Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yotcmdr (2)

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship or request for checkusership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Yotcmdr (reconfirmation)[change source]

Yotcmdr (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

Ended: Monday 2 February 23.02 UTC

Hello everyone. I am running this particular Request for adminship, which is actually a reconfirmation. Some people have told me they wanted me to leave wikipedia completly. I'm very sad that some people feel this way, and would like to know if I am still trusted by the community. During my month and a half as an admin, I have deleted 167 pages and blocked 6 users. I really hope people do trust me and will show this to me. If I am finaly de-sysoped after this, I do not know what I'll do; maybe I'll leave, maybe I'll continue editing here, or maybe I'll go and edit the french wikipedia instead. Thank you to the people who I know trust me, and thank you everyone voting, whatever the result. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate's acceptance: I accept as self nomination


Support[change source]

  1. Support (I assume this is the "support adminship" as supposed to the "support the slaughter of a nice admin guy"), you're a good editor and admin. Anyways, an admin will always get flak from other users, it's part of the job description. -- anyways, can I entice you over to b: if you want a break? No, I'm not asking every editor. Just most editors. MC8 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I could not disagree more with Djsasso, cause what's happened in the past couple of weeks is called frustration, a completely human emotion, every person is capable of it, including administrators, 'Crats, and Checkusers. I believe you've been doing a wonderful job, Yot.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You ChristianMan16 for your trust. I do no doubt your ability to become an admin too some day. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are, I even said as much in my comments below. Its how you handle frustration thats important. An administrator should be capable of handling the frustration without exploding on people who disagree with them. Stability is important in an administrator. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but at this point in time of his adminship I don't see it as a reason for desysop, IMO.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Djsasso: It's like when someone pokes you once, then twice than 5 times, ten times, 100 times and then you've had enough and you let it all go. It was a bad week concerning everything. I just exploded and It is not my usual behaviour and will not be if I'm given a second chance. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Per my previous vote Kennedy (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Super Ultra Strongest Possible Cannot Be Bigger Mega Support - excellent editor, no need to lose the tools. BG7even 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for going off-topic but that vote was funny. LOL!-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support He's to good a user to be desysoped. I woukd be sad if he got desysoped and left. He's a good pal. TurboGolf 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks mate. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support Yotcmdr, you are a good admin, but I have some behavior concerns (such as how you acted during my RFA). I think that you should still be an admin, but please don't take WP too seriously. Shapiros10 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You shappy, and I'll do my best to be a better admin in the future. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for caring about the community. Every admin makes mistakes, and you are no exception. However, you are a great 'pedian and admin and I see no need for you to lose the tools! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Changing to oppose. [reply]
  7. Support: A great contributor to the simple wiki, who has my support and confidence. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Wwirlboy and Peter, I will not let you down. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 06:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Robert Sieger (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Banned crosswiki vandals do not get a vote. --Creol(talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Indented per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Administratorship#Who_can_vote bullet 4. Either way (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - All admins make mistakes. They shouldn't be desysopped because of that. MathCool10 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. I know admins make mistakes and other admins I know have made some too. I agree, it's not a reason to be de-sysoped but others don't see it that way. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. You've made some mistakes in the past, but I know that you can continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 14:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think you can still be a positive admin, regardless of what has happened :) Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support – Regardless of his mistakes, I see no reason for desysopping. TheAE talk 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I support you for the first time! good work :) --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support People make mistakes, and I believe that yours was an honest one. Don't make me regret doing this! Cheers, Razorflame 18:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Don't worry, even if you have made mistakes recently, I reckon they've been misinterpreted. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 10:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. To partially balance out Gwib's ludicrous oppose. Maxim(talk) 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Oppose While I don't think you should leave the simple, and I don't think anyone should have told you that. I do think you have shown a huge amount immaturity over the last couple weeks which is very unbecoming of an administrator and unfortuantely has caused me to reconsider the support I gave in your Rfa. -Djsasso (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm with Djsasso here on this. I believe that you have definitely shown a lapse in maturity here over the past few weeks and while I am with Djsasso on this, I also don't want to see you leave the community because of this. You have been one of the better administrators that this site has seen here on this site and I would be very sad if you were to leave. Therefore, I will give you a weak oppose instead of a full blown oppose. The concerns that have been brought up in the other opposes have lead me to reinstate my weak oppose. Sorry. Razorflame 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you two have actually asked for an actual reconfirmation? Is it a serious reason for deadminship? Many of our other administartors have shown "lapses" every so often -- would you nominate every single lapse of every administrator every time? Would you support him again next week? MC8 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually in those cases, the lapses are very short lived (like a few hours or days). This time, however, it was a lapse of a couple of weeks. That means that that is a very serious concern for other editors on this site because what if this lapse is either not over yet or continues and leads to eventual mistakes (not that I am saying they will). You just have to kind of think about situations like these. Razorflame 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I know what these lapses are? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion about the French communes being created and the current CfA discussion are the two that come to mind right now. Ask Djsasso for more as he was the one who brought it up first and probably knows more about it than I do. Razorflame 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the french communse, it's been a while I've accepted community concensus for me not to do them. For the new Cfa, it's my opinion, unfortunately it's not everyone's. Same question to Djsasso: What are these lapses? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The two Razor mention are good examples. The constant personal attacks on me because I disagree with some of your opinions are another reason. (I won't list them all). I will put a link to the comment section in Shapiros Rfa of an example where you all but called everyone who opposed him immature. People will disagree with you that's what happens in wikis and life in general. Administrators are human and are allowed to get frustrated, but to turn that frustration into attacks is crossing the line. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To MC8. If we had a reasonable recalls structure that didn't cause drama then yes I would have. A lapse is one event, a lapse that continues to occur over weeks is no longer a lapse. Especially when if you consider that 2 weeks is 25% of his time as admin. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get angry as it's my rfa, but do you think it's reasonnable to oppose someone with 30 QD's (with that as an only reason pretty much) and supporting someone with 10? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether its reasonable or not, it doesn't matter. There are ways to tell someone you don't agree with them or to debate a position without attacking the editor. Like the saying says "Attack the arguement, not the editor." -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose continued adminship. I've scanned the recent contributions and I see a lack of maturity that I would like to see in all administrators. Additionally, I can not support an administrator who believes that editors who don't participate in areas such as VGA, etc, should be sacrificed. I don't support administrators who do not value the time that a volunteer donates. That is what a volunteer does, what they like. I for example, like to start articles and contribute to DYK. I don't have time for anything else. You make an excellent editor, however. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    again, not going to get angry, but I'm afraid, the first statement is a misinterpretation. I didn't say you have to sacrifice users. I said that you have to make some sacrifices somtimes in life, one can't have everything he wants, or do everything he wants. I agree with the criteria, you don't so much. Maybe we could come to some agreement. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my best hope. However, I can not support you if you are going to hurt editors who do not have the time to contribute to every process. Adminship is not a trophy to be gained after getting x number of VGA. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Yot, but I agree with Non on the GA stuff considering I have no interest in GA and VGA. I still stand by support completely though.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I never thought Yot was ready for adminship. I was willing to look the other way, in hopes that he would slide into the role. So I decided not to vote in his RfA. I've seen a number of oddities through conversation as of late, and I have chosen not to remain silent on this. If I recall correctly, Yot became and editor here, and on en, just about three months before going through our RfA. I don't think this was enough time for him to get the hang of editing in a community, but this is not his fault. What is his fault, is not stepping up and performing his duties more to get the experience he needs. I think he jumps into things a little too fast at times too (such as proposals and the like). Yot, you don't need to leave, but as I said, I just don't feel you have enough experience for this role. Synergy 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Synergy, but do you think it'll be possible to redeem myself and go for another rfa in a couple of months? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything is possible. If you have shown a drastic improvement, I'm sure anyone would nom you in the event that this reconfirmation fails. Synergy 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per the diffs put up by nonvocal scream. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to stop you voting. But do you think you know me enough to oppose me, you've only been here a week? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose My original support was based on the fact that you had not shot yourself in the foot prior to your RfA. Actions since then have brought that into doubt. Aside from the excess drama brought up from demanding the RfA system be fixed since people you felt were worth, but others did not trust, were not promoted, I see issues in your actions as admin. To date, you have 6 blocks - of these I have to wonder about 3 of them. An obvious vandal only account was blocked for only 24 hours and could come back and further vandalize under that account. A questionable name account was blocked without disabling the auto-block (aka "Change your name, but wait until tomorrow since I am blocking your IP as well"). The BlueGoblin7 block was clearly against policy and quickly reverted. Looking over your deletions, there are many so it is not likely to check them all, but one certainly was incorrect - your deletion of a page created by Tharnton345 as vandalism. A few others were questionable on the reasoning you used to delete. True many pages can be deleted under a variety of different rulings under the QD listing - one person's G10 is anothers G3, but listing a welcome to a banned user as vandalism? Tharnton345 does not deserve to be listed as a vandal for that edit. Mistakes happen, and the QD I can see as it was one of many which were usually correct, but when 1/2 your blocks are either not supported by policy or wrongly performed, there I find an issue. Improper actions combined with all the drama leads me to question if Admin is the right thing. Solid user, but past performance leads to too many questions about being a solid admin.--Creol(talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm sorry I wasted your time. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Nonvocalscream and Creol. The block on BG7 was well against consensus and should not have been implemented. I have to agree with Creol that half of your blocks have been questionable. Either way (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting. I only stopped someone from commiting suicide. Is that wrong? If you had the choice, think about it: he may do it, shall I take the risk not to block him? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain how your block prevented a suicide? I don't see how it did. Also, after making that block, what steps did you take in securing help for that user? If the person was considering suicide, and a block was necessary to prevent a suicide, then I would expect that you followed up by contacting the police or at least the Wikimedia Foundation so that they could get involved with this? Either way (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want to argue, I'll get into trouble. The block was to prevent anything from happening to him. Contacting the police, I wouldn't know how to from a different country; conntacting wikimedia foundation: I'm not familiar with it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I was going to keep out of this because it's fairly pointless, but I've seen so much poor judgement from Yotcmdr in the extremely short tenure as an admin that I really have no choice but to oppose this. Majorly talk 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Moving to abstain - I think he's learnt his lesson. Majorly talk 13:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for you know what. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know what I'm reffering too, please feel free to ask. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Majorly talk 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For saying you'd like me to leave. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. You asked if you should leave. I said "yes", clearly a stupid answer to a stupid question. That you took it seriously is your problem. Majorly talk 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yot, the fact that you took Majorly's response as anything but sarcastic leads me to question your judgment. Juliancolton (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? You weren't serious... I think admins are supposed to be. Look what this has got me into now. If I knew it wasn't serious, I'd never have done this. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFA (c) does not hinge on the fact that you misunderstood Majorly. The RFA (c) started, nothing can be done about it, unless you withdraw it (causing the rights to be removed). Don't blame this on any one editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian, you will have to excuse me but I live in France with french people. I speak french al day every day. I don't always understand things in english the way they should... Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in the context of an IRC chatroom. If I seriously wanted you to go I'd have said it more bluntly than that. It was a sarcastic response to what was a pretty immature question. There's a big difference between thinking someone has poor judgement and wanting them to leave completely. Even my worst "enemies" probably wouldn't want me gone totally. Majorly talk 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly off topic, but I think alot of the drama issues here are caused because of how much people use IRC on this wiki. But thats just my POV. Nothing on IRC should ever be taken seriously. -Djsasso (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is has none the less, allowed Yot some very valuable input. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late for telling me that Djsasso. Anyway, I'm an IRC noob, I know nothing about it. I really did believe it was serious Majorly. My question was serious and not immature. Again my english isn't flawless, and I tend to ask questions differently from others so they may seem immature to you but very serious to me. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But you do understand the other concerns, yes? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but the thing is I would never have posted this rfa if Majorly hadn't have said yes sarcasticly on irc. 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    (outdented) But again, that shows that you don't think things through, so maybe it's wise to allow the community to reconsider your adminship. Juliancolton (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Synergy said no giving up =(. As much as I want to stop, I have to continue. But if only I had understood that yes correctly, we wouldn't be here judging me. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per the rather unhelpful disposition shown at Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly 2. Opposing for very vague, nebulous reasons isn't good, and then getting overly-defensive for someone else gave another bad impression. Perhaps there are some details I'm missing (the above, perhaps? that strikes me as a silly reason for the attitude, so I'd rather believe it's something else), but either way, I'm not seeing the sort of disposition I'd expect to see from an administrator. EVula // talk // 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my answer clearer on Majorly's rfc. If you need any further details, ping me on my talk page. Yours, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not really. You opposed per something that happened between last week and now, which suddenly you can't trust him for. It would be very helpful for us to know what that was, but you declined to give an explicit answer. Okay, fine, but expect some criticism for it. Your claim that is not any clearer to us. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no need to get angry. I may not have made it clear enough then. I'll go and write an explanation in detail. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise if you mistook my tone for anger; it wasn't. I was just reinforcing my point. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I have reconsidered and responded there. EVula, you my read my response on Marjorly's RFcu and re-consider you vote if you wish (or/and ask for more information if needed.) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read; however, there are still other issues that are not as easily addressed (for example... everything that Creol mentioned. I'm not saying that you should never be an administrator, just that you need a bit more time before I'd feel comfortable with you having the sysop bit. EVula // talk // 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. You have to be so throughout in deletion, speedy buttons are for reverts and rollbacks, not deletion --Gwib -(talk)- 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per comments on IRC, Yot has clearly said that he will (as of his decision right now) be leaving the wiki if he loses his tools. I find this to be an immature response and obviously by his answers he only wants to be here for the status. Not to be an editor and help build an encyclopedia. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not take anything seriously on IRC. As I know, sarcasm is quite often mis-understood. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) First of all, IRC can be serious. Second, it's hard to tell sarcasm in text, Third, I know you weren't sarcastic by what you said. There were no indications. Plus saying stuff like if people don't support I'll leave is not appropriate. It's basically canvassing. You were also straight out canvassing. That's not something you should be sarcastic about and if you were you should've said that. Nobody hates you, you've just made some bad decisions. Nobody's perfect. In a bit, try again, and you'll probably pass. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In my opinion an administrator should be ready to peacefully serve, avoiding much quarrel. A "new" one is also expected to ask for advice when in doubt and to improve day after day. --M7 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask you to explain, I don't see the link. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This request, the remarks from those who have alredy expressed their valuable opinions and the way you're acting, should be enough. --M7 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This requests is the result of a mis-understanding (sarcasm) which the person has apologized for. None of this would have happened if I had been capable to understand sarcasm, but I don't live in england, USA or Australie (or any other english speaking country) so I unfortunately don't get sarcastic things very well. I wanted to stop this request after the person apologized, but was told I had to go until the end. The only reason I'm acting this way, is because of this reconfirmation. Sorry, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Could a brief background summary of how an admin has asked for a recall within two months of adminship has come about? Otherwise this looks like little more than attention-seeking, sadly. Soup Dish (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by another administrator to leave. I'd like to know if the community agrees. This is thee best way. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have seen you resolve your issues with this other administrator offwiki, or on your talk, rather than this. I would have strongly advised against this. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other admin said I shouldn't ask beforehand. They obviously weren't and aren't going to change their mind about me. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yot, even if you end up requesting to lose the sysop bit, I advise that you continue with your normal business here due to your good non-sysop work. That way, you can build up from further experience so that you can rightfully request the bit back. --Dylan620 (Sign this plz) 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look at this. For those of you who don't know who I am, I'm an enwiki bureaucrat. The problem is that reconfirmation RFAs don't have much precedent, so bureaucrats RFAs like this are really taking a bit of a shot in the dark. Were something like this to be on enwiki, I would have to say it should be closed as a "fail", essentially resulting in the removal of the rights of the user. There seems to be a fair amount of mistrust, which just isn't workable as an admin. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On some wikies, where admins are subject to reconfirmations, consensus requested to pass is kept a bit lower, in order to take into account possible recriminations. On it.wiki, while 80% is required to gain access on first election, 66% is acceptable for reconfirmations. Since here it is below 60%, I second Deskana view and Yotcmdr request. --M7 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations[change source]

Yot, I expect that you will honor this reconfirmation, because from the way it sounds, you will be requesting that your bit be removed, but its not 100% clear that if this fails, you will do just that. Also, I hope you will not be using your tools for the duration of this reconfirmation, as its not clear whether you have the communities trust any longer. Best. Synergy 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what the point in running this if you say I'm not trusted. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said its not clear that you have the communities trust. I would be a fool to think that I can speak for the community. Synergy 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does not have to request. If this request closes that the community wants the bit removed, a meta request is all it takes. The steward will execute the community decision with or without Yot's consent. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant that upon seeing the overall opinions here, that he would take it upon himself and do the right thing by requesting it, at meta. To me that would show levelheadedness, and putting everything aside and abiding by the communities wishes. Sorry I didn't catch your comment earlier on. :) Synergy 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result[change source]

Yotcmdr stepped down as an admin, following community consensus. --Eptalon (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Yotcmdr_(2)&oldid=8899175"