Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yelyos 2

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] Yelyos

Final (42/0/1) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yelyos (talk · contribs) has been an integral member of the Wikipedia community for a long time, and has consistently showed a strong commitment to NPOV, conflict resolution, and the general betterment of the Wikipedia. Yelyos is very even-handed in conflicts and reacts calmly when attacked, and thus I am nominating Yelyos for adminship without reservation. As an experiment in thinking, try not to vote based on her edit count. --Phroziac(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please accept the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Yelyos 03:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Extreme duh. --Phroziac(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Answers to questions are good, and the nominator rocks :).--Sean|Black 04:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support I seem to remember this user from somewhere. Ashibaka (tock) 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ooh - yes please. Celestianpower 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Four edits per day is fine. We shouldn't make terminal wiki-addiction a requirement for the mop :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, looks good to me. — JIP | Talk 11:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, been around a long time and knows the rules. Should be no big deal. Rje 12:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Obvious Support No brainer.Gator[[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Good editor --Rogerd 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support per Rje and Haukurth. Youngamerican 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Good editor, knows her stuff, editcountitis is the root of all evil. Lord Bob, the guy with a low edit count 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support I serisouly thought he was one (so cliche). -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Private Butcher 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support, obviously. I thought Yelyos was one until I saw otherwise at WP:LA. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Weak Support Doesn't meet my admin criteria cause of 4 edits a day and wiki namespace a bit low for my taste but I see him editing more often and he whould benefit with the rollback button --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Would someone fix the vote here thing? I haven't the time. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Merovingian 05:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support it's about damn time...  ALKIVAR™ 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Yep --Ryan Delaney talk 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support--Duk 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support MONGO 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support All my interactions with this user have been good and even though he doesn't meet certain users' editcountitis standards, I feel comfortable that he'd be a good admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Some folks just deserve it, there's more than enough of a track record here to support. Good, level headed editor. Rx StrangeLove 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Strong support. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. About bloody time. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. BD2412 T 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Guanaco 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Friendly, lots of vandal whacking. I doubt she would abuse admin privileges. delldot | talk 04:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support --pgk(talk) 18:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. El_C 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, promising user. She promises and promises... just kidding, fine upstanding editor. Bishonen|talk 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, and I've corrected everyone's spelling. DS 03:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Yup, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support, not only do I not see any cause for concern, I also think this user will do well as an admin! --JoanneB 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support Izehar 22:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Part of the furniture. Should have been adminned months ago. JFW | T@lk 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Notable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I've just gone through his previous nomination, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yelyos. Since then, the user has mustered around 1000 edits (including deleted edits) which translates to less than 4 edits per day - this is on the lower side for a would-be admin. The only reason for which I am not voting oppose is the 222 deleted edits he has - mostly copyvio tags and delete tags. --Gurubrahma 06:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    Four edits a day is a reason to oppose? This is taking editcountitis to an insane level. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

#Neutral per Gurubrahma. I rather see more activity as a user than 4 edits a day which is too low in my voting standards. Will support in another month. --Jaranda(watz sup) 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just wondering... Have they changed the RfA process to not include the "vote here" link at the top of the nomination? --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yea, it seems so. I always just used the edit link anyway. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't use a template when i nominated her, the way the template is now, it's horribly painful to do that way. --Phroziac(talk) 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would continue with the tasks I usually do when fighting vandals but with the admin powers, namely reverting, deleting CSDs, and blocking vandals (after they've been sufficiently warned - I tend to be on the reluctant side when it comes to blocking).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm most pleased with Popeman and Sinclair Ross, the former of which brings much amusement to my friends and family, and the latter of which I believe filled an important gap in our coverage of Canadian novelists.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I'm lucky enough not to have been involved in any serious conflicts, beyond reverting vandalism or the like. I hope I won't get into any, but if I were to get involved in a conflict I'd stop all editing on the article page as soon as I recognized there was a conflict and leave a note about it on the talk page.
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.