Project:Requests for adminship/Razorflame 10.5

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Razorflame 10.5

Razorflame (talk · contribs)

Candidate withdrew.

Ok guys. After having a think about things, I believe that many of the opposers in my previous RfA were opposing me simply because of the number of RfAs that I have had in the past. I definitely think that I have solved every single issue that has been brought up in the past. I solved the WP:OWN, WP:BITE, and the canvassing issues in the past, and I have continued to contribute here even after that fact. So what if I have had too many RfAs? I have learned from my mistakes in the past and I have grown into a great contributor here on this site. I recently became a sysop over on the Simple English Wiktionary, and since I have become a sysop there, I have not had any problems with misusing the tools or with following the guidelines too closely. I have logged over 10 blocks, 100+ deletions, 100+ unblocks (for old IP users that needed it), a couple of restores and about 30 or so protects. All of my actions were appropriate and I definitely think that I could bring this attitude over to the Simple English Wikipedia. I hope that you all agree with me and even though I do not have a nominator this time, I believe that I won't need one.

Candidate's acceptance:Self-nomination

Support

1. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support While 10 RFAs are disturbing, you can see that Razor has done nothing but good for this project. He is helpful, he reverts vandalism, he understands all the policies, I have never had problems with him, and he is a perfect admin candidate. Simon^KSK_{Contradict me...}

Oppose

1. Really sorry, but too soon since your last RFA. Just wait a few months. Steve^Talk 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   I understand your position, but could you at least consider the fact that I would use it for the benefit of the community? Razorflame 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Well I was on the fence last time but doing it again right away like this. Nope definately not. -Djsasso (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Less than four weeks since the last RFA, but I don't think number-counting is too productive in the circumstances. What does concern me is some recently deleted articles Razor tagged for QD (British Royal Family). From what I saw, they were one line EN straight copy-pastes of the first line. While I can see the reason for deletion, the first line of a Simple article is likely to be the same as the first line of the EN equivalent - especially in such topics - and notability is obvious. Would expanding the article, even if only by simplifying that one line and bolding the name of the article in the first paragraph, be more suitable, perhaps? Soup Dish (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I tagged the pages for deletion because, while they were very short, they were indeed copypastes. Currently, under our deletion policy, pages can be tagged for quick deletion if they are direct copypastes from another Wikipedia (Rule A3). That is what I tagged them as. I do understand that they could also have been improved to be suitable for our Wikipedia, however, in the current state they were in, and through knowing the community, I believed that no-one would have improved these articles if I had just tagged them with clean up tags. Therefore, I requested quick deletion on the A3 rule. Thanks again for the comment! Razorflame 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn. This was stupid of me. This is not the thing that I should be doing if I want to become an administrator on this site. *sigh*

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.