Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper


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

Flameviper
Final (8/36/7); Ended Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:34:45 (UTC)

- A vandal-turned-contributor, I participate in several areas, including recent changes/new pages and cleanup (more here). I am very familiar with Wiki markup and I am also an eloquent writer. I am also willing to get my hands dirty and make templates, and work on Wikipedia proposals. One of my most notable contributions is Adopt-a-user (and all its related templates). ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As for those who say that I am "hiding my past", that's simply not true. Special:Contributions/Son of a Peach and Special:Contributions/Flameviper in Exile, in addition to the fact that my previous username was Flameviper12. I was once a vandal. And that's behind me now. If you want to say that I will "relapse", it's not going to happen. Do you expect the United States to "relapse" into being a British colony?

And also, in regard to the previous RfAs. I am not trying to "hide" my previous requests for adminship, of which there are three. I do not recall the exact location of each request, although I wil gladly search for them if you so desire. I suppose that I am unfamiliar with RfA process, which I apoligise for. I don't deal well with stress, but I don't plan on putting myself in stressful situations. Actually, I plan on avoiding them entirely. Thank you for your wisdom and comments. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I will probably prowl new pages and weed out the speedy deletables. I will also attempt to manage/close XfD debates and perform protected edits, as well as helping blocked users.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am particularly proud of Adopt-a-User. I created it with a vision of people helping each other out and never imagined that it would become this large.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have been caused stress over the debate at Talk:Titin and a scuffle with Axem Titanium over the redirect Armads. I must admit that I am not very good with stress.


 * Optional question from 
 * 4. Why have you renominated yourself for adminship?
 * A: I believe that I have improved greatly since the last time I attempted to gain adminship and would like to try again, and also see what I have done wrong (if it fails).

Optional questions from &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
 * A: I would attempt to rationally discuss the article with the user as I would with any user. I would explain to them the importance of notability and citations in an encyclopedic article. And I would try to remove uncited POV slants that may have been added by the subject.


 * 6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
 * A: I would not semi-protect an article as a pre-emptive measure. This is for two reasons. For one, because Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia that some people can edit, based on the cautionary measures of a sysop. And secondly, there is no way of telling if, when, and how hard an article may be vandalized. Some articles with "vandal-magnet" titles/subjects are never actually vandalized. And if there is no danger of vandalism, the only thing accomplished is discouraging an anonymous editor.


 * 7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I would try to determine if the subject was notable, but first and foremost I would try to verify the information presented and determine if it could be reliably cited. After I had assured that it was both notable and verifiable, I would try to remove all POV slants. If all failed, I would try to communicate with the article creator after I deleted the article (and possibly undelete it, if we reached a consensus that it was wrongfully deleted).


 * Bonus Question:
 * 8. I noticed you still have Esperanza linked in your signature. What are your feelings about its demise?
 * A: I don't particularly miss Esperanza, to tell the truth. I suppose it was well-meaning, and I was a member. But it wasn't very interactive, so to speak. It didn't "reach out", as it supposedly was meant to. It was more a signing of a charter, and then never hearing about it again.


 * Optional Question from User:Heligoland:
 * 9. How long should a signature ideally be, what general guidelines apply to signatures and what should never be included in a signatures ?
 * A: Well, as far as displayed text goes, it should be reasonable. Just the username, and maybe 10 characters more tops. But as far as wiki markup, that's a tough question. I'd like to allow large amounts of markup (like my sig), but I admit that it's a real pain and clutters up talk pages. I'm actually a proponent of transcluding templates, unrealistic as it may be.


 * General comments


 * See Flameviper's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper12 (June 2006)
 * Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach (August 2006)
 * Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach II (September 2006)
 * Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1 (October 2006)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Could you please explain this edit. Editing any closed RfA is inappropriate, but particularly adding a !vote in support of your own candidacy is exceptionally inappropriate. Was this intended to be a joke? To make it look like you had more support than you did? Once an RfA is closed it should not be edited again. Wasn't it clear to you that it was closed? This is exactly the sort of poor judgment that is causing this RfA to fail. Gwernol 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why has the candidate not been blocked for his ridiculous incivility and personal attacks throughout the course of this RFA directed at opposers? If it was any other situation a block would've occurred a long time ago. – Chacor 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Weak Support; seems to be a good user but I'm concerned with lack of edits. My first RfA, with 1100 edits, failed miserably at 10/36/7 iirc. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support. First off, congratulations for staying with us, despite what must have been the worst piled-on RfA I have ever seen. Second, although I don't use it, the Adopt-A-User programme is one of the best new ideas I have seen recently on here. Anyway, it's a moral support because I have a feeling there will be opposers for lack of Wikipedia space edits, article writing, and your answers are regretfully short. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because the user is doing alot of vandal work and I think the user has enough experience.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - per Natl1  Kamope ·  talk  ·  contributions   21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support a determined user, who meets my guidelines and I believe in redemption.-- danntm T C 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, Flameviper is unconventional and that's no criticism. I have no trouble accepting a former vandal as an admin, especially when they have worked so hard on adopt-a-user. Malla  nox  00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I've looked at the so-called negative examples, including the Titin talk page, and I find nothing uncivil — outspoken, yes, but not aggressive. Also I noticed in the Titin discussion that the candidate can accept it gracefully and quit when the consensus goes against him, despite the fact that he invested a lot of time and skilled effort (coding the Java box).  This is a quality that bodes well for his fairness as an admin.  I do not hold his vandal beginnings against the candidate -- he has become so deeply involved in legit work (Adopt-a-User, etc.) since then, and it is extremely unlikely that he should throw all this away and revert to primitivism.  Evolution never works in reverse.  He is an active, involved, and skilled editor who makes useful contributions now and is likely to make useful admin contributions. Freederick 02:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support - I think it would be great to have a reformed vandal as an admin. It shows that users always have potential, and you should always assume good faith. --DanielFolsom T|C|U 04:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — admits to being a vandal, I don't find "merge that mofo" to be a helpful AfD comment either. Also this is your second RfA, so why move your first. Also the lack of (have you made any :-\?) contributions to the encyclopaedia worries me, it is imperative if you wish to be a sysop that you contribute! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Extreme Oppose Kudos to this user for reforming, but I simply do not think it is appropriate to have a former vandal as an admin, even if they are 'reformed', seeing the potential damage he could do if we were to be tempted and relapse into vandalism. Sorry if this sounds uncivil, but you don't want a former vandal being an admin at wikipedia, just like you wouldn't want a former alcholic working at a shop where they hand out free beer. --MikeHunt35 13:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Your comment was not helpful. Thank you. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 13:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, this user is !voting in RfA's with "Extreme Oppose". Viewing the other contributions, AGF can only go so far. James086 Talk
 * We'll leave it for the 'crat to decide I think. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Please improve your edit summaries and try to interact in a more mature and ciivl manner with people who disagree with you. Kusma (討論) 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the other users above. In addition, I found it curious that you moved your previous RfA to Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1 then chose to put your second one where the first one was. This shows that you're either trying to hide the previous RfA (which I don't think is likely) or you're unfamiliar with the RfA process. In addition, although I think article writing isn't necessarily important for administrators, your answer to the three standard RfA questions is weak. --Deskana (request backup)  13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, adminship is not a trophy. Also, I'm concerned you're hiding your past - why haven't you listed your past RFAs and past usernames? – Chacor 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Oppose per all above, and also you said it yourself. You don't handle stress well, being an administrator you will be facing different degrees of stress. So if you can't handle it now...I don't know what you will do when facing admin stress. ~ Arjun 14:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose per this set of requests to ANI just two days ago. Metros232 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose possible per this edit to my talk page just now . That civility is totally unacceptable from anyone, ESPECIALLY someone who wants to be an admin.  Metros232 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Metros, Arjun and Deskana. I strongly opposed this user on his previous RfA and I'm glad he has stuck with Wikipedia and is trying to reform, but his previous incarnations, particularly as User:Son of a Peach were highly disruptive and abusive and I need to see much more mature behavior to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Gwernol 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, but there are serious civility issues you need to learn to control such as this and this, and I can't imagine what kind of misunderstanding of policy could lead to this incident of linkspamming for personal gain, not to mention the disruptiveness of it. CiaranG 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose Low edit count, lack of experience, no need for the tools, edit summaries, civility concerns per CiaranG, and serious maturity concerns as per Metros232 and as per inability to take plain recommendations given on last RfA thus denoting low capability to follow advice and improve. Sorry, but no.-- Hús  ö  nd  16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Am currently explaining to this user why things need to have independent reliable sources to have an article and what that means, which I would expect people to know before they even think about having the power to close AfDs and enact speedy deletions, let alone applying for it. Also, still frequently leaves unhelpful edit summaries    and has a signature twice as long as some of his answers to the questions. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Two key factors are always need and trust. Despite the answer to Q1, the introduction to the nomination makes it clear that the tools aren't needed. As for trust, if a person truly wants to redeem themselves they should be encouraged to do so. However, if someone has made serious mistakes in the past it takes a lot more than what we have seen here. Not only must the trust be earned, any doubts about past behaviour must be dispelled. If this nominee is truly intent on changing his ways and contributing, then I would suggest taking six months, at minimum, to make meaningful contributions that demonstrate trustworthiness and knowledge of the various policies and guidelines. Agent 86 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Deskana. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per all-too-recent incivility. --InShaneee 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose -- If indeed reformed, then we need to wait a while to ascertain it's true. Dialog on this page is relatively recent, and does not strike me as material coming from a potential admin. Keesiewonder talk 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Sorry, but the reasons stated above by Deskana and Arjun lead me to oppose. S .D. ¿п?  § 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) This is really unnecessary, but you do not seem to have gotten the point from your three previous RfAs. You are doing bad things. Cease doing bad things. Strong oppose. -Amark moo! 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong oppose per above and your answers. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose. Check the page moves, especially the earliest.Move log. AGF or not, I'm not comfortable giving the editor the tools. --Ginkgo100talk 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - please don't use profanity in edit summaries. --BigDT 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per above arguments, particularly with regards to spamming and hostile edit summaries. I suggest a withdrawal.--Jersey Devil 05:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose not to pile on, but there is an ongoing failure to internalize community norms, e.g., recent posts to the talk pages of oppose voters such as here. I'm glad a consensus was reached on the titin issue, but that doesn't excuse the months of tendentious editing, inappropriate accusations of vandalism, and general defense of the indefensible on talk:titin. Sorry, your rude edit summaries and immature behavior don't add up to someone who should be anywhere near admin tools. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - responses to the questions weren't as thorough as I think they really should be, and the low edit count plus concerns raised by Ginko100, Metros et al. I do think it would be rather nice to have a reformed vandal raised to sysop, however :)-from  K37  06:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. I agree with most of the comments above and the answers really don't grab me. Also, I feel that the candidate's strange business of moving his RfAs around to bizarre locations most concerning and a reflection of a failure to understand RfA process and general Wiki standards for page naming. Shifting an RfA to pagename/X-1 makes absolutely no sense to me. Sarah 07:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I've also added another RfA to the list that Flameviper seemed to have forgotten about. Sarah 07:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Basically, your act of moving the previous RfA indicates your poor understanding of RfA process, your inexperience, and therefore I see no reason to trust you with the tools. – PeaceNT 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose that mofo. Not ready yet.  But 'merge that mofo' is a great AFD comment, which I giggled at when I saw it.  Proto ::  ►  10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong oppose. I disagree that a former vandal can't be trusted to have reformed (though his U.S./colony misanalogy above doesn't indicate strong logical abilities), but there are too many additional problems.  Aside from edit-summary use and moving the previous RfA, his Talk page gives too much evidence of hasty edits and bad judgement.  Perhaps in a few months. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from [this there's also this. Not even in a few months, on this evidence.  A block is more likely than adminship. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per civility issues. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Holy Shit Oppose Just saw a recent response on someone's talk page; such a hostile attitude to have towards someone (on someone else's talk page, no less, when they weren't even involved in any way, shape, or form) and severe newbie biting is over the line. I'll be damned before I'll ever support an admin candidate that displays such a flagrant disregard for the rules of civility. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose for this elegant bit of self-expression... Withdrawal is probably the best option here. WJBscribe 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per everyone else, at least you're not vandalizing anymore though :P-- Wizardman 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. . Holy crap. --Fang Aili talk 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for very obvious reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose This is not appropriate. Prodego  talk  20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Shoot-the-nom-down oppose Adminship is, at least ideally, a balanced mixture of civility, experience, and confidence. Flippant arrogance, glaring inexperience, and blatant insecurity are not marks of an editor, let alone an admin candidate. Regarding your comment about stress, if you can't deal with stress, then clearly you are not fit for adminship, as an admin will constantly be subjected to stressful situations no matter how one runs away from it. And I don't want a contemptuous and/or snide feedback comment on my talk page. Vandals can be reformed, but it doesn't mean to blindly hand out admin tools to seemingly apt candidates which obviously are not at the current time. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - gutsy to come back for more, Adopt-a-User is great, your contributions to Wikipedia edits however, are borderline and I would like to see some more experience in this area, especially as you desire the tools to close XFDs and speedies. The Rambling Man 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - the wise man above me stated it very well. I think a former vandal will make a terrific admin, but you're not there yet. No idea how old you are physically, but a little more maturity in your contributions will bring you greater respect in RfAs, per Gwernol and especially the diffs provided by Metros 232. Come back in six months... and drop me a line when you do. I'd love to see you complete your reformation. --Dweller 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - Arjun above said it: as an admin you will be subject to stress and unpleasant situations; even if you try to stay away from them, trust me, they will find you instead. It's an admin's job to handle these gracefully and while keeping his cool. If from the get-go you feel like you will not be able to cope with this, perhaps you should reconsider your desire to hold an admin position. Roadmr (t|c) 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I'm glad you turned to the "light side," but I have concerns about whether you could keep your heat if you were an admin.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Sorry, there's no way to avoid stress on Wikipedia if you want to play a role in its development. Please try again when you know you can deal with it. Xiner (talk, email) 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm sorry, It's just too soon. I would prefer you spent more time learning about the ins&outs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral glad to see you're on the right track. Some time and experience are needed before I can support. -- <font color="Black">A nas '''  <font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.