Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yuvmil


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

Yuvmil
(talk page)

Final (2/6/2); Ended 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - closed by User:Anonymous Dissident per WP:NOTNOW.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I wish to help not only make new articles, but to add missing references and increase the credibility of Wikipedia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are improving articles on philosophers of the 1800's. I had to write a report on many of these, so I used my knowledge for this.


 * 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: No, I have not had any stress from other users.

General comments

 * Links for Yuvmil:
 * Edit summary usage for Yuvmil can be found here.
 * Promote Yuvmil


 * Comment I smell a rat, or rather a troll, here. This user has too much sophistication to have a total of 12 edits (plus 15 deleted). Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly Looie496, was that really necessary? It says below to keep the "discussion constructive"! - Fastily (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not have said it if I didn't think it needed to be said. I will apologize profusely if it turns out I am wrong, but based on the evidence this does not look to me like a good faith RfA. Looie496 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * I would suggest withdrawal, but I also believe that you show some potential and have the right attitude to become an administrator. Just get more experience and spend some real time contributing to Wikipedia and enjoying your time as an editor. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support - You have shown that you want to be an editor and not an admin. I am supporting you in your intent to be an -editor-. If you need help, many of the people who will respond to this are very knowledgeable. I would contact them and ask for assistance. I am sure a few will be willing to help. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support Per Ottava, you mean well but please read this. Cheers.-- Giants27 T/  C  00:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Per NuclearWarfare.  -  down  load  |   sign!  22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) User is not ready yet. Come back soon in a few months (4-6, maybe). iMatthew : Chat  22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per WP:NOTNOW. Strongly suggest withdrawing. Fun  Pika  22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:NOTNOW - user has good intentions but will need more experience to become an admin. Sorry. - Fastily (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with moral support I'm sorry, but per WP:Notnow. Sorry and keep up the good work. America69 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Way under qualified, and too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend participation in WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:FL, or WP:FA as the surest ways to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another few months and couple thousand edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Your enthusiasm is running ahead of your experience, but your sincerity is greatly appreciated. Good luck, and keep doing what you are doing! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2009 (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.