Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-09/User:Razorflame for admin

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Razorflame for admin[edit]

  • Nomination: Self-nomination
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Acceptance: Self-nomination
    • Languages: en, simple, es-3, fr-1, de-1, ro-1, it-1, nl-1 Double-check your Babel template information on your userpage, and list those languages here.
    • Timezone: UTC-5
    Razorflame 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there all. I believe that I would be able to help the community more than I already do if I were granted the sysop tools. I know that there has been some tension between me and another user here in the past, but I believe that I have learnt from my mistakes in the past, and I believe that I could better serve the community here if I were granted the sysop tools. I am currently a sysop and bureaucrat on the Simple English Wiktionary. I have been a sysop since February 2009, and I have been a bureaucrat for about two days now. I have created more than 2,600 entries here, and more than 1,100 entries on the Simple English Wiktionary. I have been reverting vandalism and marking pages for deletion for about a year now here. I would therefore like to request the adminship tools. Thank you, Razorflame 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Support Visviva 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Sure, why not?[reply]
  3. Support † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Per Visviva; well indeed, why not?[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Dan Polansky 09:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask for a reason for your oppose vote please? Razorflame 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons or indications for staying on the safe side and voting oppose: Self-nomination; a needless conflict in March 2009[1][2]; creation of superfluous Hungarian template instead of looking at the common practice[3]. I would expect an aspiring admin to know better. --Dan Polansky 05:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see the creation of {{hu-third-person singular singular-possessive of}} as a good reason to oppose Razorflame’s nomination, though the rapid and unnecessary escalation of the conflict with SemperBlotto was bad form. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose While I am not saying that the user would be bad with the tools, I think that he perhaps should wait off a bit on adminship here at en.wikt. Certainly he will make a good admin here—someday. Right now, I do not see adminship here so close to becoming a 'crat on another wikt in such close succession as being something that will be productive to the wikt, or overall. Honestly, I'd be willing to actually consider this in as little as three months, but not before then. —Neskaya kanetsv? 04:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - continues to add Italian plurals that would be added automatically by my bot even when asked to desist. SemperBlotto 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semper, I am trying my best to stay professional here, but you are making it very difficult. Again, I have to state this: Who cares who makes the pages so long as they get made? I enjoy making pages for plurals and form of words, which is why I make plurals for Italian words. You cannot simply say to stop making Italian plurals because you do not own the pages. Anyone can create anything they want; we aren't just going to stop making Italian plurals just because you want your bot to make them for you. That is ownership. Furthermore, you seem to have a vendetta against me, because no matter what I do, you always seem to find something wrong with it. The bottom line is this: Who cares who creates the Italian plurals so long as it gets created. Razorflame 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree here - there's plenty of work to go around, and we're all volunteers, so no harm comes from one user deciding to make Italian plurals for their own enjoyment. bd2412 T 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Volants 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) : When you say "I have been reverting vandalism and marking pages for deletion for about a year now here", I can't see that. Perhaps since February, but not a year (at least, with the username Razorflame, maybe you have used another account). I would like to support this vote, however. --Volants 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The key word in that sentence is about. I knew that it was longer than 6 months, but I didn't know how much longer than 6 months it was. I have been marking pages for deletion and reverting vandalism here for a while now, though. Razorflame 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I'll probably support this in the future, because I believe that you are a helpful user. It is a good idea, that you will try to work out things with other users first. Not necessarily to agree with everything they say, but to be more patient perhaps. To listen and to be listened to. --Volants 09:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain. I'm afraid I find the nominee's evident lack of detachment more of a concern than any of the specific grounds for opposition. The hurdles to adminship should be minimal, but one essential requirement is that the nominee be prepared to step back and listen to those with whom they have substantial disagreements. We have had a few admins who lacked this ability, and it is my opinion that they did more damage to the project than all of the trollish/sockpuppeting admins put together. I don't necessarily believe that the nominee would be such an admin, but I am no longer comfortable supporting the nom at this time. -- Visviva 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain per Visviva. (I think the most damage is actually done by biting of newbies and assumptions of bad faith, but yeah, the above reply to SB is very disconcerting, especially since I had assumed that the "I believe that I have learnt from my mistakes in the past" was referring to exactly this sort of instantaneous escalation. I'd expect an admin to recognize that there is a reason for most complaints or objections; it doesn't always turn out to be a good reason, but you never know until you hear it out, and ordinary politeness demands that we do so.) —RuakhTALK 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

    • I have decided to withdraw my RfA because of what other people have said about me. It seems that I do not have the trust of the community yet, so I will wait until someone else nominates me for the position. In the meantime, I will do my best to work out my differences with SemperBlotto and I will continue my work for the English Wiktionary. Razorflame 18:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-09/User:Razorflame_for_admin&oldid=75498829"