Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yao Ziyuan

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

[edit] Yao Ziyuan

Final (49/18/9) ended 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yao Ziyuan (talk · contribs) – I've been here since March 2004. I have about 9000 edits at English Wikipedia (exclude about 8400 edits in template namespace which were done by a script automatically), of which over 5700 were in main namespace. I also take photographs for Wikipedia and have hundreds of media files at Commons. I usually contribute in space and astronomy, rail, and China-related topics. I also do interwiki jobs for zh-classical Wikipedia, since many articles have not a single interwiki, so this job cannot be done automatically. So I want to know if the community would support me to be an administrator. Thank you. Yao Ziyuan 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw this nomination. Yao Ziyuan 17:57, 31 December 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I spend amount of time at Wikipedia. I anticipate helping with vandal fighting, speedy deletion candidate of articles, articles/redirects move/merge/cleanup, and per my web development skills (JS, CSS, ...), I also would like to participate in those works about MediaWiki namespaces if possible.

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

A: I am particularly pleased with articles about astronomy/calendars ({{JD}}, {{Chinese calendar}}, and etc, someone found this "culturally important" [1]), rail (Qingzang railway and etc, I contributed dozens of photographs on this topic, including one featured in Portal:Trains), space programs and spaceflight timelines like Cassini-Huygens timeline, MRO, New Horizons, Long March rocket#Launch_history, and etc.

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

A: I created some articles about Chinese surnames recently and they were discussed in AfD, since the result was no consensus, so I've decided to keep away from this topic. I'm not sure if this count as "conflict".

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs)

4. Your block log mentions unauthorized use of a bot. Can you explain this?

A: I am sorry, and I've explained at my talk page. The script was written by myself for a specific job, which almost cannot be done by hand. Since the script was written in AppleScript, and the operator can see every action that it was doing, so I thought it was not a bot and run it. I read the policy, but it was too late. The bot did 8400 or some edits, excluding these, I did 9000 edits at English Wikipedia. More about the blocking. I don't think it was appropriate. First, I was running the bot from 2006-11-29 22:35 UTC to 2006-12-01 18:10 UTC. And Winhunter blocked me ten days later on December 11. And the blocking period was infinited, this conflict with WP:BLOCK.

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

5. How do you interpret the policy WP:IAR?

A: I've read Victor Hugo's famous novel Les Misérables, and remember one of the main character Javert. Rules are not absolute. They exist and used as a reference. Wikipedia grows fast, and old rules might not reflect a new Wikipedia. So as the policy states: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Second, however, since rules were more or less consensus of the community, they should be fulfilled carefully, until new rules are made.

6. When should a punitive block be handed out?

A: I don't think a punitive block should be ever handed out. Blocking is the last choice should be applied very carefully, especially for blocking of a user with a number of edits or with a infinited blocking period.

7. How do you interpret the guideline WP:BITE?

A: When I was trying to introduce Wikipedia to my manager in August 2004, I still remember what his first edit in here. One important thing is how to make a distinction between a true newcomer and a vandal's new sock puppet, but no matter if it was a true newcomer, as I have said above, blocking should be considered very carefully, or as the policy states: assume good faith. As Wikipedia is a community, communication among users is extremely important. I would also reference another policy WP:CIV, which should be obviously applied to newbies also.

8. A deep and subtle question: Why do you wish to be an administrator? What do you believe you can do for Wikipedia?

A: Since Wikipedia has long became one of most important part in my life, but it is still far away from perfect. As a community collaborated project, I don't think Wikipedia will be ever perfect, but I'll try to make it as perfect as possible. Administrators' tools are absolutely necessary for the job.

Optional questions from FrummerThanThou (talk · contribs):

9. Do you contribute to the Chinese language Wikipedia?

A: No, I don't contribute to the vernacular edition of Chinese Wikipedia. The Chinese government censors the Internet and "zh.wikipedia.org" is a censored URL keyword, so I've to access the site through a secured connection, which is rather slow. But I am interested in Classical Chinese edition of Wikipedia and have 4000+ edits there.

10. Do you have any ideas on how to bridge the communities of the Chinese and Enligh language Wikipedias?

A: Even though Wikipedia itself claims WP:NPOV, but I see as a multilingual project, it is encountered a serious problem of POV on language/country/region. I don't mean English Wikipedia, but all languages. For major ones, English and Chinese are better among those like Japanese edition, because the English edition has editors from different countries, and so does the Chinese edition, which has editors from overseas, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and have the Great Firewall to balance the over populated mainlanders. I was talking about a perfect encyclopedia in the answer to question 8. In my opinion, a perfect Wikipedia should give the same idea to its readers in different languages. For English Wikipedia, in my understanding of NPOV, English here is only a tool to write ideas, it is nothing else special. So I say Wikipedia is far away from perfect. To bridge communities who speak different language is always a problem. And we should have new policy, and perhaps new software features. But I am afraid this job could be never solved unless either have those Chinese-speaking people speak English or have those English-speaking people speak Chinese.

11. Many wikipedians such as myself have been observing the affects of NPOV and have observed the formations of various different cliques for nationalist and ideological purposes. What do you have to say about the possible signs of a nationalist clique being formed here on En.WP by Chinese intelligence?

A: I'm not saying a nationalist clique. But the lacking of knowledge about Eastern world among average westerners, a major group who contributes most articles here. When people list something, they usually only list those found in western world or even worse, only in the United States. Let's see some examples, click some random lists at Special:Prefixindex/List_of_a, and we got List of abandoned amusement parks, which has dozens of entries for North America, more than the total number of the other parts in the world, so this list tells us North America has more amusement parks than all the rest world? Another example, it was about one year and I don't remember the whole story very exactly, when I read the article Yangtze River, I found the article claims a British man first ever reach the source of the river, so I did some research at Google, and found actually Genghis Khan's people reached there 500 years earlier. So in this case, Westerners sometimes considered us as autochthon, and should not count. You all know what Slashdot's criticism on the article Mao Zedong at Chinese Wikipedia, but I see things no better at English Wikipedia too. We can't expect a reader who want to know the fact of something to read every languages of an article. It would be a huge job to deal with all these things.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

12. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that?

A: I read at village pump some days earlier, that some user complain adding links to YouTube are forbidden. I will not repeat the policy here again, but Wikipedia is not a web directory, so the use of external links should carefully considered. External links must be significantly useful to readers, much like "further readings" of online resources, however, copyvio links should be strictly avoid. But I somewhat agree that user. YouTube sometimes does contain very useful information, it should not be forbidden by MediaWiki software. I still remember when I was a newcomer in 2004, people verified every new articles at Google by hand to ensure no copyvio, but today we rely on machines too much. The modification to MediaWiki software might be required, but in my opinion, as we can't block a whole country from editing Wikipedia[2], we also can't block whole YouTube as an external link.

General comments

• See Yao Ziyuan's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. support and happy new year ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. There was obviously no bad faith behind the bot, and if it wasn't doing something harmful then we shouldn't punish the user after-the-fact solely for misinterpreting policy (solution looking for a problem). -- Renesis (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes we should. If an admin misinterprets, say, blocking policy, that is a big problem. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   This user was not an admin. I see no evidence that there has been or will be persistent misinterpretation of policy; your assessment inappropriately assumes this one instance is representative of all behavior. -- Renesis (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yao said he hadn't read the policy at the time. That's different than interpretation. He understood the policy afterwards, and apologized for the incident. Nishkid64 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I say misinterpretation because he clearly states that he knew there was a policy and had a basic idea of what it was, and thought that by the policy, his script was not a bot. I'm not saying he read it thoroughly and still didn't understand. -- Renesis (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I was referring to Amarkov's comment, not yours, Renesis. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

   Simply not having read the policy, while better, is still bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Support. With two years experiance and 9000 edits, you certainly deserve to be an administrator. Have a happy New Year. Nimbat230 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Support - looks good, plenty of experience with images[3], and has come clean on the bot issue. However suggest withdrawl and another attempt once the bot situation is another 2 months behind you --T-rex 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. He's definitely qualified, and despite the bot situation, I am sure Yao will have no trouble with the admin tools. Nishkid64 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Changed To Support Although i'd ask him to be more cautious with the bot. Just H 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, could use the tools and is not a nutjob. All the qualifications required! Proto::► 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support- has plenty of edits, particularly in user talk and wikipedia spaces, which is always a plus. That, and it looks like he could use the tools, not just out for some power. As for the bot thing, no harm was done, and he came clean. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Block appears to have been a misunderstanding. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Besides the minor issue with the unauthorized bot, you are more than qualified. We should not let something so minor is as a now-resolved issue with a bot to stand in the way of granting this fellow adminship. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support He appears to be a good editor and I'm sure he'll make a great administrator. The bot situation should not be a matter of concern considering that he was able to identify his mistake on his own and even apologized for it. TSO1D 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong support - a good candidate for adminship, answered all the questions correctly, even the "When should a punitive block be handed out" question that I deliberately intended to be misleading. Yuser31415 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Strong support Yes, I agree. He seems to be an excellent editor, and, indeed, an excellent candidate for administership. Please DO make him a administer, please. After all, he HAS been a Wikipedian for two years and 9000 edits are indeed significant. Flkhgijlf 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    User's first edit, four minutes after account creation. -Amarkov^blah_edits 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Struck; I would kindly advise the user to read the top of WP:RFA. "Certain comments may be discounted or removed if there are suspicions ... these may be the contributions of very new editors ..." Yuser31415 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Support - we need admins to write articles as well.Bakaman 01:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support - I was involved in the debates regarding the deletion of the Chinese surname articles and categories and was impressed with Yao Ziyuan's ability to stay cool. Despite being the creator of much of what was up for deletion, I found him to be very patient, level-headed, and thorough in responding to criticisms, in contrast to a couple of the other editors who supported his viewpoint. I think he has a good grasp of the five pillars and would make a good administrator. Mike Dillon 01:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

14. Support I think he is going to be helpful as an admin and probably not misuse the tools. So, yeah. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support on the basis that the bot business in now seen and understood for what it was by all concerned parties. (aeropagitica) 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support will add a new facet to EN>WP in maintaining the neutrality of articles dealing with Eastern topics. frummer 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Weak Support the failure to know about the bot policy is disconcerting, but overall, looks like a good and responsible user.-- danntm ^T _C 05:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, looks good and we need more content-based admins on WP. Terence Ong 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Moderate Support The bot block was a minor mistake, and the process to which you went about it was handled very well. Considering your experience and edit count, I think that you deserve the mop. Not so sure about the bucket....Happy New Year! Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 09:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 12:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Eli Falk 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: devoted users make good admins, the bot episode was a good-faith error, besides scripting skills might be quite usefull for an admin. Chinease-related articles are often subjects of editorial conflicts and familiarity with the culture, history and language is a very strong advantage here. Alex Bakharev 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - I can't agree about opposition for the block, because as it is already pointed out, it is a minor mistake, with an apology given. This should not make him/her worse as an admin. Also, it is 9000 plus 8400 edits (by the script), which shows he/she is dedicated enough to the project. Good luck! Insanephantom 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support and Happy New Year. That block was minor; he's a good candidate other than that. --teh tennisman 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support looks great, is more than qualified.Ganfon 15:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support A very good user of this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Excellent user.--Caliga10 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Weak Support Meets my RFA standards and great user. Only problem is you don't rv vandalism.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support, no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent candidate; oppose arguments extremely weak.--Osidge 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. —sd31415 (sign here) 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support There never was a perfect candidate, but here's one where his strengths greatly exceed any weaknesses.--Brownlee 12:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Strong support, productive, helpful user, no reason to distrust him. Should never have been blocked. Need more administrators familiar with Chinese topics (an under-represented 1/5 of the world). — CharlotteWebb 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - Rettetast
35. Support. That bot problem was an innocent mistake, and he seems like a good editor aside from that one incident. Coemgenus 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - User seems fine. I'd actually prefer someone who made a mistake and appeared to learn and react to it well than someone who has been perfect and shows no clue as to how he/she might respond when they make an error. He's been cool headed, acknowledged his misstep, and in general demonstrated the exact qualities that separate the raving loonies from the calm folks who can use the mop without bloodshed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. He made a mistake, appologized, and seemed to learn from it. The talk and other discussion edits I looked at were civil and reasonable. Obviously a hard worker and contributes a lot to the project. I feel confident that he's not going to abuse the tools. delldot | talk 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. The whole bot block thing really hurts, but you've seemed to learn from that. --Wizardman 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Weak support. Looks like a good user with solid article experience and a healthy ability to learn from mistakes. Lack of policy experience is a concern, but I hope we can trust you to take things slow and observe carefully in order to avoid inadvertently misusing the buttons. -- SCZenz 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Very good user. Imageboy1 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Will be an asset.--Newport 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Well, I don't think the block this is very relevent and if that's the only significant blot I see no reason to object. --Spartaz 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong support Yes, I agree. He seems to be an excellent editor, and, indeed, an excellent candidate for administorship. Please DO make him a administor, please. After all, he HAS been a Wikipedian for two years and 9000 edits are indeed significant. Besides, I deem it rather necessary for Wikipedia to have as many capable administrators as possible, and Yao is an EXTREMELY capable Wikipedian, as his contributions show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uioh (talk • contribs) at 20:07, 3 January 2007
44. Support Will we be better off if Yao Ziyuan becomes an admin? Yes!--Runcorn 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Oppose votes seem to centre on the Bot issue. It appears the user did not realise the script he ran required authorisation, the purpose of the Bot was beneficial to Wikipedia and not malicious, and he received no warning prior to the block. I am glad the block did not drive away a good editor from an under-represented area on Wikipedia. The user's XfD contributions are not in my view overly argumentative- they do not merely repeat the same point but appear genuine attempts to find compromise and build concensus. As such, I have no reservations in supporting this candidate and wish him well. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Switched to neutral. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

45. Support, very well rationed responses to the questions. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support- not realizing something is not bad. JorcogaYell! 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Note: Already !voted. --Srikeit 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

47. Weak Support per the issues raised (ie bot and not much participation) but I don't think he would in any way misuse the tools. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - Editor is knowledgeable and effective. Badagnani 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support.--MariusM 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Even if the unauthorized bot is a misunderstanding (which your nomination statement leads me to believe it is not), you have no XfD, and next to no really important edits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I am sorry, and I've explained at my talk page. The script was written by myself for a specific job, which almost cannot be done by hand. Since the script was written in AppleScript, and the operator can see every action that it was doing, so I thought it was not a bot and run it. I read the policy, but it was too late. The bot did 8400 or some edits, excluding these, I did 9000 edits at English Wikipedia. Yao Ziyuan 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, so we can just ignore the bot; my other points still stand. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I do have XfDs. Yes, I much rare participate in them in parallel with other administrators. But I don't think every admin should do XfD works extensively. Many other jobs have to be done out there. Things including interwiki, proposing moving/merging, creating and reorganizing categories. I'm not mean XfD is not important to Wikipedia, but I ususally do more constructive instead of destructive. The second problem, I think I've done many beneficial edits since March 2004, I can't remember all them, I'll try to find more from old contributions, and added to above. Here is some images I created: 1 2 3 4Yao Ziyuan 19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think that's precisely right. Objections are often offered to candidates who profess interest in partaking only of a few specific admin tasks insofar as we can't give only a subset of the tools, but I think such objections to be generally unpersuasive. This candidate mentions cleaning up problems arising from improper page moves and ostensibly intends to help with WP:RM as well. If he were to aver, for example, that he, qua admin, should only ever act at RM and if we were certain of his capacity to work properly at RM, why would we, other concerns (e.g., the unauthorized bot) aside, decline to sysop him (again, this is more of a general hypothetical than a precise restatement of the instant case but is not wholly irrelevant to this RfA)? There are four general objections of which I can think, but only two are frequently made, viz., that a candidate's stated intent to act only whereof he is well acquainted notwithstanding, he might venture into other areas and then avolitionally misuse the tools; and that a candidate who infrequently uses the tools might not be be cognizant of changes to policy and guidelines that develop and thus might use the tools in a fashion for which a consensus no longer exists. These, though, are essentially expressions of concern apropos of a candidate's judgment (the latter also erroneously imagines that a user's not using the tools necessarily means that he/she will not participate in or even follow community-wide discussions), and we surely ought never, in any case, to be sysopping users about whose judgment we have broad concerns. If we generally trust a user, though, and think him/her to know whereof he does not know, what should be the problem with our sysopping him/her even if he/she intends only to perform, for example, one obscure admin task per month (but nevertheless intends to remain engaged with the project, lest he/she should fall out of touch)? Joe 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I don't quite understand what you actually want to say. I contribute in a wide of topics, and for some time it would be inconvenience without adminship. For example, I was adding an interwiki to a page that was protected, so I have to leave a word at talk page, and after many days, there someone added it, or none does the job at all. Admin tools would be very useful to me. I believe myself could be trustworthy, and the problem is how to prove it to you. So for other candidate. Please add your questions at above, and I'll try to answer them. Yao Ziyuan 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Commment I might have been unclear. I didn't mean to impugn your capabilities or your contributions but instead intended to write generally in the hypothetical and meant mainly to suggest that even were you (or, more accurately, hypothetical editor X) not conversant with, for example, XfD practice and policy, or not particularly interested in doing any admin tasks save an insular few, you/hypothetical editor X ought to have been necessarily disqualified. Apologies for the confusion... :) Joe 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

   My main issue is that I don't see policy discussion, not just XfD, and I feel that policy discussion is necessary no matter what you plan to do as an admin. Admins must show that they understand policy, which an army of interwiki link edits does not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Amarkov, don't BITE. You said: "and next to no really important edits." If you'd actually taken a look at his edits, you would have seen that this user has done extensive work on a variety of articles. Also, when did extensive XfD experience become a RfA requirement. Admin candidates generally should have some Xfd experience, and this user clearly has it. He's also clearly gotten involved in some particular AfD debates relating to articles he had been working on. I commend this sort of AfD activity, as it separates him from the other people who just go to AfD to write one-liner "support" or "oppose" votes. Nishkid64 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Extensive XfD is not a requirement, unless you intend to participate as an admin. Familiarity with policy most certinly should be required, and I have no reason to believe that he has any. Oh, and I have taken a look at his edits. It's kinda hard to find things in 10,000 minor edits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

   Just stop bashing this user's article contributions. You seem hypocritical by criticising a user's article contributions, when you even said yourself that you don't contribute to the article namespace because all of your edits would just be AWB-type cleanup edits. Nishkid64 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

   You misunderstand. I am just ignoring really minor edits; they're not a negative. However, when you take out all the minor edits, there isn't really much left. Also, misunderstanding of policy, in good faith or otherwise, is still troubling, regardless of if a block for it was justified. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose 600 edits(let's ignore the bot), is definately not enough for adminship, particularly with 9 months, and particularly with the lack of variety in edits. I have about 4500 in about half that time, yet i'm not an admin yet. If Yao can get off the bot and do some stuff on his own though, i'd be more than happy to support. Just H 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   He has 9000 without the bot; not 600. Check the talk page. Nishkid64 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Whoops. My bad. I should've checked the Interiot tool first. Just H 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Weak oppose I'm sorry, Yao. You seem like an absolutely wonderful editor. I could get around the fact that you were blocked for using an unauthorized bot, but not when the block took place less than three weeks ago. -- Kicking222 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Removing oppose !vote; I abstain. -- Kicking222 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

   • Comment More about the blocking. I don't think it was appropriate. First, I was running the bot from 2006-11-29 22:35 UTC to 2006-12-01 18:10 UTC. And Winhunter blocked me ten days later on December 11. And the blocking period was infinited, this conflict with WP:BLOCK. Yao Ziyuan 22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose. Almost no XfD, and an unauthorized bot? Especially since you are requesting adminship now, and you were blocked for the bot on the 11th. I think you should wait a while. --SonicChao ^talk 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   The block was instated ten days after the user apologized for the bot and stopped running it, and the block was quickly overturned as a mistake. Several other users have changed their votes regarding this issue. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I agree - this block was totally out of process (script not running, blocks initially should be 24 hours), and seems more punitive than anything (since it was obviously not preventative). -- Renesis (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose this time around. If renominated, I'll be happy to review again in another few months. Tomer^talk 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

   Tomer, you didn't state why you are opposing. May I ask why? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

   The bot thing disturbs me, especially when the bot incident constitutes 40-some% of Yao's edits. Additionally, I'm not entirely comfortable with the answers to Q#6-8. Tomer^talk 02:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

3. I believe this candidate lacks experience with policy and process. He has virtually no process-related edits prior to last month, and has a tendency to be overly argumentative in deletion debates, e.g. here and here, by which I mean making many edits regarding a single nomination and commenting on just about every other opinion. >Radiant< 12:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The controversy over the candidate being blocked for using an unauthorized bot ocurred very recently (just over two weeks ago). In my opinion, the candidate should have waited a bit longer before self-nominating for adminship (no matter what their feelings about the block). Doing so now smacks of courting controversy - which I don't think bodes well for a prospective admin. The diffs noted by Radiant also suggest something of this tendency. This, coupled with concerns regarding lack of experience with policy and process, pushes me into the oppose column for now. Singopo 12:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose The block for an unauthorized bot is simply too recent. I'll be happy to reconsider the candidate in three months or so. Xoloz 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Echo Xoloz. Jonathunder 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Echo Xoloz. - crz crztalk 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Singopo's reasoning. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose with regrets. Looking at your contribution history, I see few spikes of activity amids longer periods of relative (involuntary?) inactivity, and at least one spike seems to be bot-generated. With that activity profile I can't be sure that you are fully up to speed on Wikipedia's Byzantine policies, and various mix-ups listed above deepen this impression that more misunderstandings are to be expected down the road. Two more months of active contributions and I will most likely support. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - firstly, a look at your current talk page raises some eyebrows: 1 and 2 for reasons such as acting uncivilly (granted you apologised) and involvment in contravertial articles. Secondly your block as a result of failing to read WP:BOT is still to recent to be ignored. Lastly, you appear to have no participation in Administrator-related areas such as XfDs and you appear to have done no vandal patrolling. Therefore, I will have to oppose your request for administratorship at this time. My advice is to get seriously involved in speedy deletions, XfDs and anti-vandalism patrolling (perhaps join the recent changes patrol or the new changes patrol); you may also wish to get involved in the DR process to get some invaluble, first-hand experience how to handle disputes on Wikipedia the correct way...by tracking down cases that have done the exact opposite of civility, like you commonly see in cases in front of the mediation cabal/committee and the AMA. Do all this, and put some serious distance between yourself and that bot, and you've got my vote. Dixi. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose while you have the experience the block for running an unauthorized but was simply too recent. I also recommend becoming a little more active in AFDs. I will be very happy to support you in a couple of months. — Arjun 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I was on the fence regarding this nom; I feel that running an unauthorized bot less than one month ago without having done the prerequisite homework to find out what the proper procedure was does not bode well for future decisions based on policy (note that this has nothing to do with your block, simply the bot itself). But the canvassing of oppose voters and asking them to change their votes (1, 2, 3) is what pushed me over the edge. —bbatsell ¿? 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    Comment I just feel a bit sad and this somewhat unfair. People should not be punished by a mistaken block. I was absent from Wikipedia those days and did not even know about the blocking. When I was back, I found tons of debates on my talk page. I must thank Badagnani who did everything to the unblock. — Yao Ziyuan 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    Erm from my knowledge the block was not accidental [4]. — Arjun 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    But it conflicted with the policy, which states bot should be blocked only at running and for up to 24 hours, the admin blocked me 10 days later, and for a period of indefinited... Yao Ziyuan 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    Anyway, I must have a wikiholiday after this nomination... Yao Ziyuan 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    Whether or not your block was according to policy, you should not have run the bot. Constant wikilawyering about how you technically should not have been blocked, so we can't use the fact that you ran the bot as a reason to oppose, is really, really troublesome. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose A little too soon after the bot/block issue. Admins must be very knowledgeable about policies. Yaf 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose Not mentioning the unauthorized bot in your nomination is a problem. Any entries in a block log, even unjust ones, are highly relevant to an RfA. Eluchil404 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    I've mentioned it many times.Yao Ziyuan 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose. The bot issue is a minor worry, but lack of experience in wikispace and a tendency to argue with opposers are alos problems. I'm afraid that I also have worries about his mastery of English; an admin on the English-language Wikipedia needs to be able to communicate clearly, and I'm not sure about that in his case (on its own it wouldn't lead me to oppose an otherwsie perfect candidate, but in combination with the other worriess...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak oppose on the precautionary principle, per the various expressed concerns, especially these raised by Radiant. Alai 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Too many issues have been brought up in this RfA for me to feel comfortable with this candidate as an admin. SuperMachine 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    Also, I've just noticed that he's apparently taken a wikibreak in the middle of his RfA and currently doesn't have a user page (it was deleted about an hour ago). Not exactly what I'm looking for in an admin candidate. SuperMachine 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose - Changed vote from support after user page deletion and withdrawal flip-flop. Mike Dillon 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Oppose Neutral. Blocked for running an unauthorized bot? An adminstrator has to know better. It seems like 95% of your recent edits were done by the automatic process. Lack of project namespace participation also worries me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm changing my vote to neutral per the answers regarding his block, but I am still concerned because of the low project namespace participation, which I don't expect from an admin. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral, the basic questions for all RfAs are important, and they are not much elaborated on. -- Natalya 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I see no glaring reasons to oppose, but running an unauthorized bot is slightly upsetting. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neurtal. --SonicChao ^talk 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm concerned about his command of the English language. The answers to questions 10 and 11 have me scratching my head. I would be thrilled to have a Chinese speaker on board, but admins on the English wiki need to be able to communicate clearly in the English language. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Should spend less time arguing with his opposers (see the enormous threaded dialog under the first oppose vote). Scobell302 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Frivolous Comment: yes, and all of it in rather broken English (although "opposers" as opposed to "opponents" doesn't strike me as exactly "fixed" English either... :-p)... Personally, although I'm apparently in the minority, I think admins should have a sound grasp of the WP language version they're admins in... Tomer^talk 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per WP:CIV petty example 3: Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice, I agree my English is not so good, but I think it could be enough for communication. I can understand your words, and you can understand mine (if you can't or have problems, you can require for further explainations), that's enough, thanks to Wikipedia, my English skills is far better than it was in last year ;) Yao Ziyuan 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   I did not belittle you because of your language skills, I merely called attention to my own fetish for requiring excellent language skills of admins in the wikipedia language editions wherein they are admins. For the record, you made two typos, one probably simply typographical, the other grammatical, in your response. You might have been further ahead by not responding at all... especially since the comment I was responding to specifically said you spend too much time arguing with people you, rightly or wrongly, regard as your detractors... Tomer^talk 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral Seems like a good editor but the bot controversy make me believe that they should've waited a while before going for RFA. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral Great editor, but involves in too many controversies. I didn't like how the user reacted in the deletion discussions on Chinese character titled surname articles and categories. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my support following odd behaviour by this candidate. He has had his UserPage deleted and gone on a Wikibreak mid RfA. Also he withdrew from this RfA [5] but appears to have since changed his mind [6]. Until a good explanation is provided for this behaviour, I feel unable to support. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)