Yamla (
talk·contribs) – has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since November 2004.
[1] Whenever RC patrolling, Yamla is one of those familiar faces I frequently run into who is actively reverting vandalism, checking facts, and politely requesting that new users
WP:CITE their sources. He makes good use of edit summaries, has a high level of interaction with new users, and appears to have a keen understanding of how Wikipedia works — promoting this person would be a benefit to us all, please join me in support of his nomination for adminship.
Hall Monitor 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks. --
Yamla 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support, as per nominator. ;-)
Hall Monitor 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, agree with the above statement by nominator, Yamla is a very helpful and polite wikipedian and you have my support for adminship :) I'll be a lot nicer to you in future!
Sarz 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. In addition to Hall Monitor's comments, I often notice Yamla orphaning and tagging unsourced images. Yamla is sure to make a good administrator.
Extraordinary Machine 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. We almost got into a revert war over
Civilization IV a while ago. Yamla was remarkably polite and open-minded, and we solved everything in a matter of minutes
[2]. I left the experience with such a positive feeling about Wiki that I soon became an RC Patroller myself. --
Mareino 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems very reliable and deserving.
PJM 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support I her around all over my watchlist, and I wanted to nominate soon as well, Just give the mop already --
Jarandawat's sup 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -
Kafziel 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. As a strong believer in
test messages, I'm extremely happy to see someone who edits UserTalk pages so frequently, and will be glad to have another administrator who understands that stopping vandalism isn't accomplished simply by reverting it.
EWS23 |
(Leave me a message!) 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe user
Yamla has been using
Wikipedia long enough to earn a promotion --
Eddie 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Its always good to give top-notch RC patrolers the mop and all of its cool buttons.
Youngamerican 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
MONGO 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Pop-star-related Support Those articles are often a battle to work on
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Band-wagon Support — It looks like Yamla is going to win whether I add my support or not, so I'm just adding band-wagon support to get on Yamla's good side for a possible favor or return of support in the future. --
Peace Inside 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support helps make sure we cite sources, very important.
Yamaguchi先生 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support for his tireless cleanups.
Gaurav1146 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose I feel an administrator needs all rounder abilities. However, Yamla has not even uploaded an image yet. I also take offense to the word "newbie", it is both demeaning & prejudges a new editor's competence in editing. They may well be an expert html encoder, who knows? His statement below places a slight cloud of doubt in my mind that this user has maturity issues, which most of us do at some point or another; "There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself....". If he uploads an image, I'll revise my vote, but I would warn him to choose a better choice of words as well.....
Spawn Man 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I have never uploaded an image and have been an administrator for four months.
JIP 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Had I seen your RFA, I would have voted oppose too.
Spawn Man 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other. If he never needed to upload an image, why do it just for the sake of doing it? It's not so complicated that one would need lots of practice to be able to get it right.
Kafziel 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I uploaded
Image:C_plus_plus_book.jpg. I'm not certain that this proves anything but at least it shows I respond to complaints. :) This image is used in
C++. --
Yamla 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for being willing to try what I suggested even though it sounded like a questionable objection. This shows a great attitude & I now support.
Spawn Man 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Note to closing 'crat - seems
Masssiveego is the new Boothy.
BD2412T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Unsure that user is sufficiently familiar with WikiProcess.
Radiant_>|< 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if I should add my own comments here or on the discussion page.
Spawn Man takes issue with me calling some users "newbies". That's fair enough. I meant to say "newcomers" as per
WP:BITE (though
WP:Don't bite the newbies redirects there. I was using the term that other people used on my discussion page. I am aware that not only are the newcomers often quite competent in editing but that many of them are not even really new to Wikipedia. Many people IP-hop on a regular basis. Other people forget to sign in before performing their edit. So the term, "newcomers", can't be applied with certainty. Spawn Man's other statement about images is correct. I'm not sure that it would prove anything for me to upload an image but may do so over the weekend if I can find something appropriate. --
Yamla 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A. The main advantage I see in getting adminship is that I can more easily revert link spam. It is quite time consuming to revert twenty or thirty instances of link spam by hand. Also, I may occasionally impose short-term blocks on users ignoring warnings. I'd also like to contribute to NPOV disputes and where requested, provide a neutral third party for unofficial user dispute resolution. Non-admins can already do this but are probably less likely to be asked.
I'm sure there are other tasks I can help with but this is what immediately leaps out at me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not yet made all that many original contributions to the Wikipedia. I spend most of my time reverting vandalism and link spam. However, I must say that I am rather proud of the small
Template:Please cite. I had been reverting
uncited information such as album sales records, particularly when this was replacing existing cited information. Another admin suggested that perhaps I should leave the uncited information in place for a week or so and ask the poster to add some citations. The template was my idea to politely ask for citations.
This clearly does not reflect a major body of new work but I believe it shows that I really do care about maintaining Wikipedia's information integrity without being overly harsh.
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'm not sure it is fair to say other users cause me stress; this is all in fun, no? But I've certainly had conflicts. Who hasn't? One that leaps to mind is the conflict with
Tcatron565. Without going into great detail, I requested outside comment to deal with repeated copyright violations. You can read this
here. It is my belief that Tcatron565's edits have improved substantially since the RFC. There are still plenty of disputed edits but the user is clearly on the right path. Since that time, I have had to apologise to Tcatron565 at least once when flagging a disputed edit where it turned out I was incorrect, and have thanked the user for well-cited information in some more recent edits.
There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself.
Additional questions for the candidate (Optional)
These are optional opinion based questions, and there are no right or wrong answers.
4. In what situation(s) would you block an user for an infinite time period?
Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. For an infinite time period? Well, there are users whose accounts are clearly set up just to cause Wikipedia trouble. They obviously have no intention of ever performing legitimate edits. So, some users clearly should be blocked for an infinite period if reasonable warnings and shorter blocks have been handed out. But I think an infinite block is something that should really get comment from other admins. If it went to an RFC and the consensus was to block forever, I may enforce that block. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a single admin doing an infinite-time block, though I suppose another admin could unblock if it was not warranted. I'm not firmly of the opinion that a perma-block requires an official RFC but I do think it should require more than one admin to be in agreement. My opinion may change if this happens often enough but I think admins should apply minimal force rather than apply force incorrectly.
5. How long would you block a repating anon(IP) vandal after several previous blocks?
Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Let's assume that there's no reason to believe the IP address is shared or that new owners are likely to hop to the IP. Further, let's assume that we had previous blocks of an hour, four hours, a day, and then three days, and that basically all of the edits are bad. I think the next step is a week. I think if a user has been warned and then blocked for a week and still comes back and vandalises, it's probably worth another block of a week or so with a warning that the block can be made permanent. Blocks are a sort of "cooling-down" period. Repeated blocks that don't change behaviour show that the user probably has no intention of being a good editor. I'm not sure a cooling down period of longer than a week would have much value and I think if the user has had six or more blocks and still hasn't changed, I think it is time to look at getting consensus for a permablock. If the assumptions are incorrect, the block should be shorter and the users should be encouraged to get real accounts. If someone has evidence that blocks of longer than a week have resulted in a user starting to contribute valuable edits, I'd love to see it.
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.
Yamla (
talk·contribs) – has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since November 2004.
[1] Whenever RC patrolling, Yamla is one of those familiar faces I frequently run into who is actively reverting vandalism, checking facts, and politely requesting that new users
WP:CITE their sources. He makes good use of edit summaries, has a high level of interaction with new users, and appears to have a keen understanding of how Wikipedia works — promoting this person would be a benefit to us all, please join me in support of his nomination for adminship.
Hall Monitor 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks. --
Yamla 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support, as per nominator. ;-)
Hall Monitor 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, agree with the above statement by nominator, Yamla is a very helpful and polite wikipedian and you have my support for adminship :) I'll be a lot nicer to you in future!
Sarz 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. In addition to Hall Monitor's comments, I often notice Yamla orphaning and tagging unsourced images. Yamla is sure to make a good administrator.
Extraordinary Machine 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. We almost got into a revert war over
Civilization IV a while ago. Yamla was remarkably polite and open-minded, and we solved everything in a matter of minutes
[2]. I left the experience with such a positive feeling about Wiki that I soon became an RC Patroller myself. --
Mareino 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems very reliable and deserving.
PJM 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support I her around all over my watchlist, and I wanted to nominate soon as well, Just give the mop already --
Jarandawat's sup 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -
Kafziel 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. As a strong believer in
test messages, I'm extremely happy to see someone who edits UserTalk pages so frequently, and will be glad to have another administrator who understands that stopping vandalism isn't accomplished simply by reverting it.
EWS23 |
(Leave me a message!) 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe user
Yamla has been using
Wikipedia long enough to earn a promotion --
Eddie 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Its always good to give top-notch RC patrolers the mop and all of its cool buttons.
Youngamerican 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
MONGO 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Pop-star-related Support Those articles are often a battle to work on
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Band-wagon Support — It looks like Yamla is going to win whether I add my support or not, so I'm just adding band-wagon support to get on Yamla's good side for a possible favor or return of support in the future. --
Peace Inside 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support helps make sure we cite sources, very important.
Yamaguchi先生 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support for his tireless cleanups.
Gaurav1146 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose I feel an administrator needs all rounder abilities. However, Yamla has not even uploaded an image yet. I also take offense to the word "newbie", it is both demeaning & prejudges a new editor's competence in editing. They may well be an expert html encoder, who knows? His statement below places a slight cloud of doubt in my mind that this user has maturity issues, which most of us do at some point or another; "There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself....". If he uploads an image, I'll revise my vote, but I would warn him to choose a better choice of words as well.....
Spawn Man 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I have never uploaded an image and have been an administrator for four months.
JIP 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Had I seen your RFA, I would have voted oppose too.
Spawn Man 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other. If he never needed to upload an image, why do it just for the sake of doing it? It's not so complicated that one would need lots of practice to be able to get it right.
Kafziel 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I uploaded
Image:C_plus_plus_book.jpg. I'm not certain that this proves anything but at least it shows I respond to complaints. :) This image is used in
C++. --
Yamla 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for being willing to try what I suggested even though it sounded like a questionable objection. This shows a great attitude & I now support.
Spawn Man 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Note to closing 'crat - seems
Masssiveego is the new Boothy.
BD2412T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Unsure that user is sufficiently familiar with WikiProcess.
Radiant_>|< 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if I should add my own comments here or on the discussion page.
Spawn Man takes issue with me calling some users "newbies". That's fair enough. I meant to say "newcomers" as per
WP:BITE (though
WP:Don't bite the newbies redirects there. I was using the term that other people used on my discussion page. I am aware that not only are the newcomers often quite competent in editing but that many of them are not even really new to Wikipedia. Many people IP-hop on a regular basis. Other people forget to sign in before performing their edit. So the term, "newcomers", can't be applied with certainty. Spawn Man's other statement about images is correct. I'm not sure that it would prove anything for me to upload an image but may do so over the weekend if I can find something appropriate. --
Yamla 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A. The main advantage I see in getting adminship is that I can more easily revert link spam. It is quite time consuming to revert twenty or thirty instances of link spam by hand. Also, I may occasionally impose short-term blocks on users ignoring warnings. I'd also like to contribute to NPOV disputes and where requested, provide a neutral third party for unofficial user dispute resolution. Non-admins can already do this but are probably less likely to be asked.
I'm sure there are other tasks I can help with but this is what immediately leaps out at me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not yet made all that many original contributions to the Wikipedia. I spend most of my time reverting vandalism and link spam. However, I must say that I am rather proud of the small
Template:Please cite. I had been reverting
uncited information such as album sales records, particularly when this was replacing existing cited information. Another admin suggested that perhaps I should leave the uncited information in place for a week or so and ask the poster to add some citations. The template was my idea to politely ask for citations.
This clearly does not reflect a major body of new work but I believe it shows that I really do care about maintaining Wikipedia's information integrity without being overly harsh.
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'm not sure it is fair to say other users cause me stress; this is all in fun, no? But I've certainly had conflicts. Who hasn't? One that leaps to mind is the conflict with
Tcatron565. Without going into great detail, I requested outside comment to deal with repeated copyright violations. You can read this
here. It is my belief that Tcatron565's edits have improved substantially since the RFC. There are still plenty of disputed edits but the user is clearly on the right path. Since that time, I have had to apologise to Tcatron565 at least once when flagging a disputed edit where it turned out I was incorrect, and have thanked the user for well-cited information in some more recent edits.
There are other examples, too. I created the template listed above when a user pointed out that I was being too harsh with the newbies. I know I am not right all the time and I know I cannot resolve all disputes myself.
Additional questions for the candidate (Optional)
These are optional opinion based questions, and there are no right or wrong answers.
4. In what situation(s) would you block an user for an infinite time period?
Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. For an infinite time period? Well, there are users whose accounts are clearly set up just to cause Wikipedia trouble. They obviously have no intention of ever performing legitimate edits. So, some users clearly should be blocked for an infinite period if reasonable warnings and shorter blocks have been handed out. But I think an infinite block is something that should really get comment from other admins. If it went to an RFC and the consensus was to block forever, I may enforce that block. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a single admin doing an infinite-time block, though I suppose another admin could unblock if it was not warranted. I'm not firmly of the opinion that a perma-block requires an official RFC but I do think it should require more than one admin to be in agreement. My opinion may change if this happens often enough but I think admins should apply minimal force rather than apply force incorrectly.
5. How long would you block a repating anon(IP) vandal after several previous blocks?
Ichiro 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Let's assume that there's no reason to believe the IP address is shared or that new owners are likely to hop to the IP. Further, let's assume that we had previous blocks of an hour, four hours, a day, and then three days, and that basically all of the edits are bad. I think the next step is a week. I think if a user has been warned and then blocked for a week and still comes back and vandalises, it's probably worth another block of a week or so with a warning that the block can be made permanent. Blocks are a sort of "cooling-down" period. Repeated blocks that don't change behaviour show that the user probably has no intention of being a good editor. I'm not sure a cooling down period of longer than a week would have much value and I think if the user has had six or more blocks and still hasn't changed, I think it is time to look at getting consensus for a permablock. If the assumptions are incorrect, the block should be shorter and the users should be encouraged to get real accounts. If someone has evidence that blocks of longer than a week have resulted in a user starting to contribute valuable edits, I'd love to see it.
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.