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.

---

Yotcmdr (talk · contribs)

End date: 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination by Goblin: I present to the the community Yotcmdr for you to consider for adminship. Yotcmdr has been a member of the Simple English Community since the end of August 2008, and in that time he has had over 100 QD tags and many VIP reports. He was originally made an administrator in December and before stepping down in February he made 5 blocks, over 150 deletions and he also gave rollback to one user. He never abused the admin tools and stepped down after a re-confirmation that failed due to an apparent lack of trust within the community. He was not put off by this, and has continued to be a very productive member of the community. He is active in many community discussions, he helps out at (V)GA and he is also involved with Simple News and the Spoken Articles. All that I can see is net project gain, and so I am nominating Yotcmdr for adminship. Good Luck! Goblin 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept, thank you very much. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Support as per my nomination. For you people who winge about consensus, voting etc, my reasoning for my vote is my nomination. "As per my nomination" is not my reasoning. Ta, Goblin 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Always trusted him with the bit. In his time off, I think he's been able to reflect on some of his actions last time. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - I trust him fully. Good luck, yotti. Barras (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support - I was actually thinking of asking if I could nom, and then I saw this. I trust Yotty that he will not abuse the tools. Strongest possible support. Kennedy (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Yotcmdr, good luck. Thanks for your nice article creation sprees. :) иιƒкч? 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - After his desysopping, Yotcmdr was not affected by this, but instead continued to contribute to the encyclopedia. Resilience is what we want to see in every administrator. I trust that he has reflected much since his reconfirmation. Chenzw  Talk  13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I seriously don't think you'll mess up again if you do regain the tools. Best of luck, I'm sure you'll regain the trust that you got in your first RfA ;) - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   #Three months is plenty of time, and since no evidence has been provided in the opposes, I support. Majorly talk 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Adminship is no big deal, and three months is plenty of time to improve. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Regretfully striking support per Majorly in the oppose section. Sorry, but I don't like this "enwiki is evil" attitude. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Strong Support – I didn't really think you should have had to resign, but I believe you've gained back any trust you may have lost. TheAE talk 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strongly support Shouldn't have lost it in the first place.--  † CM₁₆  20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support has always had my support Peterdownunder (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support — RyanCross (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. He's very much ready in my opinion; he's active and dedicated to sewp, so it will only help everyone if this passes. -- Mentifisto 09:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I don't see how he can't be a net positive. Simon^KSK 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Feeling better about this user now. Definitely has the potential to become a great administrator now. Cheers, Razorflame 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. --vector ^_^ (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Looks a decent chap. Garden (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - A very productive user who will use the tools well and not cause drama or break down and ask for a block and can understand the English language and will bring lasting peace to the wiki. Snow funn at tall (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will you please stop being disruptive with RFAs? Either way (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, that's both an old joke and unfunny.  GARDEN  20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was noting the benefits of Yotcmdr's sense of humour. Since many Simplistic Wikipedians don't have one, I have changed my comment for great justice. Snow funn at tall (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not that we don't have senses of humour. It's that that is disruptive behaviour and implies you are part of something we don't like. Also, that sly comment wasn't sly at all.  GARDEN  20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't make any sly comments. This page is for Yotcmdr, to celebrate his inevitable berth on the adminship. Please respect that. Snow funn at tall (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I do respect that. It would appear that you do not respect that as you are the one spraying old memes around like fertilizer.  GARDEN  20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Insert "fertilizer" and "Garden" joke here. I support Yotcmdr for admin. That is my final comment on this page. Thank you. Snow funn at tall (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please do take note that whether your vote will be counted or not is up to the closing bureaucrat. Thank you. Chenzw  Talk  12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me if i'm wrong... but this seems very much like a PA towards me (looking for a link...). I am getting an idea as to who this user might be... but WP:AGF and all :). Goblin 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My !vote was not a PA to anyone and I am not banned user User:Tharnton345. SnofuKall 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Support - I trust him with the admin tools. MathCool10 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - A very strong, consistent and mature editor. I don't doubt that these characteristics will follow him into adminship. EhJJ^TALK 05:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - no objections here -- Mercy (☎|✍) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support; no skeletons in the closet, well known editor. And on the condition that he changes his signature from that vile Comic Sans MS! :P MC8 (b · t) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's wrong with the font in my sig :p Anyone else request I change it? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support. What has passed is but the past. Let us forgive and forget. I believe that if Yotcmdr is willing to do his job properly, I absolutely have no qualms about his reinstatement as a sysop.-- Tdxiang 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose per the concerns at the recall RFA - three months is too soon, six months would have been better. One of the key problems is Yotcmdr's difficulty in using the English language to its fullest extent, hence the reason he misread Majorly's sarcasm, though that's more of a reason to be wary than oppose. Soup Dish (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, how can you read sarcasm? I believe my comprehesion, and use of english is fine. I also believe when you ask someone a question and they answer with a direct no, it's not always, sarcastic, and pretty much impossible to know if it is when it's written. Kind regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Come on, please tell me you're not opposing even partly because he couldn't read sarcasm. In real life maybe get on at him, but in text form it's almost impossible.  GARDEN  20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Most of the concerns at the recall are still there, if not actually worse. Has been very combative with people who don't agree with him. Very much think he needs a good while to get older and mature before he can even remotely think about becoming an admin again. 3 months to try again is just rediculous after being stripped of your adminship. -Djsasso (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose, too soon. Really. I think Yotcmdr can be of help even without sysop flag and I suggest a more thoughtful acceptation: after an election and a subsequent failure some more time should be allotted and an effective maturation is expected. --M7 (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very poor attitude shown here with regards to enwiki admins. We are not a closed community - I do not want someone like that as an admin. The comments sound really immature too. Majorly talk 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Majorly, he has a right to his opinion whether you agree with it or not, and I saw nothing there disrespecting or immature towards the en admins.--  † CM₁₆  18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As does Majorly. -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He has done alot for the wikicommunity. –Kiwimankid (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the oppose votes... Isn't three months between RfA's the norm (or at least the recommended amount)? Kennedy (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. But being forcibly removed from adminship because of various concerns about trust/maturity/aggressiveness, etc, is certainly not the norm Soup Dish (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, it's going to be three months on 3 May. --M7 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He wasn't forcibly removed, he voluntarily put himself up for recall after some concerns were brought up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He put himself up only after being told someone else was going to put him up for deadminship, the community thus voted him out of being an admin which is forcibly removing him. He didn't just give up the bit, the community voted to remove the bit. There is a huge difference. -Djsasso (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Djsasso, sorry to say, that isn't the truth. The other person wasn't going to put me up for deadminship, they just said they didn't want me to be an admin. I decided by my self to go for the reconfirmation, and after the pulic expresed an opinion, I willingly stepped down. Regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it is the truth because I was the one who was going to put you up. And once the community !voted you didn't have a choice, your bit would have been removed had you wanted it to be or not. -Djsasso (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please provide evidence to prove that. As I understand it, Yotcmdr asked a question to Majorly if he should stay an admin. Majorly replied "No.". Yotcmdr misunderstood the sarcasm (it is not possible to read sarcasm) and ran for deadminship. If you have proof to say that you told him you were going to nominate please enlighten me. Otherwise, I agree with Majorly; it does seem as if you are clutching at straws. Kennedy (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not clutching at straws all I am saying is he didn't voluntarily give it up. If he had there would have been no recall rfa. A steward would have just removed it. Except instead he did a recall rfa to try and keep his adminship at which point the community voted to remove the bit instead of him voluntarily giving up the bit. -Djsasso (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • That isn't what I asked. I asked for proof that you told him, or publically stated, that you were going to initiate a RfDe. The reason he started the RfDe is to check if the community wanted him to stop being an administrator. This request is to see if they now want him to have the tools. Kennedy (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately that is the problem with IRC...no online difs to link to. I know that the rfa was to see if he should have the tools and this rfa was to see if he should have the tools now, none of that is the point. All I said was he didn't voluntarily give them up, the community removed them. So whether I told him or not doesn't actually matter, because it doesn't change the fact that the community removed them from him. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry, but it's still not the truth. You said after being told someone else was going to put him up for deadminship, I was never told bu anybody. Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three months between failed noms yes, but he was forcibly removed. I would want to see more than a year in a case like that. Trying to get adminship in less than 3 months after being forcibly removed to me points to continued bad judgement. -Djsasso (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, a year is a ridiculous requirement. How does wanting to help out = bad judgement? Do you have anything at all that would suggest he would make a problematic admin? It is clear the opposers are clutching at straws here. Majorly talk 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it rediculous? We won't re-evaluate bans till a year is up, being removed from being an admin I would say is on the same level as being banned so why should we be any more lenient. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him and gets very uncivil, that to me suggest being a problematic admin, but I will go look for some diffs when I get back from work if you insist. -19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Since when do we evaluate bans after a year? I think six months is much more reasonable, but since I've seen nothing to suggest a problem, I can only support. Majorly talk 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • When the whole discussion about automatically banning people banned on other projects came up I believe it was people said if they waste their one chance and get banned they could be re-evaluated in a year. Same with when we banned Tharton I believe it was agreed to re-evaluate bans after a year. I would note I don't have a problem with 6 months really...but less than 3 to me seems to be a bit early. -Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is unacceptable to edit posts made by others Soup Dish (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How bad!!! That's correcting of the spelling. He corrected only the spelling of his name. Barras (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I believe my name was spellt wrongly, only trying to help. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree, Barras. The official guideline says, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed..." This is one instance when it is completely appropriate. TheAE talk 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yotti, what you did was ok. No worries. You don't changed the meaning. Barras (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While its not the biggest deal it is however, still considered bad form to correct someone elses typos as its looked upon as a bit of an insult. (You will notice the official guideline does not specify fixing typos as one of the ok cases.) -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't it a bit of an insult not spelling somebody's name correctly? Not sure. Kind regards, (remember, it's not the end of the world). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only if done on purpose. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then, I will go and notify, and apologize on his talk page. Kindly, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about my own typing error. Thanks to Yotcmdr for fixing it and notifying me. --M7 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely can't believe Dj and Soup are whining over Yot fixing a typo, lighten up.--  † CM₁₆  21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's you whining about people being uncivil - try and practice what you preach eh? Majorly talk 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't uncivil, I spoke a hard truth.--  † CM₁₆  02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wasn't a hard truth, I didn't complain, I actually went out of my way to say I didn't care. But stated what general thought on the issue was. You were completely being uncivil. -Djsasso (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No uncivil would have been "Shut up and quit complaining" I said "I can't believe these people are complaining, lighten up" BIG difference.--  † CM₁₆  17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand. We are here to decide if Yot would make a good admin. I don't think that editing anoother person's comment without changing the meaning of the comment would make Yot a bad admin. I personally think that 3 months is a good enough time for Yot to improve. If you think Yot gets a bit overheated, there is a simple solution for Yot to do. It's called the "shut down" button. Genius, eh? CM16, you must understand that it is a bit ironic that you are scolding DJ and Soup for "whining". I don't want to seem bitey to you or anything, but people are already jumping on you. Now, let's do what we came here to do. ;) Simon^KSK 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed as successful Kennedy (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.