16 all sock-puppeted on EN:WP, but that's not here, it's the same as being active and/or an admin on another Wikipedia. Proving my point from last night when I said "these users tell of so many things against him." TFSM's oppose started as such, " Too many people have too many issues with him for me to be comfortable voting support." That's what I meant. — AE (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Page is Protected, shouldn't have commented, I guess. But birthday-boys (yesterday, though) get special privileges. :) Oops. — AE (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon's recent edits

I've reverted several edits by Eptalon which were made in violation of WP:CfA. He struck the votes of several people claiming they had not reached the required threshold, using a different standard than that at WP:CfA. Additionally, he struck several comments, in violation of the rule at WP:CfA that anyone may comment. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticing that Eptalon apparently intends to close the RfA, I withdraw the complaint about striking votes - the closing crat may use discretion when there are small numbers of edits by the user. But I would note that he still shouldn't be striking the comments, as even those not entitled to vote may comment on any RfA. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Indenting votes may be an option, but striking comments isn't the best idea IMO. —Giggy 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even more inappropriate would be Majorly's recent protecting of the page after reverting my un-striking. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an archive that is not supposed to be disruptively edited. Stop causing drama here. Majorly ^talk 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Way to go WP:BITE, lets throw down accusations of drama. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being frank with you because you should know better than this, really. You're talking about me throwing accusations around? Please don't shove WP:BITE at me like I'm an idiot. One thing I've learnt from that essay - the moment a user uses it in an argument against you, you know they're no longer a newbie. Majorly ^talk 23:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The RfA is over, it was unsuccessful, and next time around you might be able to vote (if you remain active). I think that's all that needs to be said here. —Giggy 05:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is over. I protected this page. Swatjester; is you feel wrong has been done to you, feel free to bring it before the community at Simple talk. But this RfA is over and we need to move on. Any futher comments/discussion should be brought before the community at said page, this RfA is over. This should now be The End of the longest RfA is the history of Simple English Wikipedia. Thank you. — AE (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.