Meta:Requests for adminship/Razorflame

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

Result was candidate withdrew. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame

Hi there all. I've recently become an active participant at Meta and have been very active in crosswiki stuff. I am currently an administrator on the Simple English Wiktionary: simple:wikt:User:Razorflame to verify and I would like to further help out the community of meta through the use of the sysop tools. I am a global rollbacker who is active in the Small Wiki Monitoring Team and I have been very active in helping to identify malbots and spambots from Wikimedia Foundation wikis across the internet. I believe that I could help this community here more than I am already able to if I were allowed the use of the sysop tool. You can see a list of my contributions across all Wikipedias here. Thank you for the time, Razor flame 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I like Razorflame personally but his recent edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and removal of rollback on Simple English Wikipedia with subsequent misuse of global rollback on that site leave me with maturity and control concerns. fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it misuse of the global rollback. I said that it was a habit and that I would not do it again. Anyways, thank you for your comments. Cheers, Razor flame 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not given your history of admin requests on simple english wikipedia, you recent (and I mean today) edit warring and misuse of rollback (warned before about it, and I would have objected to your global rollback). Why you would request for adminship right after this has me at a much larger loss for words. Synergy 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this several hours before that happened. Cheers, Razor flame 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per actions at Simple Wikipedia generally, including 11 RfA's, as well as not understanding that one can be acting in good faith and still be annoying. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too political and rules-lawyering. Too calculating too for my liking. Majorly ^talk 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, it's not personal, but edit warring is conduct I see as unbefitting of an administrator, anywhere. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 23:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your view Steve-Crossin. Thank you for your input. Razor flame 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - I'm sorry, but I have serious doubts about your capacity to do a good job as an administrator. You would do well to try walking before running. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone who has given their inputs. I am going to withdraw this RfA due to my actions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I, too, am mad at myself for edit warring, and I will not apply here again for a long while (many months). Thank you for your input again, Razor flame 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]