Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yomangani

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] Yomangani

Final (72/13/2) Ended Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:32:12 UTC

Yomangani (talk · contribs) – I've been editing since 14 June on a wide variety of topics. I tend to drift around looking for articles that need help in AFD, and more recently in featured article review. I used to spend a lot of time working on peer review and requests for feedback, but haven't been active there over the past few weeks as I've been rescuing a few featured articles. I'm not a big vandal fighter, but I do a lot of repair work in AFD, and chiefly want the admin bit to allow me to close forgotten AFDs. I believe that adminship should be no big deal and will add myself to the Category:Administrators open to recall should I be approved.Yomanganitalk 16:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Yomanganitalk 17:00, 5 October 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: As I said above, I'm chiefly interested in clearing up old AFDs, but I'd be likely to help out with page moves and page protections which appear to be somewhat neglected at times.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm quite pleased with my contributions to a few rescues of articles in AFD and obviously the FAs I've worked on. There is a random selection of articles I've worked on my user page, if you're interested. Some examples of AFD articles saved: Arrow poisons (pre AFD), Sodastream (pre AFD). Some FAs rescued: England expects that every man will do his duty (pre FAR), Transit of Venus (pre FAR)
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've had minor conflicts in the past, but being civil and assuming good faith are policies for good reason, and failing those, stepping away from the problem normally helps. An example at User_talk:Stefan#Project (another editor set up a "rival" project, and there was some "discussion" about merging)
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? Mcginnly | Natter 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For procedural reasons (breach of the 3 Revert rule) and if they continuely breached policy (though I would investigate thoroughly first). That said, I don't intend to be blocking people on a regular basis - I'm not going to be investigating sock puppetery for example. Yomanganitalk 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Extra voluntary question
4. Do you agree with the proposition that an administrator should be someone capable of writing a good article and should spend a fair amount of time writing and improving articles?--Newport 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the RfA should officially be closed, but I'll answer anyway. No, I don't. I think would be good if they were capable of doing so, since a good editor is probably somebody who can spot problems in articles when asked to take a look, but equally there are people whose talents lie purely in administration - you don't need to be a good writer to block a disruptive vandal. What I wouldn't like to see is the admins who are good writers forced to spend all their time dealing with adminstrative tasks, and for that I'm glad there are people (both admins and non-admins) who are willing to spend time grinding away at the backlogs and mundane tasks. In the end, both the administrative tasks and writing articles are about improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. Yomanganitalk 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Editcount using Interiot's PHP tool on RfA Talk page. (aeropagitica) 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • Your editcount appears to be ok but I would like some difs cited in your answers before I commit to a position here. Can you provide some evidence for each answer, please? (aeropagitica) 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Provided above. Yomanganitalk 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support looks like a good candidate. --Alex (Talk) 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Why not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support a good person for the job. Rama's arrow 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yup. Polite and productive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Enthusiastic, strong support. Polite, knowledgeable, extremely hard working, has thanklessly salvaged many articles from WP:FAR as well as writing featured articles, and seems to be everywhere all the time, helping out others. Sandy 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support despite being sorta new. Excellent user, commands my trust. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I've seen the nominee around quite a bit. Participates in areas of the project that an admin should be familiar with, good record, shows need, and appears trustworthy. Agent 86 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per SandyGeorgia. NCurse work 19:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Seems like a good user, per SandyGeorgia. Hello32020 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support without hesitation. -- Kicking222 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support Will use the tools wisely. I actually thought you were an admin already.--Húsönd 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Seems obviously qualified. (I also thought Yomangani already was one.) Fan-1967 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support another one that I thought was already an admin :-) --plange 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support around 4000 edits. Fine with me --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Great user, will make a fine admin. --Nishkid64 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Thanks for providing the difs, I have no problem in supporting your RfA now! (aeropagitica) 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support A great user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - I'll be evil and help make WP:RFA even longer even though this is an obvious snowball support :) -- Tawker 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - No reason demonstrated so far that this user can't be trusted. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. My name is Radiant and I endorse this candidate. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - Adminship is no big deal. This user gets to the point. 4000 edits is experience enough. - Hahnchen 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. {{RfA cliché}} — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 01:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Very solid and well rounded sounding. People Powered 02:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. —Khoikhoi 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Must... Support... Before... It... Is... Too... Late... Jorcoga  03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Per above Pogo 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - I never object for inexperience related to the time-frame on Wikipedia, but instead only inexperience in editing. 4000 edits, despite only being here 4 months, is enough of a demonstration for me to support giving you the tools. Good luck! Daniel.Bryant 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Merovingian - Talk 08:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Yomangani has done some excellent work on Requests for feedback, a process I created to help (usually new) contributors get feedback on articles they have written (or major contributions they have made to existing articles). Unfortunately, Yomangani has not been responding to feedback requests since 29 September, and I have just returned from a one-week block, Imoeng is having difficulty coping with the backlog. Yomangani, please come back to RFF! Other Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers could help out at RFF as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support Per everyone above. Yomangani has contributed so much for the sake of articles' qualities, being friendly to newcomers at WP:RFF and significantly improve grammar and language of many articles, including Indonesian related articles. And 4000 edits? That is too cool. Strong support for Yomangani. Imoeng 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Strong contributor. Warofdreams talk 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong support!, excellent user, and admins don't always need to have extensive experience in image space. Explanation for lack of talk space edits works for me (makes a lot of sense). --Coredesat (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support User is excellent, but I'd normally consider him a little too new; it was the promise to be open to recall that swung the matter. Xoloz 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support I think four months is enough time to determine if a user will be a good admin. The answer here is a clear "yes." --Mr. Lefty (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support I know just about every applicant says they're going to help out with the AfD backlog, but Yomangani is one who seems to take it seriously (and is in fact helping out even without the sysop bit). --ais523 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Does very good work as reviewer. Errabee 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support One of my rare unconditional supports. His contributions to the project are outstanding and spotless. Joelito (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Extremely strong support. Diligent, thoughtful, and everywhere. I can say honestly that Yomanangi's commitment to the mainspace is as excellent as I've ever seen in a candidate—if you watch WP:FAR, you'll know that's not an exaggeration. Taking a two year-old FA from 0 to three or four dozen citations is not a task many undertake. For those who feel four months is not enough, check his Wiki and Wiki talk contributions and tell me he has not visited enough nooks and crannies to understand the place. Marskell 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-06 19:14Z
  42. Support. No evidence user will irreparably damage the encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. After a full hour of looking at the user's contributions, talk page, etc., I've come up with a resounding, 100% YES. True, s/he is new (although by that standard so am I - I only arrived 14 days before the candidate), but s/he has also proven to be trustworthy and dedicated. Adminship is no big deal, and I'm quite certain that this user won't accidentally (much less intentionally) block Jimbo. :P Srose (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support - Seems like a winner. Energy and good judgement. Georgewilliamherbert 00:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - Have seen him handle conflicts, have my full trust not to misuse admin tools, 4 months is a bit short, but trust is all I require, I trust him to learn to use the tools unless he already know. Admin is not a bg deal! Stefan 03:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support more then enough experince in article writing, wrote 1 FA and rescued several others, the oppose votes are not strong in my opinion Jaranda wat's sup 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Normally I do not endorse such new editors, but being a major contributor to a featured article and volunteering one self to Category:Administrators open to recall does it for me. Silensor 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - good admin material abakharev 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. The newness is a bit of a problem, but everything else looks great. Supporting per crzrussian's comment below. --Storkk 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support I honestly don't understand the insufficiently tenured objection. One can surely appreciate that the candidate possesses the deliberative temperament, judgment, and cordial personality the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious, and I think it quite certain that Yomangani will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I think it quite plain that the net effect on the project of Yomangani's becoming an admin will be positive. Stefan and Srose, inter al., quite cogenty present the issue, viz., whether Yomangani's contributions are sufficient as to provide a basis from which one might infer that he will be a good admin, and they, IMHO, clearly are. Joe 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support, we have admins getting promoted when they joined the project three months or less prior to their RFA, so I don't see any problem with four months. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support: Seems to be a strong all-around user, and although four months is a bit short, I think it's sufficient in this case. Heimstern Läufer 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Despite candidate's relatively new status, seems like a good user, and meets my civility and editing requirements. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per Joe above. Markovich292 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Thoughtful and even tempered user, not likely to abuse tools. Rx StrangeLove 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. Clearly a good-faith editor, no reason to suspect he'd change his behavior in the next few months, so no reason to suspect I wouldn't support him then, so why not support now? --W.marsh 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  57. Strong Support - Has demonstrated to me in my contact with him an excellent character, and is very thorough and even tempered. Has politely and nonconfrontationally reminded me several times of the rules when I made errors of omission, for which I am grateful. I cannot see how this person would be at all likely to abuse the tools of adminship. Relative lack of experience and comparative newness can be a real concern, but do not seem to me to be real impediments for someone who is to all appearances extremely qualified to handle the tools of adminship well. Badbilltucker 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support—Anyone who rescues articles from AFD gains immediate standing. Work on FAs a plus. Overall civility looks sound. This editor can be trusted to use the tools for delete, undelete, block & unblock thoughtfully. Let's do it. Williamborg (Bill) 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  59. Very Strong Support A huge amount of edits in the time he's been here. Would make a wonderful sysop!. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support, all of his Help talk: edits are excellent. Kusma (討論) 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support solid contributor. Eusebeus 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Knows WP. Length of time on WP not a concern to me. Looks like a good candidate. Nephron  T|C 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Looks like a good candidate who will make good use of the mop, TewfikTalk 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  65. Strong Support - This user has a very good record with cleaning/polishing and repairing articles which have fallen into disarray. With respect, to his demonstation of skills, a look through the WP edit log shows that this user has a very high percentage of AfD commentary, likely a majority which consists of original ideas, bringing new points to the table. These show the candidate having a good understanding of policy (POV, OR, NPOV etc), notability guidelines, how to weigh things up and make a good judgment and is good at and willing to explain themselves to other users. It also shows that the candidate is not just racking up a pile of "quicky" edits to cut corners and get themselves on the RfA market. His performance in RfA is easily more comprehensive than most admins and many other candidates who willl/would pass easily despite showing little thought or reasoning in racking up AfD edits. The candidate has not been around the longest, but longer than some people who have very, very easily cruised through, for which some of those opposing have supported. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  66. Strong support per Blnguyen. 1ne 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support, edits I checked look solid. No meaningful concerns raised by opposition. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  68. Strong support per Christopher Parham. I certainly appreciate the need for strict standards of adminship, and even for some minimum time to form an opinion and insure a user has the needed experience—but claiming that 4 months is too little is a very new and frankly nonsensical development. -- SCZenz 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support to offset the ridiculous opposes. --kingboyk 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  70. Weak support, he hasn't been a lot on Wikipedia but.. I've seen his work before and I'm quite impressed with his editing speed. I'd rather support. Michaelas10 (T|C) 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support--Good deal. Mustafa Akalp 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Experience is not solely defined by time spent (although that's a factor): Yomangani seems to have good knowledge of WP policy—I trust him with the mop. --Storkk 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I !voted twice by mistake. Sorry for any confusion --Storkk 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support the candidate's knowledge of Wikipedia policy more than outweighs the fact that he is relatively inexperienced (and I do mean relatively). Note: I am contributing here on the assumption that the RFA has been extended by a bureaucrat due to how close it is. If the RFA is in fact over then please strike this. Cynical 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose -- Sorry to ruin your winning streak, Yomangani, but I don't believe four months is enough experience in order for a user to become an admin. Check back in a few months. :) this is messedrocker (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Is this in a time of service objection, or are you of the opinion that one cannot accumulate enough of a record in four months for a participant to analyse? If you feel that the candidate does not have sufficient output upon which to analyse him, I would disagree, and like to point you to many of the explanations and sharing of thoughts that he did in WP space - very little of his edits are "herding" so you can see how his thought process works. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too new to form an opinion on. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Are you saying that the "output" used to analyse performance is inextricably linked to service of time? The quantity of material and discussion he has contributed to generates more output from which you can judge his judgment than some folks who have been here 5,6 7+ months, simply because he has outputted more than they have in that time. If it is the edit count, I would like to point out that he has a very high proportion of comments which are original. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per McGinnly. Michael 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    I would normall oppose on the same grounds, but I urge everyone to waive the time requirement thing for this user, whose editcount belies his maturity and poise. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    ditto and per above. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - only four months here and close to no experience with images, please try again in half a year --T-rex 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Might I ask what experience with images do you think is necessary for becoming an admin? Uploading them? Editing them? Tagging them as copyvio? I would estimate that most of our present admins do not regularly work with images. >Radiant< 09:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I have an account on Commons too, which will add a few image related edits [1], but, to be honest, I will be unlikely to have many more in few months time - it's not an area I choose to spend my time on. I have done a bit of work on images - checking the categories on on the shark related images and cross checking the available images for the shark articles on the other language wikipedias to see if there were any images that could be moved to Commons, but while that is a time consuming job, it doesn't result in many edits. I also spent time recently trying to determine the status of Image:Laika.jpg which was formerly tagged as {{sovietpd}} (a tag that now appears to be invalid), which again results in few actual edits. Yomanganitalk 12:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well the obvious place to check for experience with images is the upload log, but I adding proper tags to images is just as important. User:Yomangani only has 1 image upload and 10 edits within the image namespace here. The commons account does partially make up for this, but until Yomangani's comment I had no way of knowing. Given only 4 months here this is still an oppose --T-rex 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
          • While I would give a "bonus" for a candidate who has image experience (we only have 10-20 guys regularly deleting them), I would not think that giving a penalty for those who have not is the best opportunity. Yomangani has demonstrated that he would close AfDs with great wisdom, moreso than the standard in operation today, so I feel that your opposition would actually have a negative effect on the quality of the deletion process. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. More time please. Themindset 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Useful contributions, but I feel the editor currently has insufficient experience. Espresso Addict 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose not enough experience. pschemp | talk 04:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. 4-month experience do not seem enough.--Jusjih 17:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Wait another four months and you will probably see zero opposing votes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AQu01rius (talk • contribs) .
  10. Oppose - Sorry, 4 months is just too short. I'd like to see that you can avoid burnout before supporting. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, sorry, but not long enough for me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per my standards. More time needed. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    As per all the above, I feel that if people simply have a problem with service time that is one thing, but if people are worried about a lack of "output" which shows accumulation of skills, then I think that there is ample evidence of this. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it's odd. There isn't a single oppose of any substance. Marskell 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: prefer more experience. Jonathunder 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Talk namespace overall is quite low. Does this suggest that the user isn't communicative enough? Regardless of that, you meet my criteria on first glance, so neutral. – Chacor 05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • From a quick calculation my talk edits are somewhere around 16% of my total which doesn't strike me a bad mix. Working in Peer review, AFD, FAR and Requests for feedback means a lot of conversation happens directly on the page rather than in the associated talk page, but I think if you look at my talk edits and talk page you'll see that I am fairly communicative, especially with newcomers who might not know the ropes. I do try to avoid "me too" type comments though. Yomanganitalk 12:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm sorry, not enough time on the project to satisfy my standards at this time. I do admire your work, however.-- danntm T C 16:51, 6 October 2006 (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.