Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamamoto Ichiro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Yamamoto Ichiro

Closed by Cecropia 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (60/14/8) successful

Yamamoto Ichiro (talk · contribs) - I nominated myself because I feel somewhat uncomfortable asking other Wikipedians to nominate me. I have been on Wikipedia since March 2005. I have not seriously started editing until November 2005. I took some wiki-break and then I became more active again on Wikipedia recently. As you can see from my edit history, my main contribution to Wikipedia is cleaning up vandalism and warning vandals. I intend to focus mainly on vandalism in the future as well. I also have some history with closing xfd, and I have to admit that some of these closes have been controversial as well, especially with some of the school nominations. For the controversial xfd’s, I re-opened the case when I received comments regarding the controversial closing, and I left the xfd for an experienced editor to close. As for editing the encyclopedia itself content-wise, I most also admit that I have not contributed much in this field. Although I did some work, but it's very insignificant for me to even describe here. However, vandalism work is important to Wikipedia because recent change patrol is vital to maintaining integrity of Wikipedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:As I stated above, most of my work will be related to vandalism. I will pay close attention to WP:AIV frequently (sometimes WP:AIV does get backlogged) and I will continue my rc patrol task regularly when there I have free time on my hands. If there is a need, I will close AfD's and take care of PROD's if there's a backlog. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not have any best contributions to Wikipedia in perticular, if dealing with vandalism is considered as a contribution, then I guess that's my best contribution to Wikipedia. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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: I rarely participate in any content-disputes or controversial topics. So I virtually have no experience with conflicts on Wikipedia. In a case if there is one, I usually tend to avoid them because I have no interest in getting involved. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems I have not answered this questions very clearly. While it is true that I did not have any conflict in regards to content dispute in general. However, I did get into conflicts with xfd closes, and vandals who I deal with daily while I was proforming some maintainance tasks. Vandals do not bother me at all actually, I believe every vandal have the potential to reform themselves later on if they make the effort to do so. As you can see, my userpage is always targeted by vandals. I would fully support a vandal who will take the effort to reform him/herself. I did came interact with a sockpuppet user a while ago, (see my first talk archive), who kept reverting changes with sockpuppets on University of Miami article. It didn't really perticularly cause any stress to me, but I did ask for it to be checkuser'd (this was VERY long time ago by the way as you can see). Also, I have histories with xfd closing, which I did receive some compliants with because it was closed improperly(see my opening statement). Anyhow, hopefully that clears my answer up a bit. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs)
4. In the last two days, you have made one thousand edits. How have you done this, and why did you make so many?
A:It sounds like a lot, but it's not that much because most of these edits are vandalism reverts. With the right tools and scripts, it's possible to revert vandalism with great speed and efficiently. (If you would like to know how exactly I revert vandalism just leave a message on my talk page and I'll explain it in a greater detail). Considering how much vandalism are made each day on Wikipedia, I'm afraid that this is just a fraction. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Lanky (talk · contribs)
5. If you were in an editing conflict with another user who broke 3RR by reverting to his or her version of the page, would you block them?
A:No, I wouldn't, it's bad practice to block someone who is involved in the same conflict as you. I would ask another administrator (who is neutral) for assistance in that case. It's also bad practice to revert other user's edit if they were made in good faith, so I often try my best to avoid revert wars as well. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question fron PrestonH (talk · contribs)
6. Some users abuse Wikipedia for a social network site, and some newcomers are confused about what whether Wikipedia is. How are you going to deal with a newcomer who socializes alot that is not Wikipedia-related?
A:If I see one, I would kindly remind him/her that Wikipedia is not WP:MYSPACE and try to discourage this type of behavior without WP:BITEing newcomers, but if the user continues to use Wikipedia to socialize, I would rather take it to the noticeboards,village pump or ask another experianced user for assistance rather than taking actions myself against it, simply because this could become very controversial. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 01:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Daveh4h (talk · contribs)
7. As an editor, what is your greatest weakness? What is your greatest strength?
A:One of the reason I do not contribute to Wikipedia directly is my poor writing skills, as a result, it is almost impossible for me to raise an article's standards to featured article, or participate in a editorial based wikiproject. My greatest strength would be communicating with other users (although most of the people I talk to are anon's and newbies but I do talk to experianced users as well), and attempting to make a compromise if an issue is ever brought up to me. Although so far there has only been minor issues so far (the most serious one I dealt with so far was the small XfD closing controversy) and I did had to deal with some incivility from anon's, but I don't take incivility from users very seriously. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
8. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A:As of now, I do not have any strong opinions. First of all, it depends on what kind of attack site, there could be attack sites that only criticises a users action and makes no personal attacks at all. Attack sites that target Wikipedia editors, depending on how it's being used and what kind, should be treated differently in each case. For example, if it's a vandal who blanks entire articles to link to attack sites will obviously get a warning and a block if he continues. Same thing with link spammers who spams the link to unrelated articles just to promote the attack site. However, if the attack site is something like, a newspaper like the New York Times or something, and the article has something to do with the attack site and the person is simply citing it as a source, then maybe it is valid (even in this case I'm a bit spectical though, but it obviously does not warrant a vandalism warning). However, attack sites that does nothing but attack editors (sites that does not even make criticism and only makes personal attack), in general, should be removed because it is just like vandalising a page with [personal attacks here] done in a different style. But as I said, this is a complex situation and it each case should be well examined. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Yamamoto Ichiro before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support: Excellent at opposing vandalism: makes regular reports to AIV, which I always find to be accurate and timely. Can really use the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the best candidates I've seen. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, of course. His judgement is sound, and he could use a tool upgrade. Some people specialize in vandalism patrol and that's fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Blocking all the vandals he reports to AIV gets tiring after a while. I like admins to contribute content too, but that isn't enough to oppose in this instance. VegaDark (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Everyone who regularly performs RC patrol knows his hard work combined with a healthy dose of thoughtfulness when it comes to approach vandals and experimenting users alike. We have here a great candidate that would make excellent use of the tools for the benefit of us all, and therefore, I happily endorse him. Phaedriel - 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Numerous reversions have very few challenges in archived talk, leading me to believe that use of script to revert pages was responsible. Although this is a self-nom, there were several editors who offered to put him up. I think he can be trusted with the tools. the_undertow talk 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support He's a very dedicated Wikipedian and an unwaveringly committed vandal-fighter, so giving him those extra buttons is only going to help Wikipedia. That's the point in adminship, isn't it? I support. —Anas talk? 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per the fact that there is no sign that there is anything lacking in this candidate's vandal fighting ability, would trust them to use the tools effectively and would think that they would certainly be active too. GDonato (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Dedicated vandal-fighter, shows a clear need for the tools. Walton Need some help? 09:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support seen the guy around, usually associated with something good. Go for it. – Riana ⁂ 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral per Pedro's concerns. – Riana ⁂ 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - I'm a little concerned that most of your involvement with wikipedia namespace is to do admin work. For example, you've closed and relisted AfDs, but I don't see you votingparticipating in them. - Richard Cavell 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Good Choice..!.----Cometstyles 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per the answer to Q5. Any user who's level-headed enough to understand that admin tools should never be used unless there's a clear lack of conflict of interest is certainly capable of handling the tools with the deft touch they can sometimes require. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Nobody's perfect. Yamamoto does more than enough anti-vandalism work to justify receiving the admin tools. YechielMan 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. A great vandalism fighter. --Mschel 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. I was thinking of nomming you myself. Clearly slow on the draw though. Support.--Wizardman 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support: While I would like to see a more variety of work, I feel this user could benefit from the administrator tools. Has experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, obvious strong need for the extra buttons - very good at what he does and highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Kuru talk 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Will help to keep the backlog down in regards to vandalism and vandal-fighting. Jmlk17 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Excellent vandal fighter - one of the best in my opinion - he has continually beaten me to reverting vandalism! I am confident he will use the tools wisely. --Ali 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support not sure if I've ever commented on an RfA before; but this editor deserves promotion, I have been beaten to the punch on reverting obvious vandalism countless times by this editor. Carlossuarez46 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, Yamamoto knows what he is doing, and can be trusted. Prodego talk 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Weak Support, Good answer to my optional question, but I'm concern by your narrow editing and conflict resolution.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. I've seen Yamamoto Ichiro's name popping up all over the place recently. From what I've seen, he will use the admin tools without fear of abuse. - auburnpilot talk 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, Very active Vandalism reverter, who I have seen on the job. Would make great admin. --Random Say it here! 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support We have all seen his good work on rc patrol. Giving him the admin tools will help the project. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I've seen Yamamoto catching vandalism on several articles I watch, and I don't see any evidence that he has a "get dem vandals" attitude. From what I've seen he's actually fairly measured and conservative with the warning system. The help at WP:AIV from a vandalism specialist is more than welcome in my opinion.--JayHenry 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I've seen no reason to oppose him. I'm glad he's going after the vandals. I am sure he'll err somewhere down the road but who hasn't. He's dedicated to the task and I support him for that. JodyB talk 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Capable of considering arguments and changing his mind, as at the bottom of this talk page. An important attribute for an admin. --Fire Star 火星 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support. Great vandal fighter; I was planning to nominate him myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. My first RfA vote and very well deserved. I run across Yamamoto while on RC patrol often and admire his thoroughness (checking a users previous edits carefully) politeness when dealing with vandals and most of all his caution and careful judgment when it comes to reverts. I have yet to see him make a bad call when reverting. I'm sure he will be a courteous hardworking and useful administrator. Paxse 06:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Hard working and conscientious, this editor is an asset to the project, and will doubtless wield the mop-and-bucket well and wisely. Doc Tropics 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I find it strange to oppose a candidate for not having an editing conflict. daveh4h 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Weak Support There are some great concerns with this candidate, but I think that they are not cause to oppose. I am not totally sure that I am right with this statement, so I may change my vote in the future. Captain panda 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I don't find the concerns of the first few opposers especially significant. As to the last two, perhaps the edit was inappropriate, but opposing on the basis of a single minor error seems unreasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Terence 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - I've run into this user a multitude of times when I've been patrolling for vandalism and I've found him to always revert the same vandalism as I and post the same warning level on the offending user's talk page as I would have. Additionally, his response to the answers above show a levelheadedness that could be entrusted with the extra tools. As for the concerns with his 1000 edits in 2 days, or his over-zealousness in reverting vandalism, I disagree with them. Wikipedia is about the articles but, not all users are prolific editors with access to vast amounts of knowledge, we need as many as we can that can clean up articles and get rid of vandals. Also, many, many users rack up these numbers of edits in very short periods of time (AWB anyone?), so this is not a concern in my opinion. I fully support this candidate. --Kimontalk 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - Flubeca t 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Valentinian T / C 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support, fighting vandalism and answering questions well is good. According to Q2 needs/should to do some writing to balance the scale. Still an asset to Wikipedia. Hope for the best. feydey 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support A great asset to Wikipedia. The concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections do not bother me. —METS501 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Rettetast 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Weak support 291 AIV reports from this user? (Wow – I'm not worthy.) I concur with others that the high edits-per-day ratio is easy to get with scripts, and it's not horrible in and of itself. So, need for admin tools for vandalism, countered by low edits-per-page ratio... okay. Mop wisely, and please consider Bibliomaniac15's suggestion to jump in and write. There's really nothing like coming across an article that needs improvement on RC patrol, then spending the next two hours fixing it up. KrakatoaKatie 07:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Strong Support, it's no big deal. I personally think it is justified to call out vandals when they blatantly vandalize a page. Normally I would argue that in the case of the warning Deskana pointed out that subst:uw-vandalism2 is most appropriate. However, Mr. Yamamoto alleges a single user was repeatedly vandalizing the page, in which case the warning would have been justified. Mr. Yamamoto is furthermore the very epitome of humility and civic-mindedness; he need not be perfect to do the community service, especially not at the start of his tenure. Again, be reminded that the lack of admins is critical, and our candidate fills a needed capacity. --Edwin Herdman 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support says he wants to fight and warn vandals - mop and the tools will help him do that very well. Anonymous Dissident Utter 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. It seems a valuable contributor.--MariusM 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Will make good use of the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. I was one who wanted to nominate this user, and I trust that he will use the tools responsibly, and exercise caution in areas with which he is not familiar (as his record in xFDs shows). (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support This user having the admin tools will only help wikipedia. With them he could fight vandalism at least 50% better. Anyone who reverted vandalism 2,000 times in two days is someone who should be considered for this position. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support A pure asset to wikipedia considering his contributions, plain and simple. Manderiko 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support, I wished him good luck on his RfA, and then realized I forgot to vote! Tim.bounceback(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen) 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support it's amazing that someone's extensive anti-vandalism efforts gets spun as a negative characteristic. Vandalism is still a bad thing, right? Someone has to revert vandalism... maybe some people are too good for it but I'm glad people like this candidate do it. --W.marsh 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - Vandal fighting is not a bad thing... Yonatan talk 01:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support I have read the opposing and neutral views and can recognize some valid concerns. However, Yamamoto Ichiro has clearly demonstrated a commitment to the improvement of WP. His handling of the questions raised here on his RFA demonstrate a level-headedness as well. I trust him when he says he will seek out other admins in time of conflict to come to the best possible way to handle a problem. While I see that he has room for improvement in terms of mediating edit conflicts, he will be a tremendous asset as an admin nonetheless. I have often seen him cleaning up the same page and warning the same users as myself. The more admins available to block obvious vandals after appropriate warnings, the better. Its frustrating as a vandal fighter to have to wait around for an admin. I would also like it if he would work on making more contributions to articles, even if it is as a translator from articles written in his native WP. —Gaff ταλκ 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support I see him help with vandalism all the time (especially because he gets in the way of my reverts ;)) and I believe he would make a good admin. Mawfive 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Excellent vandal fighter. What's more, he can be trusted with the tools. That is the only question that really matters. --Spike Wilbury 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Great vandal-fighter M&NCenarius 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support A spot-check of his edits shows him to be an accurate vandal-fighter, with no sign of newbie-biting that I can see. There is ample evidence right in this RfA of good handling of conflict; an admin who can handle conflict but doesn't seek it out will do fine. (BTW I don't like the warning icon you use with the Japanese text. We communicate in English here.) Kla'quot 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Skillful use of the vandalism warning templates, and accuracy while vandal fighting makes a good nomination. He seems ethical enough and appears to know his wikipedia policy. •Felix• T 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Per above, good job with anti-vandal patrols. --Whsitchy 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sorry, but I have to oppose here. I really do not like it when people spend nearly all of their time reverting vandalism, especially with scripts like TWINKLE. I feel that leads to a mentality of "quick quick get dem vandals", which is not a good thing for someone who can block said vandals to have. And 1000 edits in 2 days, nearly all vandal fighting, is just... not good. If you use a hammer constantly to the exclusion of anything else, everything starts to look like a nail. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns. However, there are things I do keep in mind when I patrol for vandalism. The reason I revert vandalism on Wikipedia is to maintain the intergrity of Wikipedia as I stated above, and to ensure that the articles are not vandalised is important to other editors, and mostly important of all, the viewers. If a viewer goes on a Wikipedia sees a page with the words "F*** YOU" on an article, it's obviously going to create a negative image for Wikipedia. Getting vandals blocked and having fun whacking them is not what vandalism patrolling is about. WP:BLOCK is never used for punishment and it should be treated as a tool to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    I know that, and my concern is certainly not that you will deliberately break blocking policy and block people who shouldn't be. My concern is that you will unintentionally start reverting, and blocking, for things which are not clearly vandalism. I've seen perfectly well-meaning people start to give out vandalism warnings for any substantial removal of content, even that done in good faith due to a concern over the integrity of the material. I'll accept this to some extent as a necessary effect of having vandalism get reverted, but if that's going to happen, I don't want that same person making the decision on whether or not to block. -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    And since I realize I didn't really make this clear, this is in no way saying that I don't like your edits. I congratulate you on actually being able to revert so much vandalism that 1000 edits takes you only 2 or 3 days. I just don't think you should be an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    How do you congratulate him on performing a function that is a large part of the admin job, but don't think he should be an admin? He has chosen to revert vandalism. He's not YET shown any sign of "giving out vandalism warnings for any substantial removal of content". Shouldn't you be assuming good faith in his judgement, or is it thoughtcrime? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Opposing people for what they think is, in general, stupid; it just turns RfA into "I deny all my previous opinions until I pass". The problem is constant use of TWINKLE, which my experiences have indicated is not a good thing. Thus, I can not support someone who uses it so much. I'd be perfectly happy to be proven wrong if he passes and goes on to be a really good admin, but I am not convinced enough that he will. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Pedro in neutral, although I find this so concerning that I must oppose. A failure to demonstrate ability in remaining cool in a heated discussion, and be able to deal with conflict well, will generally garner an oppose from me. Getting the extra tools is the one action, more than any other, that creates contention and drama on Wikipedia, and I don't believe you have enough experience dealing with disputes to be an effective administrator. Sorry, Daniel 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. I am strongly opposed to this candidate retaining extra buttons, particularly the block function. I do not feel as though Mr. Ichiro possesses the well-roundedness nor a clear scope of the primary purpose of editing Wikipedia is to retain any extra responsibility. While having some buttons are no big deal, Wikipedia already has too many admins that live to revert vandalism and block people without any extra thought, which I feel this candidate might do, given his recent spree of vandalism reverting in which he could not have given due time to each revert and potential "vandaliser." gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    The editor may correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that Yamamoto is his family name and Ichiro his given name (see Japanese name). So, Mr. Yamamoto. Chick Bowen 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes your right. Ichiro is the given name and Yamamoto is the last name. I'm not too concerned with that since I did register my account in an unconvential Japanese name order. Anyhow, I don't think we need to be discussing this anyways (little bit offtopic). --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Pedro and Daniel. ZsinjTalk 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm afraid I must oppose this RfA. In my previous interaction with this user, I found him a bit too quick on the trigger, so to speak. One user, User:Anywherebuthere23 made this edit to George W. Bush. As I understand it, this is false (being English and not particularly interested in American politics). I reverted that edit and went to place a {{test}} on the user's page, to find that Yamamoto had placed a blatant vandalism template on the users page. That was unwarranted, as the user's other two edits ([1] [2]) although totally useless, weren't vandalism. I have concerns that if this user should develop from placing bv templates on user's pages to blocking them straight away for fairly inoccuous edits, we could have a bit of a problem here. When I raised the issue Yamamoto was civil and understanding, and I am glad he edits Wikipedia. I would just not like him to have the power to block users yet. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at the edits you cited, I can understand why the candidate assumed they were made in bad faith - the George W. Bush edit ("he is a democrat") is something that anyone with knowledge of American politics would know to be false, and looks like a deliberate attempt to compromise the article's integrity. Although I understand your reasons for opposing (arguably, WP:AGF dictates that we should not treat these kind of edits as deliberate vandalism), the fact is that edits like that do compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and for that reason I think the candidate can be forgiven slight over-zealousness in these cases. Walton Need some help? 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that most of my reverts and vandalism warnings do elevate from {{test1}}, {{test2}} and so on..., I almost always use that pattern for normal, non-serious vandalism like inserting text like "John was here" or blanking pages and replacing it with "fuck you" even. I normally use {{bv}} for something serious like placing shock images on articles that have high visibility like the featured article(you almost have to know the wikicode to do something like that). However, that exceptional case which Deskana brought to me was result of probably George W. Bush repeatedly being vandalised by a different acccounts registered by the same vandal just to vandalise. In the past vandals created "sleeper accounts" to vandalise today's featured article on high visibility articles. This was especially true for the GWB article. See the history of Adriaen van der Donck, where one user created multiple sockpuppet "sleeper accounts" to place shock images on today's featured article. In any case however, I do respect and understand your concerns as I did really overreacted to the GWB vandalism, and I should of at least used {{uw-vandalism-1}}. Sometimes there are also cases where I should of given {{blank1}} rather than {{blank2}}. Which the user also brought to my attention. Nevertheness, I do make mistakes like everyone else, which is why any user could come to my talk page and talk to me about inapproperate warnings and I'll cross them out as needed. However, I do constantly try my best to WP:AGF and I do believe that vandals do have potentials to become good editors. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I understand why people don't assume good faith in all instances, but you can seriously scare people off by being overzealous. "He is a democrat" is NOT blatant vandalism, no matter what the intent by the person adding it. I'm sorry, but I can't support this RfA. Good luck. --Deskana (AFK 47) 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    However, please do not misinterpret my comments. I know that in a future RfA I could support you, and I am certain you are a kind and civil user who is doing good work. I just cannot support this RfA. Please do continue working hard. :-) --Deskana (AFK 47) 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) In aggreeing with the importance on AGF, I would like to point out, Deskana, that I am concerned that I have seen WP:AGF problems(being too quick to block a user as a vandal or otherwise, instead of assuming that they are still a newcomer) from you aswell. You have blocked this user indefinately, who has made only one edit, for being totally unacceptable. I couldn't understand what was totally unacceptable about that edit, because all that editor did was replaced the George Bush page with typical profanity against the person. I've seen edits like that done millions of times, and I think at least a few warnings before blocking would have been more appropriete.(Is there are reason why you did consider it unacceptable?)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Daniel and Deskana. WjBscribe 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Deskana. Xiner (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Weak oppose While I like that you're active fighting vandalism (your AIV reports are usually correct by the way, which is nice :)), I don't like your answer to #3; I suggest taking at least one WP:AMA or WP:MEDCAB case. I'm not so worried about you being trigger-happy, as Deskana said, but it might help if you tone it down a bit. Another thing that bothers me is your editing pattern; you seem to be (insanely) active for a few months, and then don't edit (or edit very little) for just as much, if not more, time. A final minor problem—for want of a better word, it's really not a bad thing—is this. The last wiki-space edit that wasn't AIV, a revert, or an RFA was in November. I'd suggest balancing things out a bit (even though what you're doing isn't necessarily bad). · AndonicO Talk 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding to the edit patterns, my activity was purely limited by the amount of time which I could contribute to Wikipedia, during some months I just do not have the time to participate on Wikipedia due to studies, etc. Regarding to Wikipedia space edits, I do have edits on AfD's, although it's a very small portion of my Wikipedia space edits. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to neutral. · AndonicO Talk 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Despite having seen some great vandalwhacking from this user, I am bothered by several answers to questions.Per my RfA Policy, I will always look against a user who says "nothing, vandalism..." to question 2. Secondly, question 3's answer gives the impression that as an admin, you will still avoid conflicts, even though from what I understand a lot of admin work is centered around conflicts, and resolution of conflicts. Would you be comfortable there? Question 6 bothers me because people taking it to "someone more experienced" annoys me, considering that (if you're a sysop) we have promoted you on the assumption that you know what you're doing, not that you need support form above. It is for these 3 reasons that I can't support you. Better luck next time, and please take on board all the advice given by other editors here. G1ggy! 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I can't really say anything about your first comment. Regarding conflicts, I do tent to avoid content-dispute related type of conflicts, but I do get into conflicts with vandals (who sometimes registers a delicated vandalism-only account to vandalism my userpage). I also dealt with some conflicts with sockpuppets and compliants about my xfd closings. However, isn't adminship more than just dealing with content-dispute conflicts? Isn't there admins who just deals with maintainance tasks that needed to be done, like closing xfd's, attending WP:AIV, and especially WP:ABL? Of course I won't be taking this to the experianced user forever, just for more controversial things that not even myself with know how to deal with, I'll ask for help. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Per what was written above, especially the comments from Amarkov. I don't buy into his "lack of English skills" as being a legitimate reason for editing articles, mainly because from reading this RfA, his skills appear to be fairly good. Given his Japanese language skills, I could see him editing hundreds of articles, improving many of them. In addition, I know that Admins get into intense discussions with editors, and if he is deprecating his language skills, then how can he provide leadership and mentoring to new users? I've known a lot of editors, myself included, who became better editors as a result of good mentoring. Orangemarlin 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Actually I was glad that you thought there was no huge grammar error that would make my opening statement unreadable. Some of the things I wrote were commented being "sloopy grammar" by other users, such as some edits I made to the MMORPG article. Also, I don't believe adminship is about position of leadership or power, it's merely a group of people with access to tools used to do maintainance tasks for everyone else, which is what I'm more focused on. I don't think there should be division between normal users and admins. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate your comments. I really think you will be a great member of the community, and you could be a very good admin. I want to give you a push to be an editor firstly. You could add knowledge in untold number of articles. With more editing of articles, I would become a strong supporter of your RfA. Orangemarlin 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Just vandalwhacking. Haber 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think vandalism patrol and reverts are important to maintaining intergrity of Wikipedia. Is there something wrong with just vandalwhacking? Of course I'll also be planning to do some maintainance related task as well, since there seems to be a huge administrative backlog. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose In addition to some of the concerns above, I am troubled by your response to Question Six. Once you become an admin, you yourself will be expected to take the responsibility for making possibly difficult decisions about users, rather than asking others. Are you aware of how this problem is handled now, and the methods used for dealing with such users? If you had to make the decision yourself, what would you say, and what would you do?DGG 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, at first I'll ask for experianced users for suggestions on how to deal with issues. But I'll eventually take responsibility once I'm confident that I have the ability to do that when I learn. But isn't there also administrators who just deal with maintainance tasks as well? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. I don't mind the user's affinity for scripts or vandal-whacking, but I worry about accidental good-faith newbie-whacking. Ral315 » 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to say this has never happend before,, as a rc patroller, I do make mistakes (like every other human in the world do). If there is a questionable content-dispute edit rather than simple vandalism, I will not revert it myself. and if someone brings it to my talk page if I ever given a warning by mistake, I'll be very happliy to cross out my warnings and apologize. Of course, I'm constantly trying to keep my mistake to the minimum so I won't accidentally WP:BITE the newbies. In fact, if I see a newbie reverting vadalism, etc. I will often leave a welcome message on their talk page. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Regretful oppose per above (especially G1ggy!'s comment), as well as my own reasoning (below) because I have no doubts that the candidate is a good contributor whose vandal fighting efforts I appreciate. I am, however, concerned that he may be a bit too trigger happy eager.
    I have only dealt with the candidate once and, while I found him very pleasant to communicate with, I think I should briefly mention the issue: on May 22nd, the candidate closed the American Airlines destinations AfD (a group nomination of a little over 200 articles). There had been a very similar AfD previously, which resulted in the articles being kept. Just like that AfD, this one was far from straightforward and several editors expressed strong opinions, some of which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. (Full disclosure: I replied to two comments in that AfD but did not partake in it myself.) The guidelines state about non-admin closures: "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Now, granted, we usually don't let AfDs sit for more than five days and this one was a bit overdue but I feel closing this AfD should have been left to an admin (especially given the "history" with xFD closures that candidate mentioned). Okay, so far, not a reason to oppose in itself. The candidate was then faced with removing the templates from 200+ articles and asked for assistance on IRC (not a bad call) which I offered. The (minor) problem is that all of this happened after the AfD was closed. I feel that before performing the non-admin close (which is the exception to the rule), one should think the entire process through and, if necessary, ask for help before acting.
    I feel this it's particularly important for an administrator to first thoroughly investigate a matter before acting because there's simply a greater potential for fallout (which may affect a great number of users). All of these are pretty minor points which I wouldn't consider grounds to oppose but if viewed in their entirety, I cannot in good faith support the candidate at this time. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding the that AFD nomination, I am well aware of WP:ILIKEIT arguments used in that AFD. I do have to say that I did close this AfD while I had little time (and it did take longer than expected for me to came up with the decision as well) to remove the AfD tags. However, I did have enough time to read through the AfD and came through a well backup-based conclusion. Although the arguments for keep was weak, there was a concensus to keep the article nevertheness. I have also taken consideration of the delete arguments and some of these deletion arguments are no better either. Some of these deletion votes can be summed up asWP:UNENCYC or just a policy. Second of all, Wikipedia is built on consensus. Although I know a lot of people would argue that deletion is not a vote, which I am well aware of. At least all the keep votes had an argument, and it is clear that the consensus in this case was to keep. Third of all, although you say the keep voters mostly madeWP:ILIKEIT arguments, I don't really see that very often. Some of these arguments are Wikipedia is not a paper, merging would make the articles very long, etc. Which is a valid argument to me. Although I am open to various other views on the closing of this AfD if you can convince me otherwise or provide me with a strong argument for deletion, in which case I will reopen this AfD (although nobody have sent a compliant so far about this AfD), I strongly feel keep in this case is appropriate. So anyways, yes, I did spend time thinking this AfD over and I believe that is the most suitable decision. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Also, just making a comment about the policy about non-admins closing AfD debates. I can understand why that policy is in place. However, I believe I have firm grasp of the deletion policy to close debate, and not being a deletionist or inclutionist, I closed this AfD because I am confident on my ability to close this discussion. Also, in this case, the consensus is obvious as well. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. For the record: I agree with your assessment. I would have closed the AfD as 'keep', if I were an administrator. In fact, I usually would have made my opinion known in the debate (I didn't for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with the AfD or this RfA). My problem isn't with the end result but rather with the process. I know that you meant well but since this was a non-admin close, instead of 'closing and, if in error, reopening', I'd have generally preferred you leaving the AfD alone. As you noted, you've had a few problems with XfD closing in the past and a new editor is going to take a close at face value and will most likely assume that it's written in stone. Being bold is good but I think one can be too bold. One of the great things about wikis is that (almost) all edits can easily be undone. It does however create extra work, and that's particularly true of some administrative actions. I'm not opposed to you being an administrator per se. I just think that a few more months as a user might help make you a better administrator. Also, please don't worry too much about your grammar. Yes, proper grammar is important to get your point across but you're doing fine. Should you get the bucket, I wish you good luck. But I would ask you to please take a few extra seconds to consider how your actions might affect other users before you use the tools. -- Seed 2.0 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per Deskana.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral "I virtually have no experience with conflicts on Wikipedia. In a case if there is one, I usually tend to avoid them". I admire your vandalism efforts but as an admin you are very likely to get into contention. It takes great honesty to admit your lack of experience, and I'm hardly encouraging you to wade into a hot topic for the sake of it, but I am worried about the intimation that you will avoid difficult or heated discussions alltogether. Pedro |  Chat  09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, just want to clarfy things up, maybe I didn't take enough time to answer Q3, I didn't have any content-dispute related conflicts. I did get into conflict with sockpuppets once (although that's some time ago, had a checkuser checking it), which was resolved relatively quick. I was dragged into conflicts with some vandals (you can see my page is a target for vandalism) and some anon ip's with incivility. If you read my opening statement, the controversial closing of few of my XfD's might be a conflict (depends on how you interpret it I guess) But if you are refering to editing conflicts in content-dispute then I really have nothing much to say about that because I don't often make editorial edits. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a fair response. It's dificult to see how you can demonstrate that you will be able to handle controversy; As I said before you can hardly going looking for it just to prove you can deal with it! I'm just a bit worried (as per Daniel) that having the tools will/may lead you to situations you have aknowledged you have no experience in and how you would react to them. Your response here is, in fairness, what I would expect of a potential admin, so although I personally still feel unable to support because of this gap in your strengths, I wish you well in your RfA.Pedro |  Chat  14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Pedro and Daniel. – Riana ⁂ 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Pedro. Also very few of your edits are for article creation and expansion.Also, I would like to know why you created 3 user accounts which serves no purpose [3] --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Those user accounts are for Wikipedia:Request_an_account --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    I rarely create articles and expand them mainly because there is nothing much for me to contribute. There are already articles on almost everything that is knowledgeable to me. Also, I choose to specialize in dealing with vandalism and maintanace task because they are no less important to Wikipedia than making edits to Wikipedia itself. I guess it all boiles down to what your specialized in though. I just chose to specialize in dealing with vandalism. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Sorry, sitting on the fence. I find the fairly narrow scope of editing concerning, but not quite enough to oppose. Trebor 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per Pedro and Amarkov. —AldeBaer 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. You're a very excellent vandal fighter, but you've got to have some faith in yourself. I've seen people who have half your spelling and even less grammar and been more enthusiastic to write articles. Just give it a try. bibliomaniac15 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the encouragement, maybe I just had some bad experiance, I don't quite remember but someone called my edits "bad grammar" or something like that. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Anybody who is complaining about a user's grammar is wasting their time. It is important to get the content fleshed out first; grammar types can spend their time doing what is quite frankly cosmetic work afterwards. I wouldn't sweat it. --Edwin Herdman 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per Bibliomaniac15. --Guinnog 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Good answers to my concerns. · AndonicO Talk 23:36, 24 May 2007 (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.