Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ilyushka88 2


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

Ilyushka88
Final (0/9/1); Withdrawn by candidate at 23:44, 20 May 2008

- Hello! I have been editing the English Wikipedia for over 2 years now. I created this account on February 2007. I understand, that being an admin is not a trophy, or a "cool thing". Being an admin would increase my activity on Wikipedia. I want to help people in one thing that is very common between everyone in here: building a better encyclopedia. I have no hesitation to participate in things I haven't tried before. I had a wikibreak for a couple of months, because I had some personal problems, but I am back editing now. I have participated in Adopt-a-User, and one of my adoptees (Youre dreaming eh?) just graduated. This is my second time being a a nominate: See this. I always like it when articles have a clean look.  El i AS  20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn from this RfA. Ilyushka88 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Mostly: Closing WP:AFD debates, helping out at WP:AIV and WP:RPP. Like I said: I have no hesitation to participate in things I haven't tried before.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Mostly reverting vandalism. I have also contributed to many articles in Wikipedia. I like my contributions to Järvenpää. It's not a big article, but I added lots of info there. The most importatn thing I think, is adoption of various users.


 * 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: Yes. Sometimes when I revert vandalism, the vandal has started to vandalise my own user page. Usually things go right by talking. Once the vandalism was so bad, that I needed to ask for page protection, but nowadays everything seems to go very fine by just talking to vandals.

Optional question from Keepscases


 * 4. How come your signature is completely different from your actual username?
 * A: I editet some while ago to look like that, because I saw that some more experienced users had signatures, that looked like that. It was a while ago, and my signature is changed to original now.

Optional question from Zginder


 * 5. What do you consider the most important policy on the English Wikipedia? Zginder 2008-05-20T22:12Z (UTC)


 * A: To be honest, I think these 3 policies are equal to me: Behavioral, Content and style and Legal and copyright. Between these 3, I can't unfortunately select the most important one.

General comments

 * See Ilyushka88's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Ilyushka88:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ilyushka88 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I'm not going to comment yet, but it may be helpful to new users if your full username was inlcuded in you signature. Malinaccier (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Signature fixed. I think it's good the way it is now. Ilyushka88 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Provisional Oppose. On randomly clicking through your recent contribs, the second one I came across was this. Unless I find something fantastic in your history, that's already a dealbreaker. Sorry... —   iride  scent  21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess if Miserlou has it the way he wants it, that revert could be considered valid for the purposes of restoring a userpage to the way the user intended...Avruch  T 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which appears to be the case based on this edit. Not saying it isn't strange, though. Avruch  T 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now just straightforward oppose. On further digging, aside from your own RFAs and automated AIV reports, you only have three Wikipedia space edits. You may be fantastic, you may be terrible; I can't tell as there's absolutely nothing to judge you on. —  iride  scent  21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I usually mostly patrol Mainspace-articles, and I only edit articles if there's something to add/fix. The cause of only 3 edits to Wikispace, is because either I have not found anything to fix there, or someone has already fixed it. I always edit article if there's something to fix, but if i can't do anything, it's pointless to edit.  El i AS  21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't mean to be bite-y, that's what concerns me; you specifically give AfD as the first reason you want admin tools, but you've only ever participated in two AfDs (one today and one last year), tagged nine pages for speedy deletion in your entire time here, and never prodded an article. I've no way to judge whether you're competent to make deletion decisions. —  iride  scent  21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I said "Closing WP:AFD debates, helping out at WP:AIV and WP:RPP", it doesn't mean that WP:AFD is more important than any other reasons for having admin tools. Every function I use to make Wikipedia a better place, is equal. Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're not going to convince me on that one. You've only ever made three posts to WP:RPP, one of which was regarding your own userpage. As I said before, you may we wonderful, but I need to see you making decisions to know if you're good at decision-making. —  iride  scent  22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're just not ready. Only 1500 edits is not enough.  You should do some more work with WP:AFD, promote some Good articles and Featured articles and get at least 3,000 edits before re-applying.  Just some advice.  ~ Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done  22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose not knowing enough about the Wikipedia namespace is enough for me have to Oppose at this time. Sorry. Nick (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Sorry not enough edits, you spend months away at a time inwhich time things change. You need to have a solid period of editing before i would be willing to support. Youve been editing well for 2 months now, come back in two or three months and i will likely support. Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Lackluster mainspace and project space work. But you're on the right track, that's for sure.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose around 1500 total edits, 2 months active edit history (with a long gap and 2 months of history before that.) Lack of diverse edits and the attitude that I see above convince me that this is a  SNOW possibility.Balloonman (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I agree with WP:SNOW. Anyway, can you tell me what's wrong with my attitude above? Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with your attitude, I think Balloonman might be misinterpreting your comments a little. Avruch  T 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies... I was reading all of the discourse above in oppose 1 as coming from you and being a little too defensive/combative. Upon re-reading it, I realize it wasn't you.Balloonman (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but you've only actually been actively editing for a couple of months, and then another quick little burst back in October; as frequently as policies and guidelines change, I'm not entirely confident that you'd be upholding recent rules and regulations as an admin. Personally, I prefer to see a lot more activity from prospective admins. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: With only 2 months and over 1500 edits I will have oppose. I don't think you have been around long enough to prove that you are familiar with the policies and that you know how Wikipedia works. Also it'd be nice to see some more article building. Wait a couple months without a break and I'm sure you can have a successful RfA if you keep up the good work, but right now due to the lack of experience I cannot support.  Orfen   T • C 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose User states,"Being an admin would increase my activity on Wikipedia." A users activity should not be based because they are an admin or an established user.   Antonio Lopez  (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose User calls groups of policies, policies. This is an important detail for admins to understand. Zginder 2008-05-20T23:05Z (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Not ready yet. Would like to see greater, more frequent activity. I saw deleted articles that had been tagged and AIV reports that resulted in blocks, so you are going in the right direction. I would like to see more article building as well. The problem with long absences is that interpretation of policy changes over time, and you might make a mistake based on the way things were done in the past. Best of luck for the future and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim'''  22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * < >I won't oppose for it, but the bleeding fake messages banner is intensely annoying to me and will possibly raise immaturity concerns with some editors. . Cheers, Dloh  cierekim'''  22:59, 20 May 2008 (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.