Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ynhockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Ynhockey

Final (11/31/4) ended 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ynhockey (talk · contribs) – Ynhockey is a dedicated user, fights vandalism, and has contributed greatly to articles, making and contributing a great majority, especially to the Bleach articles. I would like to nominate him for an adminship position in light of his excellent work on wiki Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. – Ynhockey (Talk) 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support As nominator Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I've thought Ynhockey should be an admin for ages. He is a skilled writer and an excellent editor, and willing to take leadership in a controversial situation but doesn't attempt to overly control things. --tjstrf 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Vitriouxc 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    User's 5th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per tjstrf. Sunglasses 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Containment Unit 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Added by User:207.200.116.195 Naconkantari 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. NSLE (T+C) at 20:00 UTC (2006-06-01)
    Added by User:207.200.116.195 Naconkantari 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support nice amount of edits, although more portal edits would be good. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Oppose Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support per Tjstrf -- Tawker 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom --digital_me(t/c) 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support – Gurch 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support ForestH2
  9. Support. Good user. DarthVader 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. per above. --Haham hanuka 07:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I see no major problems.--Jusjih 09:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I don't see anything special about this guy. Nothing he's done has impressed me enough to give him a supporting vote. --U-Two 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, Malformed RFA. Naconkantari 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Constructive criticism. Edit count and time with Wikipedia are good. I see real potential for adminship in the future. I see some revert vandal edits. However, user needs to warn vandals as well. This educates the educable that they are not making constructive edits. It also helps other RCPatrollers gauge the extent of vandalism from a given user. I also would like to see reports to AIV. It is really pointless to revert vandalism without reporting to AIV as some vandals need to be stopped to protect Wikipedia and to save time spent repairing damage. BTW, you can have rollback without admin power by use of VandalProof. :) Dlohcierekim 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Struck one of my comments because of lack of understanding of copyright. :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    UMMMM?, Why does the "Oppose per image " comment now appear below my comments? They were about someone else's vote, that seems to have disappeared. I would never criticise based on an image in a sig. Just curious. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Naconkantari, and image in signature. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Oppose per image in signature? Isn't that rather, well, racist of you? --tjstrf 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, no. Images should not be included in signatures because it places undue stress on the servers and increases page load time. Please review the guidelines at WP:SIG Naconkantari 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) He means the fact that he HAS an image in his sig, not that it's the Israeli flag. See WP:SIG. --Rory096 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I have seen mixed reactions about small images in signatures and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't do much harm to have one. Considering it seems to be an important factor for you though, I have removed the image and will not add it back. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Ah, understood. I was thinking I might be seeing some of the worst bias on wikipedia yet for a minute there. --tjstrf 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note that this was removed here. --Rory096 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    By 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, mainly because of this page (mainly the copyvio and the unregistered users stuff) and the "Copyright paranoia" userbox. --JoanneB 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per JoanneB. "if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain" is NOT true, and admins should have at least some knowledge of copyright law, especially if they show an interest in involving themselves with copyright-related pages. --Rory096 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment although you're entitled to your opinion and I respect your vote, there have been RFA contributors who stated that what's written on the user page (i.e. the user's personal POV) should not have an effect on RFA as long as the user follows Wikipedia policy in his actual edits. A good example can be seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite, where the user had strong POV comments on his user page which was noted but most voters surmised that his edits did not exemplify this POV and therefore he was entitled to his opinion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    There have been RFA contributors who have expressed otherwise. Non sequitur. -- Drini 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    That is not your opinion, it's simply a factually incorrect belief on your part, and if you believe that, then why wouldn't you use it when dealing with copyright violations? --Rory096 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe it's a mistake to say the words 'public domain' (I guess it implies some sort of legal term, and as they say, IANAL), but I clarify on the page that I mean that unprotected information posted online can be used with citations. That has nothing to do with my editing habits on copyright violations however, and I'm fairly sure I understand exactly what Wikipedia does and does not allow in terms of copyright (recent related discussion). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    To the contary, using anything that is copyrighted with just a citation is a copyright violation. Also, that discussion shows more about your lack of knowledge about copyright issues. Fair use can be applied to any image, it just depends on the circumstances in which it is used, and we do allow screenshots of television and films on Wikipedia. --Rory096 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Reply (edit conflict) There is such a thing as holding an incorrect view or one that is contrary to wikipolicy, but at the same time understanding that you must support the policy even if you don't agree with it. (I was going to cite the Gin image discussion Yn just mentioned, but he already did) Could Yn provide additional evidence of cases where he has upheld policies that he states he personally disagrees with? An individual's disagreement is not in itself a problem, so long as they can keep their personal views out of their edits and administration. --tjstrf 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    He's not just saying that he disagrees with policy, though. He's saying that any text or image on a website that is displayed publically is free to use as long as you cite it. He's saying that as a fact, not as an opinion. --Rory096 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Changing to strong oppose. Just saw the section in his "Wikimedia Gripes" page where he doesn't think anons should edit. --Rory096 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per Dlohcierekim's comments above. --Wisden17 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Quoting from User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes: "However, if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain.". No.--Sean Black 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak oppose per JoanneB. Ardric47 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, IP forgery doesn't help, although granted it may not be your fault. NSLE (T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-06-02)
  11. I'm sorry, but I've got to Oppose this one for now. The IP forgery NSLE mentions isn't a great start (don't worry, this isn't a vote, the 'crats can check to see whose fault that is) but while admins don't have to be lawyers, they should know enough to at least make an attempt at determining if an article is copyvio or not. Public domain does not imply a legal term, it is a legal term in the same manner as Copyright. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note that even if he didn't know it was a legal term, he explained what he meant (just free use with attribution), and it's still completely wrong. --Rory096 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Sean Black and Kylu. Jkelly 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Basic misunderstanding of copyright issues as here and in above discussions indicates other issues could be equally misunderstood. Tyrenius 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    And the image in the signature still hasn't gone: Images of any kind should not be used in signatures. Tyrenius 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose as the candidate doesn't seem to understand the copyright policy or at least the reasons for abiding by it. joturner 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, lacks of understanding of copyright issues. --Terence Ong 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Changed to Oppose because of copyright issues. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - per copyright issues -- Tawker 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per concerned points. Computerjoe's talk 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Kylu.--Joe Jklin (T C) 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose primarily due to image in signature, images in signatures can cause problems for many other users if the server the image hosted on is "having problems". Willing to unnecessary impact on other users just for the sake of vanity or self preference is not a trait I support in Admins. Secondly due to the Copyright understandings outlined above by other users. blue520 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Moving to Neutral, image in signature has been removed. blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note the orange colour comes from the formatting of Jklin signature.--blue520 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. The initial copyright issue in itself wasn't too bad, but then to argue with a voter over it when you were wrong worries me. If you make a mistake you need to be reasonable about accepting that, and not dig your heels in. Captainj 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. I think an admin should at least understand the basics of our copyvio rules, it's the sort of thing we have to deal with regularly. The more serious error, however, was arguing about it afterwards when he was clearly in the wrong; we have enough trouble as it is with admins who are unable to recognise their own flaws without adding another one. All this being said, I may well support in the future if Ynhockey demonstrates a better understanding of policy. Rje 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Non-compliance with WP:SIG. I don't like when people say, "Oh, it's just a guideline, I don't have to follow it." To which my response at Rfa is ... "Yeah, and I don't have to support you, either." --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per JoanneB and Rory; the level of policy understanding just isn't there and arguing in an RfA is incredibly bad form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs)
  25. Oppose per JoanneB. - FrancisTyers 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Copyright paranoia is a derogative term used by those who don't understand copyright (usually, misunserstanding the so-called "fair use"). Should such person become admin, he would likely interfere with keeping wikipedia safe in regards copyright issues. -- Drini 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Automatic Oppose. Ouw! That's never happened before. Ynhockey rejects some of the foundation issues at User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes. This is fine, you're free to do so. But of course you can't become an admin or even trusted user in a project you do not support. So I'm going to have to reject out of hand. Kim Bruning 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Looks like the user has contributed a lot to Wikipedia. However, I'm concerned about the comments on copyright violation. Admins are a type of ambassador for the project and comments as such I think could create a perception among the public that some amount of copyright violation is tolerated. Nephron  T|C 03:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per all above. Royboycrashfan 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Needs to learn a lot about copywriting. DakPowers (Talk) 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose sorry to be opposing someone who clearly is committed to the projeect, but its the little things like not warning users in addition to reverting vandalism and not having experience with some of the more basic policies. All of these things indicate a need for more experience in my mind; I look forward to supporting in the future. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral was oppose --blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral as I was involved in an argument with the User about copyright issues [1]. feydey 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I can't decide. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Policy issues obviously need attention, but I can't quite oppose, based on the candidate's other contributions. RadioKirk talk to me 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Ynhockey
Total edits 6135
Distinct pages edited 1705
Average edits/page 3.598
First edit 17:26, November 8, 2004
 
(main) 4667
Talk 502
User 320
User talk 136
Image 57
Image talk 1
Template 142
Template talk 16
Category 56
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 158
Wikipedia talk 73
Portal 1
Portal talk 4
 G.He 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Ynhockey (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 181 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 3, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 65.31% Minor edits: 95.39%
Average edits per day: 20.13 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 739 edits) : Major article edits: 99.06% Minor article edits: 97.34%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.56% (178)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 16.98% (849)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 49.02% (2451)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1440 | Average edits per page: 3.47 | Edits on top: 10.58%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 6.98% (349 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 75.1% (3755 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.94% (197 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 13.98% (699 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 74.52% (3726) | Article talk: 8.56% (428)
User: 5.28% (264) | User talk: 2.56% (128)
Wikipedia: 2.58% (129) | Wikipedia talk: 1.2% (60)
Image: 1% (50)
Template: 2.74% (137)
Category: 1.08% (54)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.46% (23)

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: Right now I sometimes patrol new articles and frequently remove vandalism from watched pages. If I become an admin, I hope to do this more and also patrol recent changes (rollback option will help more than current revert). Other than that, I plan to spend more time at the WP:HD helping new users, although that's not really a sysop chore.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Israeli Military Police, although it's unsourced, I took most of the info from the internal MP website which is on the army LAN. Also Arad, Israel (mainly the images in the article), Shinigami (Bleach) and a few others are my better contributions, so to say. They are contributions where I got out of the wikignome attitude and sat down to make something bigger for Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not displeased with minor edits either. Also check this page for a more detailed log of my contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in some conflicts over editing, in Machsom Watch, Arab citizens of Israel (formerly Israeli Arabs), and a few less notable cases. I feel that most users in these discussions (both my 'opponents' and 'supporters') acted in a civil way and although the consensus reached was always somewhat ambiguous, there were always a few principles about said articles we agreed on. Can't say it really caused me any stress. In the future I plan to do more thorough research in such debates, which is IMO lacking (from all sides). Granted, each of us generally comes up with some sources to back up our claims.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.