Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yelyos

Yelyos

final (16/11/1) ending 00:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yelyos has been for some time now an integral member of the Wikipedia community, and has showed consistantly 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 --Node 00:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After a bit of thought and with a bit of reservation I've decided to accept this nomination. I'm very flattered by the praise, but I feel that the amount of time I've spent actually editing Wikipedia has been somewhat minimal. A great deal of my activity has been on the #wikipedia IRC channel, where I frequently participate in discussions, which is where Node knows me primarily from. However, in light of this nomination, I've decided to step up my RC patrolling, which is by far the most common Wikipedia task that I perform. I feel that admin tools would be helpful to this end. Yelyos 03:09, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Node 00:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Likewise. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. (insert you-know-which-cliché here) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
4. Good contributor in my experience, really level-headed guy. Need more admins like that. Reene (リニ) 01:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
5. Evercat 01:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Andre (talk) 15:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
7. Glad to support her for admin. Ambi 23:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Admins are trusted members of the community. Yes, Yelyos has fewer edits than most, but I can say with 100% certainty that Yelyos will be an excellent admin, and that she won't abuse her abilities. Although Yelyos doesn't have very many edits, it must be noted that she has been editing since November 16th 2003. In my opinion, this is more than enough time to be familiar with how Wikipedia works. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 02:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Im not a sock puppet, know yelyos personally, good person -Mossad21

   User has 2 edits as of this timestamp, both of them to this page. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:54, Jan. 18, 2006

10. Nomination is likely premature (given that it looks unlikely to get up), but I still think yelyos would make a good admin. I hope if this does fail, that we'll see a renomination at some later date. Shane King 09:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. ElBenevolente 10:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Support, however I hope Yelyos does become more active when he or she receives adminship. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 05:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
13. Yes. Definitely. ugen64 01:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Good history, nice person. func(talk) 18:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Arminius 04:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Less than 400 edits. Gzornenplatz 03:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

   Edit counts are not representative of one's Wikipedia experience. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:43, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

   What do you think is, then? The amount of talk on the IRC channel? He himself calls his editing time minimal. He has edited no more than 9 article talk pages. Not that there's any specific indication he's a bad user, it's just far too early to make any judgment. Gzornenplatz 17:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

   Their character. For example, if a dickhead has 9000000000000000000 edits, do they really deserve adminship? No. If a user with 100 edits is a very nice person, shows a good understanding of policy, and would probably get nominated later anyways, there's really no reason to oppose just on the basis of edit counts. And not less than 400 edits - atm Yelyos has just barely OVER 400 edits --Node 20:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   It was below 400 when I wrote it. And that's just not enough to determine conclusively the suitability of a user for adminship. Problems may still arise that aren't visible yet. And once he's an admin there's no way to vote him out again. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

   To balance this out, I agree with Gz in that edit counts are representative of one's Wikipedia experience. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. Urgh! I hate to do this. I like Yelyos. I've got no problem with him. It's just that, as he says, he's not that active on Wikipedia articles. Long may he thrive, but I have to actually vote oppose on admin status at this point. Geogre 05:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC). Nomination is premature. See comments.
4. I'll support when renominated in 2005. DG 22:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Good user, however does not meed my personal standards for support by any stretch of the imagination. BE MORE ACTIVE! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Nothing personal against user, but in my estimation s/he does not qualify for adminship at this time. IRC activity is irrelevant. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 16:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
7. Support after 1200 edits. --Lst27 (talk) 23:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Netoholic @ 06:57, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
9. Would support after a bit more editing work Wolfman 16:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. The exact number of edits ought to be no obstacle for a candidacy, but the number of valuable encyclopedical contributions is most definitely. Having browsed the user's contributions, I must agree with Uninvited Company's comment below. /Tuomas 15:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Not enough edits. Edits are necessary but not sufficient to adminship. --Improv 19:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

I'll reserve judgement for now, would like to see candidate questions answered, so I've added them in. Shane King 13:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

1. normally I would say, far too few edits. but seeing that every pov-pusher has lots of edits, that might not be a useful criterion. I'll wait for the replies to the questions below and may move my vote to support. dab 15:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• 403 edits for the record. Shane King 13:39, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

  Note that these 400 edits are from November 2003, albeit sporadically. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

• I too hate to oppose this becasue I've seen nothing but good work from Yelyos. However, there are two important principles that I wish to uphold:
  1. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Editing encyclopedia articles is the core activity. A certain hands-on background in collaborative editing is the experience required of administrators. While I too dislike numeric quotas, Yelyos overall experience here is insufficient. I reviewed the edits.
  2. IRC is not Wikipedia. There is already a certain kind of social standing that comes from being a regular IRC participant here, but we don't need to institutionalize it by considering it a valid qualification for becoming an administrator.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do feel that the nomination was very, very premature (it was made without Node telling me about it until after the fact) and that I would like to garner more edits and become better known to the Wikipedia community as a whole before I feel that something like this would be appropriate. That said, I spend a large amount of time most days reading pages in every nook and cranny of Wikipedia (I'm a lurker on most internet fora, as well - I have a perfectionist complex and tend to dislike public writing, which is something I'm working on), I'm familiar with the policy relating to the little section of Wikipedia work that I specialise in, which is RC patrol, and I do feel that admin tools would be helpful in that capacity (although they're of course by no means necessary). In any case, I'll always do my absolute best to treat newcomers with kindness and care (after all, I'm often the first person they encounter) and never use any responsibility I'm entrusted with for malice or in anger - which, I feel, includes even the basic responsibility entailed by the ability to edit pages at all. Yelyos 06:26, Nov 16, 2004 (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 spend most of my editing time on RC patrol doing reversions and speedy delete notices. I believe administrator tools would be useful for this.

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

A. I have quite a bit of pride in the article on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and would like to write more articles like this in future when I have long blocks of uninterrupted time again.

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 haven't had very many conflicts on Wikipedia directly - off-Wikipedia (i.e. on IRC) I've had a few disputes with some users, and generally I've tried to (and I believe I have) dealt with them by not expressing anger towards the other person, listening to their point of view and determining whether I'm wrong (which I am, rather frequently), and if after that I believe my point is valid, I express it, with facts to back it up if applicable. If an argument degrades into a dung-flinging contest I usually simply remove myself from it.