Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Yamla

final (52/1/1) ending 17:01 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yamla (talk · contribs) – has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since November 2004. [1] Whenever RC patrolling, Yamla is one of those familiar faces I frequently run into who is actively reverting vandalism, checking facts, and politely requesting that new users WP:CITE their sources. He makes good use of edit summaries, has a high level of interaction with new users, and appears to have a keen understanding of how Wikipedia works — promoting this person would be a benefit to us all, please join me in support of his nomination for adminship. Hall Monitor 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks. --Yamla 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, as per nominator.  ;-) Hall Monitor 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, agree with the above statement by nominator, Yamala is a very helpful and polite wikipedian and you have my support for adminship :) I'll be a lot nicer to you in future! Sarz 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. In addition to Hall Monitor's comments, I often notice Yamla orphaning and tagging unsourced images. Yamla is sure to make a good administrator. Extraordinary Machine 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. We almost got into a revert war over Civilization IV a while ago. Yamla was remarkably polite and open-minded, and we solved everything in a matter of minutes[2]. I left the experience with such a positive feeling about Wiki that I soon became an RC Patroller myself. --Mareino 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Seems very reliable and deserving. PJM 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Very Strong Support I her around all over my watchlist, and I wanted to nominate soon as well, Just give the mop already --Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 22:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per above.--M@thwiz2020 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support good choice...  ALKIVAR™ 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support good editor --rogerd 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --NaconKantari 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - Kafziel 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. As a strong believer in test messages, I'm extremely happy to see someone who edits UserTalk pages so frequently, and will be glad to have another administrator who understands that stopping vandalism isn't accomplished simply by reverting it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. I believe user Yamla has been using Wikipedia long enough to earn a promotion -- Eddie 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support John Reid 11:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. King of All the Franks 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. 2,000 good edits in article space - so what if no images uploaded? Not everyone has a scanner. David | Talk 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Terence Ong Talk 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Its always good to give top-notch RC patrolers the mop and all of its cool buttons. Youngamerican 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --MONGO 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Pop-star-related Support Those articles are often a battle to work on WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Band-wagon Support — It looks like Yamla is going to win whether I add my support or not, so I'm just adding band-wagon support to get on Yamla's good side for a possible favor or return of support in the future. --Peace Inside 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support: good WikiGnome, coverage on pop-culture articles. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 01:39Z
  28. Support Changed from vote below. Spawn Man 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support good editor --rogerd 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support I'm thoroughly impressed by your contributions. -Greg Asche
  31. Support Looks good to me. Thanks for answering the questions by the way. - Ichiro 08:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Without a doubt. --Winter 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Very impressed. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support -- DaGizzaChat (c) 12:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. 'Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support per nominator. Sunglasses 11:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User blocked as suspected sockpuppet until reply is received. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 23:53
  38. Support. Jonathunder 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Izehar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support --'Jay (Reply) 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. —A 05:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. I'm amused (and encouraged) by your handling of the image objection below. -Colin Kimbrell 14:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support You'll do, I've seen better, I've seen worse, never hurts to have someone owe you one--Piedras grandes 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Will make good use of the tools. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support — Moe ε 02:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Cares about using good sources, and so has my support. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Good edit history, unlikely to abuse tools.--Dakota ~ ε 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Almost didn't make it, but here I am. Mop up, Yamla! Redux 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support 172 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support helps make sure we cite sources, very important. Yamaguchi先生 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support for his tireless cleanups. Gaurav1146 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Oppose

  • Oppose I feel an administrator needs all rounder abilities. However, Yamla has not even uploaded an image yet. I also take offense to the word "newbie", it is both demeaning & prejudges a new editor's competence in editing. They may well be an expert html encoder, who knows? His statement below places a slight cloud of doubt in my mind that this user has maturity issues, which most of us do at some point or another; "There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself....". If he uploads an image, I'll revise my vote, but I would warn him to choose a better choice of words as well..... Spawn Man 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have never uploaded an image and have been an administrator for four months. JIP 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Had I seen your RFA, I would have voted oppose too. Spawn Man 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other. If he never needed to upload an image, why do it just for the sake of doing it? It's not so complicated that one would need lots of practice to be able to get it right. Kafziel 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I uploaded Image:C_plus_plus_book.jpg. I'm not certain that this proves anything but at least it shows I respond to complaints. :) This image is used in C++. --Yamla 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for being willing to try what I suggested even though it sounded like a questionable objection. This shows a great attitude & I now support.Spawn Man 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Unsure that user is sufficiently familiar with WikiProcess. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Yamla's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • I'm not sure if I should add my own comments here or on the discussion page. Spawn Man takes issue with me calling some users "newbies". That's fair enough. I meant to say "newcomers" as per WP:BITE (though WP:Don't bite the newbies redirects there. I was using the term that other people used on my discussion page. I am aware that not only are the newcomers often quite competent in editing but that many of them are not even really new to Wikipedia. Many people IP-hop on a regular basis. Other people forget to sign in before performing their edit. So the term, "newcomers", can't be applied with certainty. Spawn Man's other statement about images is correct. I'm not sure that it would prove anything for me to upload an image but may do so over the weekend if I can find something appropriate. --Yamla 15:44, 13 January 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. The main advantage I see in getting adminship is that I can more easily revert link spam. It is quite time consuming to revert twenty or thirty instances of link spam by hand. Also, I may occasionally impose short-term blocks on users ignoring warnings. I'd also like to contribute to NPOV disputes and where requested, provide a neutral third party for unofficial user dispute resolution. Non-admins can already do this but are probably less likely to be asked.
I'm sure there are other tasks I can help with but this is what immediately leaps out at me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not yet made all that many original contributions to the Wikipedia. I spend most of my time reverting vandalism and link spam. However, I must say that I am rather proud of the small Template:Please cite. I had been reverting uncited information such as album sales records, particularly when this was replacing existing cited information. Another admin suggested that perhaps I should leave the uncited information in place for a week or so and ask the poster to add some citations. The template was my idea to politely ask for citations.
This clearly does not reflect a major body of new work but I believe it shows that I really do care about maintaining Wikipedia's information integrity without being overly harsh.
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'm not sure it is fair to say other users cause me stress; this is all in fun, no? But I've certainly had conflicts. Who hasn't? One that leaps to mind is the conflict with Tcatron565. Without going into great detail, I requested outside comment to deal with repeated copyright violations. You can read this here. It is my belief that Tcatron565's edits have improved substantially since the RFC. There are still plenty of disputed edits but the user is clearly on the right path. Since that time, I have had to apologise to Tcatron565 at least once when flagging a disputed edit where it turned out I was incorrect, and have thanked the user for well-cited information in some more recent edits.
There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself.

Additional questions for the candidate (Optional)

These are optional opinion based questions, and there are no right or wrong answers.
4. In what situation(s) would you block an user for an infinite time period? Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
A. For an infinite time period? Well, there are users whose accounts are clearly set up just to cause Wikipedia trouble. They obviously have no intention of ever performing legitimate edits. So, some users clearly should be blocked for an infinite period if reasonable warnings and shorter blocks have been handed out. But I think an infinite block is something that should really get comment from other admins. If it went to an RFC and the consensus was to block forever, I may enforce that block. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a single admin doing an infinite-time block, though I suppose another admin could unblock if it was not warranted. I'm not firmly of the opinion that a perma-block requires an official RFC but I do think it should require more than one admin to be in agreement. My opinion may change if this happens often enough but I think admins should apply minimal force rather than apply force incorrectly.
5. How long would you block a repating anon(IP) vandal after several previous blocks? Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
A. Let's assume that there's no reason to believe the IP address is shared or that new owners are likely to hop to the IP. Further, let's assume that we had previous blocks of an hour, four hours, a day, and then three days, and that basically all of the edits are bad. I think the next step is a week. I think if a user has been warned and then blocked for a week and still comes back and vandalises, it's probably worth another block of a week or so with a warning that the block can be made permanent. Blocks are a sort of "cooling-down" period. Repeated blocks that don't change behaviour show that the user probably has no intention of being a good editor. I'm not sure a cooling down period of longer than a week would have much value and I think if the user has had six or more blocks and still hasn't changed, I think it is time to look at getting consensus for a permablock. If the assumptions are incorrect, the block should be shorter and the users should be encouraged to get real accounts. If someone has evidence that blocks of longer than a week have resulted in a user starting to contribute valuable edits, I'd love to see it.
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.