Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yeltensic42.618

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a unsuccessful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Yeltensic42.618

Bureaucrat removal at 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC) by Cecropia with (3/21/1). Original end time 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeltensic42.618 (talk • contribs) – Rather experienced Wikipedian, registered in August 2005, edited anonymously for a couple of months before that. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.

Support

1. Support unlikely to abuse administrative powers Mjal 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, there's really no reason for him not to be. — Darth Katana X
3. Weak support, I don't see any major problems here. JIP | Talk 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, you need more experience and edits within the wikipedian community. -Zero^Talk 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Edit summary usage and edits to Wikipedia namespace is too low. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I don't see many (meaningful) edits outside of his personal talkspace. --Madchester 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Edit summary usage very low and very few article space edits. --pgk^(talk) 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   There are other ways to contribute than article space edits. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Yes there are but wikipedia's goal is building an encyclopedia, and it's important that an admin has a good understanding of that. --pgk^(talk) 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Clarify this a bit further. Adminship is not a reward or promotion, so the question is not about if you contribute or how much you contribute, but if you are conversant enough with wikipedia it's functioning and its policies to be effective as an admin. --pgk^(talk) 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   I think I have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose, I deplore editcountitis (1,200 edits and proud of it!) but his contributions seem massively weighted away from the actual task of building an encyclopaedia, including a bizarrely disproportionate number of userspace edits. To me, the encyclopaedia is the most important thing, and his contributions there are acutely unimpressive. Lord Bob 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Part of it is that I rarely bother with the preview option on my userspace, resulting in lots of mistakes (especially when I added userboxes) that I have to correct. Also, outside of my userspace, my contribs are mainly in the Project namespace, which is useful in its own way. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Only 39 edits to mainspace articles. This is an encyclopedia, afterall. --tomf688^{talk} 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   But admin chores aren't (directly) encyclopedic. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose and would gently urge the nominee to withdraw and spend a few months working on the encyclopedia (remembering to always use edit summaries). Jonathunder 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose as per all above. I suggest you withdraw this RFA and have more interaction with the community. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per all above. You just have to have some more mainspace experience, even if you eventually intend to spend most of your time on admin chores. --Aaron 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: s/he hasn't participated much now. Once s/he has a mop, how do we know that this will change? Needs more experience. Where (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    I plan to participate more if/when I have a mop, but you're right, unfortunately you don't have any way of knowing that. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

11. Strong Oppose. Low overall number of edits. Low number of article space edits. Relatively huge number of edits to his own userpage. Low edit-summary usage. And, in his own words, (s)he rarely bother[s] with the preview option on [his] userspace, resulting in lots of mistakes. Don't see any reason to support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per tomf688. The overall edit count may be low (and editcountitis is bad), but this is not in my opinion the main problem. The lack of experience actually writing articles is. - Liberatore(T) 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Too few edits, too many to own user page, etc. --M@thwiz2020 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, way too little experience writing articles and the like. Stifle 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Needs more experience with the project.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 10:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, whilst I like the edits at the reference desk, other than that, there isn't much to evaluate this user on. The high percentage of edits to the user's page is cause for concern, too. Steve block talk 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Chooserr 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose majority of edits to user pages? not experienced at all. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Primarily because I feel that the user needs to use edit summaries more and there are so few article edits. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Too many userboxes, many of which are divisive. — Phil Welch 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Userboxes are allowed, so that really isn't a very good reason. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Being overly enamored with non-encyclopedia-building uses of Wikipedia resources is a very good reason. — Phil Welch 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    True, perhaps, but it takes about 20 seconds tops to add a userbox, so it isn't as if they keep their fans from spending time editing. And how we choose to personalize our userpages (within the bounds of Wikipedia policy) is unrelated to admin potential (whereas the other Oppose voters' primary reason, my relative inexperience, is a very good reason and very relevant to admin potential). Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

21. oppose. Looking for a lot more time and contributions. aa v ^ 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Respect both sides comments. But I'll remain neutral. Leaning to support --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 13:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 9% for major edits and 40% for minor edits. Based on the last 33 major and 5 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Yeltensic42.618's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• 37.8% of Yeltensic42.618's edits are attributed to his user page. Kusonaga 12:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I anticipate closing AFD debates, fighting vandals, and carrying out undeletions when such a consensus is reached.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm rather pleased with my contributions to the reference desk, because it's a good source of information whenever anyone is kept awake at night by an obscure question.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I have dealt with it, and will deal with it, simply by not letting it bother me too much (to be honest, I think it's pretty funny when someone vandalizes my userpage).

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.