Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yanksox

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


Yanksox

Final (104/4/7) Ended 02:40, 2006-07-29 (UTC)

Yanksox (talk · contribs) – Nick, a.k.a. Yanksox, has been a bizarrely impressive editor since his arrival early this year. He's contributed to this project in so many ways: all kinds of deletion debates, RfA, AN/x, vandal fighting, newpage patrol. Most importantly, Nick is a valued member of the community. Newbies and established users frequently consult him, and at least a half-dozen users have expressed interest in nominating him. Over the past few months, I have become close friends with Nick IRL and I am highly impressed with his dedication and maturity, so much so that I frequently solicit his input on my edits. Nick is also the editor primarily responsible for uncovering the infamous Satchel Cohen hoax. In summary, Nick is ridiculously qualified to serve us as a sysop.

Here's your rundown (stolen from RfA/Gwernol):

  • Edit count - 8200+.
  • Time around - Edited as anon before February 2006. Massive contributions begin in May 2006.
  • Civility? - Always. No personal attacks ever in high-pressure situations.
  • Edit summaries - 100% all around.
  • Mistakes - None.
  • Email enabled? - Yes.
  • Userpage? - Clean.
    • History recently cleared to remove inadvertently disclosed personal info, but the sysops among us are invited to verify that there was nothing controversial there either.
  • Any edit warring/blocks? - No blocks and no wars.
  • FA participation? - Probably not.

Please join me in supporting Yanksox for sysoppery! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yanksox is top class admin material. He has a stable, measured temperament and has proved he does not rise to the bait even over extreme abuse, but maintains his objectivity.[1][2] He has an intelligent, enquiring, thorough mind, as in his brilliant initial investigation exposing the Satchel Cohen hoax. He knows and can apply policy firmly, but is not heavy-handed. He's a good communicator and knows his way around the project. I wanted to nom, but CrazyRussian said he had first claim! Tyrenius 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been shocked to find out Yanksox was not an admin, I too had planned on nominating him for adminship. Reviewing his history, and watching/interacting with him in discussions, I have been consistently impressed at the professional way in which he conducts himself. Nick is already doing a large number of admin tasks, such as removing users from WP:AIV ([3] [4] [5]) and closing AfDs (that have been decided) ([6] [7]). Giving him the tools is a natural extension of his current contributions, and it is my honor and privilege to join in this nomination. Alphachimp talk 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too, was just going to nominate him just two days ago, I was just going to ask him if he would accept a nom from me, and then I had to go to work. I completely support this nomination and wish to add my nominator-seal to it if possible! Go Twins! -zappa.jake (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess this is a quintuple nom...Yanksox is rediculously qualified. I would have nominated him if I knew he wasn't an admin. 1ne 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am truly flattered and honored by these nominations. After personally reflecting about this nomination, I gratefully accept and ardently await the opinions of other members of the community. Yanksox 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong support: Well rounded, brilliant editor. His work on the Satchel Cohen hoax was exceptional. He will make an excellent administrator -- Samir धर्म 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soxport! - Yes, I know, most people will think I have a bit of a bias (a 25 month relationship with the nominee). But in sharp contrast to what most of you may think, it's in the other direction. I'd like to oppose because then he might get discouraged and decrease his editing times - thus increasing his Sable time. But just look at all he's done!!! He's reverted TONS of vandalism, helped a lot of newcomers, voted in (and closed!) AfDs and MfDs, copyedited extensively, mediated... All in all, with over 8,000 edits, he is experienced, levelheaded, intelligent, and eager. I have to say I'm very proud of him and all he's done here; it's truly remarkable. :) Srose (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fully Support Phenomenal editor; I had originally intended to nominate him myself hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Huge support (although the Yankees and sox blow ; )) Very rational, civil, and intelligent user. I don't forsee any obstacles for you in this process. Should be a cakewalk. Good luck AdamBiswanger1 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shoot-the-Moon Support: An excellent user if WP has ever had one. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This Fire Burns Always 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Lots of edits, useful editor; would be a good admin. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Absolutely admin material, although I find "Mistakes? None" quite hard to believe. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Although I don't support Yankees. :) --Terrancommander 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wholeheartedly support: Yanksox offered some kind words of encouragement to me during my early days at Wikipedia, at a time when I was feeling discouraged by vandalism and linkspam. Each time I have crossed paths with him since, he's been nothing but friendly, encouraging, and helpful. He's beaten me to the punch countless times in vandalism & new page patrol. In short, I see nothing but good things for Wikipedia coming out of Yanksox's inevitable adminship. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I've found Yanksox to be willing to cooperate and open to dialog, and has developed a great grasp of policy pretty quickly. Most important, he has shown he values the humane aspect of the project by consistently helping others and approaching fellow editors in need. That is a true virtue, which makes me give him nothing shorter of my wholehearted support. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A great editor in all that I know of him. --TeaDrinker 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I checked into Yanksox past comments with others. I believe this person would make a fine admin. I see no problems with giving this person the advanced tools to further the cause of this project. Yes, I support! JungleCat talk/contrib 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Well-rounded user. --Nearly Headless Nick 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Crazy co-nom monkey support!1!111. This is so WP:100. Alphachimp talk 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 'Support - doomed never to be able to edit articles again support :) -- Tawker 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, great user. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Not an admin yet? support --WillMak050389 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will make a fine addition to the ranks.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mo Vaughn-sized support First I remove my co-nom lest that section should get too long, and then I discover that I can't even make the first 15 supports. Oh well. All that I'd have to say has already been said, and more succinctly at that. Joe 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support He makes me look like a Gnome :). I've no problems with past jibs; I think he's matured enough. Personal opinions in votes do not reflect actions as administrators. Teke 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I-wish-I-were-awesome Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Mailer Diablo 06:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom. Michael 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Green lamp. Go ahead. But please don't thank me for voting. --Ligulem 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Third Nominator Support -zappa.jake (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support I have been consistently impressed with Yanksox.--Chaser T 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom, will make a good admin despite your poor taste in baseball teams ;) BryanG(talk) 08:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support great editor with right interests for an admin abakharev 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. DarthVader 10:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. --Draicone (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Co-nom support of someone who will be as great an asset to wiki as a dedicated and conscientious admin as he is as an editor, and who, it is obvious from this page, is his own harshest critic.Tyrenius 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support of course! Computerjoe's talk 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Great user, no problems here! Thε Halo Θ 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support, great name to choose  :) Mostly Rainy 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A fine user. Would make a good admin in my opinion. --Tuspm(C | @) 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No problems that I can see. Batter up!!!!! TruthCrusader 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Killer of vandals! Seivad 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support my twin. We started editing in a difference of merely three hours :) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support See this diff. Eluchil404 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sure, I'll clear for adminship --Pilotguy (roger that) 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, despite Fuddlemark's links, which are valid. The explanations provided satisfy me Yanksox won't do it again; we've all learned from past editing mistakes.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per nom. Even if he's too new, we sometimes have to make exceptions. Roy A.A. 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support.  Grue  19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support woah! I can't believe that in the 12 hours since I last checked there've been this many comments. I needed to seek assistance from an admin a few days ago so I thot I'd seek help from Yanksox. I was amazed to learn that this editor wasn't an admin. He really should be! Agent 86 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Not only did I think he was an admin, but I also thought he was a b-crat too! support + triple edit conflict support - per myself. GeorgeMoney (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support of course! G.He 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per nom. Molerat 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Jaranda wat's sup 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per... well, the nom about covers it, doesn't it. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, after reading the response to Mark below. --heah 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support per nom. You mean he wasn't an admin already? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- JamesTeterenko 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Wow...I would have nominated him if I knew he wasn't one. :-O 1ne 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Despite my respect for Mark, and he makes a very good point, I think Yanksox's adminship will help Wikipedia more than it will hurt Wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 00:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Suppoert. Through experience and per all above. Good luck. --AaronS 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Super-ridiculously-delayed Shomer-Shabbos primary-nominator Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. SupportThis guy is just what we need in an admin. 'sed 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support The first time I get to say, "I thought he was an admin already." I feel like I've lost my virginity. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, though I don't know if you're a Yankees, Red Sox or White Sox fan. Go Yankees 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out vote from indefblocked sock - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Naconkantari 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.134 (talk • contribs) [reply]
    This vote was innapropriately added by 64.12.116.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Alphachimp talk 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
    IP vote - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mailar diabIow 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef as imposter. Iolakana|T 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Iolakana|T 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, in the few months I've been here, I've constantly seen his name popping up on page histories and talk pages. Obviously very prolific, and seems like a decent sorta guy too. Good enough for me! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. On our way to WP:100 Support. Editcount impressive, pleasantly suprised by the answer. ;) Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support A little green, but has given me every reason to trust that he'll make a good admin. --InShaneee 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Highway Return to Oz... 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Andeh 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Excellent, trustworthy, and highly productive editor. Xoloz 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. per nom Anger22 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Robert 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support DrunkenSmurf 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Dr Zak 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Does all of the right things to earn a mop. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, prolific vandal fighter and researcher. Valuable member of the community. Accurizer 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Valuable editor, exhibits good common sense, we need more like him. -- Avi 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per nom(s). Sorry I didn't get back to you on your email question, but it looks like you have it figured out! Good luck. --Fang Aili talk 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. support had only good encounters with this user. --Bachrach44 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  83. Strong support, good for the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, good editor, deserving of the promotion. DVD+ R/W 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support all my dealings with this user have been great. ViridaeTalk 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 10:40Z
  88. Support Bucketsofg✐ 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Yanksox was helpful and later encouraging during my RfA. I do not see anything wrong with his attitude or edits. Definitely, this user should be admin. --Osbus 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Yanksox is civil, intelligent, and hard-working. I have no doubt that the sysop tools will be put to good use. -- Kicking222 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Pile-on support. The one mistake MarkSweep mentioned was just that - a mistake. I think it's reasonable to forgive. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support; ridiculously qualified candidate. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I rarely participate in RfAs, but I think I know this user well enough to give a full endorsement. --mboverload@ 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Yessuh! Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:07, 28 July '06
  98. Support per above —Minun Spiderman 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: just one less than a century, but many more to come! --Bhadani 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Support I confess I was waiting to do this :P --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I had thought of that. Welcome to the WP:100, Yanksox. αChimp laudare 14:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Missed it by that much Support. Needs more co-noms though. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Missed it by that much"? Geez, Chief, that should have been my line! Agent 86 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Passes my standards. —Mirlen 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support -O.K. I'm on the bandwagon. The catch on the hoax is impressive. I do wish the guy would keep personal activities elsewhere, but I don't see any more "love" pages around so this seems to have cut back already. -MrFizyx 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Are you joking? I thought Yanksox already was an admin. This guy has more experience than plenty of actual sysops (8200 edits?! I'll never amount to that in my entire life!!!). With all my heart and the strongest vote possible, I say to wikipedia: YANKSOX ROX MY SOX! VOTE YANKEE FOR SYSOPPERY!Crisspy 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Crisspy[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. Yanksox nominated Al McKay for speedy deletion fairly recently, even though it was not a candidate for speedy deletion, even though he didn't even think the article should be deleted himself. The reason? The article started life as a speedy candidate because its author was using progressive saves (note the newbie-biting in tagging for speedy less than a minute after first save and using an inappropriate deletion reason), and the author removed the tag once he judged the article was good enough to avoid being speedied (he was right). Yanksox wanted the article deleted to punish its author for removing the tag. (For reference: [8], [9], [10]). Now, I'm heartened that he Saw The Error Of His Ways afterwards, but the mere fact that he was capable of getting Wikipedia procedure so completely, heart-rendingly, indescribably awfully wrong in his over-enthusiastic participation in Chinese Whispers Policy Wonkism is something I'm extremely uneasy about. I appreciate he's a good vandal-hunter, but newbies attract enough teeth marks as it is ... and as for making up policy out of whole cloth — that's Not Good. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually quite glad that you posted this mistake of mine. Personally, I think it should be noted that was when I was first getting my feet into the water and I, myself, was a "newbie" at the time. I think that this is actually a prime example to show how I have improved drastically as a user. I tremendously respect you and your opinion, and I actually can look at Al McKay as a learning experience that I shouldn't have had but did. The only reason it occured was since I was just getting into the CSD, and didn't really learn it as well as I should have. I was confused, and trying to find my place in this great big place. It was an unfortunate event that occured, but as I have stated earlier, "I have made mistakes," I wish it didn't happen, but it did, and I believe everything occurs for a reason. The reason for that was I had to do sommething really "idoitic," so that I could become a better editor. Yanksox 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This incident (which occurred over 2 months ago) has been somewhat dramatised. To say Yanksox wanted to "punish" its author is pure conjecture without any evidence, certainly does not AGF and, judging from Yanksox's general good behaviour, is not likely to be true. The evidence indicates Yanksox's motivation was upholding process, namely the instruction that article creators should not remove CSD tags (for obvious reasons), and therefore he was acting with the best interests of the project in mind, even though there might be over-conscientiousness in this case — but rather that than the reverse, in my book. It's not fair to criticise him for proposing CSD in less than a minute, as the article was just an external link in its first appearance, and to all intents and purposes CSD was correct. That is a strong testimony to Yanksox's efficiency in monitoring New Pages Patrol, and his dedication there has been very beneficial to the project. Everyone is bound to make errors at times, and this was a relatively minor one from good motivations. The important thing is how people deal with errors. Yanksox displayed exceptional humility in his response, [11], as he has in his responses on this page. He has earnt and deserves our respect and endorsement. Tyrenius 12:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's earnt my respect, but not my endorsement. Two months ago is still too recent when you consider the sheer idiocy of his actions — I strongly believe that anyone who "upholds process" in the face of the Right Thing to Do is detrimental to the project, so Yanksox's movement towards attaining Clue since that incident is heartening, but not enough to get me to support him so soon. As for whether or not it's "fair" to criticise him for proposing a speedy less than a minute after an article has been created, it most certainly is — if efficiency is gained at the expense of newbies who could well be on their way towards creating a good article (or at least, as here, a good stub), then efficiency can go to hell. If you don't have that approach, then you're doing more harm than good. I'm glad that Yanksox is learning; is Tyrenius? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, let me again state that I highly respect you and your opinion and am pleasently surprised that you have taken the time to even post on this page. I do believe it is right to critize me for the actions that I committed on Al McKay, however, I think I have strived to improve myself since that incident. Also, said incident was one of the main reasons why I started to really actually study up on policy (I made flash cards, and have a notebook full of the stuff), since I didn't understand it at that time. But since the incident I honestly believe that I have drastically improved as an editor and a member of the community. I think a really bad analogy would to say that if this was a football/soccer match, intially, I picked up the ball with my hands and threw in the air. Now, I have practiced to try to improve myself that I could assist the team (every Wikipedian) to improve. I understand and respect your reason for opposing me, but I would like to clarify that I am a much different and more mature user since my "newbie" learning experience. Yanksox 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly recognise I have things to learn and always make efforts to do so, and would be grateful for any guidance, but that's not the subject of this page. "Idiocy" is unnecessary and uncalled for. I think is is more fitting to follow David Gerard's observation, ""Newpages patrol and RC patrol are unpleasant tasks, and the workload is such that the admirable people who do it may well make mistakes," and Jimbo's endorsement, "it's ok for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality."[12] The point is that tolerance is extended to the hard workers in this situation, and we should not come down on them like a ton of bricks! Tyrenius 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Idiocy" is certainly an apt description of Yanksox's actions in biting a newbie and later asking for a decent article to be deleted; he admits as much, and I am impressed by his frankness in that regard. As for "erring in the defense [sic] of quality", that's not the same as "do not under any circumstances wait five minutes to see if it might be a progressive save from someone who will turn out to be a valuable new user". It's called using common sense, and it's a Good Thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much respect your protection of the "newbie" editor. There are conflicting values in this, as in many situations, and it is necessary to make a judicious and balanced evaluation. We disagree where that lies, but the matter has been thoroughly worked through and now the community can make up its mind. Thank you for being so conscientious in exploring this incident. (PS "defense" is the correct US spelling, albeit not UK.) Tyrenius 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for wandering in, but the last version that Yanksox tagged a speedy [13] read "Al McKay is a crafty guitarist, songwriter, producer and former Earth, Wind & Fire band member." There is a potential article there, but this isn't it, and there is nothing to be gained from keeping inanities like that in the history. Imagine someone writing an article on Paul Erdos, saying "Paul Erdos proved many theorems. His entire possessions fit in a suitcase." Entirely true, and entirely deleteable. Dr Zak 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. You are the userpage vandal reverter. It's hard to go around Wikipedia and not notice your hard work... But you're still too new to be an admin in my opinion. You've only really been contributing a few months. Sorry, but that's what I think. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:How is newness a factor? He's made 8,200 edits in his entire duration. That seems to prove that he's more devoted to Wikipedia than others. It shows that he can make constructive edits quickly.I think that that amount of edits proves experience. 'sed 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You are wrong. Edits do not show experience — though it helps. There are some new editors who achieve over 6000 edits in a couple of months. However, they never take the time to slow down and actually learn things. Additionally, people leave the project very quickly: we do not need an admin that may leave when he/she suddenly discovers that he/she is bored. This is why many people prefer that a user has been here for a while: it shows commitment, rather than a new-found fad/hobby (if it were up to me, an editor would have to be here for a year. But then again, I wouldn't have been an admin until last month, and many people would become frustrated. Also, I'm going to stop rambling now and get back on track). Anyway, with all that said, and with the currect standard that the community has set, it baffles me how Lord Deskana can perceive the candidate as "new". "New" is in the realm of 2-3 months. --Orane (talk • cont.) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Mark's concerns trouble me as well. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Too few namespace edits, come back in a few months and I will be happy to support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.40.105(talk • contribs) .
    Anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please log in. Naconkantari 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose As per other opposes already expressed. Also on the fact that the same group that has supported most of the rfa's as of late, has again supported this one. My objection, ahead of time, is that this group, at least for the most part, is a clique and far from a well-rounded representation of the wiki community. Shannonduck talk 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppposition is becoming a good luck charm around here. Cup of tea? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think 84 people (as of this edit) are a "clique"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of people whose names recur on RfA because they take a particular interest in it. This has the advantage of giving them expertise in assessing candidates. When there is a good candidate, they naturally support, and with a bad candidate they oppose. That doesn't mean they are a clique, because there are plenty of occasions when that unity divides over a candidate whose suitability or lack of it is not so straightforward. I suggest you bring the subject up on RfA talk page. It is, to say the least, a questionable reason to oppose a specific individual. Another cup of tea? Tyrenius 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <cabal paranoia mode on>There must be an oppose clique as well. Can you spot the members? :) --Ligulem 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TINC --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, it's already on the list of cabals. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shannon, if you have a good reason to oppose, as you say you do by supporting the other oppose voter's concerns, then fine. But why add these clique comments everywhere? Do you not realise that they fly in the face of WP:AGF? Please, try and assume good faith and believe us when we tell you there is no RfA cabal. Please! Thε Halo Θ 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Not really wild about his behavior in and around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, just six weeks ago. Declared that we really didn't need to follow principles of verifiability (which is not negotiable) if we happened to really like a certain article. That kind of attitude really disturbs me, and we need admins who understand we're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a fan club or advocacy group. Similar behavior on at least one other AfD, though he retracted it. Also, because of that conflict, he kept threatening to leave Wikipedia and supposedly even did quit [14] (though he came right back). Not really a good way to handle stress/conflict. --W.marsh 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually realized that my behavior at said AfD was out of line and completely unacceptable, and I apologize for that. My stating that I was "leaving," was not actually Wiki related but actually related to my situation in real life that emotionally damaged me to a point that I felt if I made edits during that time I would have harmed the project more than I would have assisted. I would like to thank you for pointing this error out as I do believe it is unacceptable behavior for any user to begin with. Yanksox 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I was also involved in that discussion, and I can say that Yanksox perfectly and wisely suggested that we refer to IAR, in that Wikipedia would only be hurting itself by compelling strict verifiability requirements. I don't think this was running a "Fan club" or "advocacy group", but simply an action in the interest of Wikipedia. In regard to your latter comment, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate as to what is the cause of that warning because it is of a personal nature, and what happened is a matter of speculation and none of our business. No indication that it had anything to do with conflicts on Wikipedia. AdamBiswanger1 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking through that AfD, the only thing I see is an editor adamant about, hmm, Wikipedia. I take no position on the basis of his argument at the AfD mentioned above, but if said basis was flawed, he erred on the side of wishing to help Wikipedia. Personally, I'd rather have an admin who makes a dozen errors in favor of the project over an admin who makes 1 error that is detrimental. I second Adambiswanger1's sentiments above that the Wikibreak seemed personal in nature, and I applaud Yanksox for having the foresight to consider taking the break as to ensure his editorial judgement was not clouded. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral— may change in the future. "Mistakes - None." Are we kidding here? No one's perfect. I wish I could have seen one of your mistakes. I would then be able to judge your reaction to very intense, controversial situations, and how you go about 'correcting' your mistakes (yes, I'm giving the "through experience comes wisdon" speech). Additionally, is there any article to which you have contributed significantly, and not just copyedited? Orane (talk • cont.) 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per W.marsh. The incident still shakes my confidence, but I'd rather not oppose on old stuff.Voice-of-All 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, still a bit too new and emotional for my liking, as evidenced by the Al McKay CSD thing and the Meta-wiki AfD: "I'm starting to pack my bags for this site... I will not stand by idley while [the project]'s being cut down but it's own rules.". Kimchi.sg 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I was going to endorse on his stats and "no big deal" but the account open only for two months? Too new, I'm sorry. Even another month would have made this an easy support. Ifnord 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His account's been open since early February (i.e. 5 months) [15] Tyrenius 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral—Strict policy at the cost of doing what's best for the project is a sweet, sweet, intoxicating nectar, but the fruit from which it is extracted has terribly sharp thorns. I share Mark's concerns. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfA seems to be steering towards promotion, and that might be the right thing. It is my hope that the candidate will consider these points about procedure vs. what's right during his/her career as an admin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral It's hard to tell. I partially agree with the concerns about experience. The nomination sounds too good to be true. --HResearcher 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator was a little enthusiastic... :) I'd be happy to try to address any specific concerns you might have - feel free to post here or contact me privately. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think a few more co-noms would've elucidated things nicely... :) Joe 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. However, I'm quite happy to stand by my co-nom statement. Tyrenius 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Comment I would also like to address, that I do infact make mistakes. The statement about my not having any mistakes is from one of my nominators, and his opinion. I have been engaged in heated discussions and recieved some extremly harsh insults, but I think I've learned how to shake such comments off and continue to work on my edits. Yanksox 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check the history of this RFA before commenting as it may have been vandalised by an AOL editor that targets RFAs. Naconkantari 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Yanksox (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 49 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 22, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 3, June, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.81%
Average edits per day: 44.29 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 326 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 22 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.8% (40)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.6% (30)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.36% (718)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 34.82%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 10 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2764 | Average edits per page: 1.81 | Edits on top: 16.88%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 42.36% (2118 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 31.52% (1576 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 23.38% (1169 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.88% (44 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 35.76% (1788) | Article talk: 5.14% (257)
User: 2.68% (134) | User talk: 32.14% (1607)
Wikipedia: 23.36% (1168) | Wikipedia talk: 0.4% (20)
Image: 0.2% (10)
Template: 0.22% (11)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (4)
  • See Yanksox's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Yanksox's edit count using Interiot's tool
Username Yanksox
Total edits 8210
Distinct pages edited 4522
Average edits/page 1.816
First edit 21:20, 5 February 2006
 
(main) 3652
Talk 455
User 211
User talk 2355
Image 16
Image talk 3
Template 12
Template talk 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 1478
Wikipedia talk 25
Portal talk 1
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: First and foremost I would assist in any area that I was needed or anywhere where a backlog needed to be tended to, but I would not do so in a manner which would be borderline reckless in which I would create more harm than help. Just as important, is for me to note, that I, if I was deemed worthy of adminship by the community, I would slowly adjust myself so that I could properly use the tools. But I believe that I would, without any reservation, assist and participate around the following places around Wiki:
  • CAT:CSD: Without any question, I have done new page patrol and tagged numerous articles as speedys and have gained experience in WP:CSD, that now when I tag an article I apply what the article falls under in my edit summary. It's strange since I have a good chunk of them memorized.
  • WP:AIV: I have posted here several times and have helped admins by removing users that have been blocked. I would continue to assist and respond to the obvious vandalism posted on this page.
  • WP:RM: Like Arthur Rubin, I have noticed a bit of a backlog exists in WP:RM. I posted here once after a user made inappropriate page moves, and I couldn't revert the move. I believe as an admin, I could help clear this backlog without necessarily causing a massive sweep of excessive moves that are not necessary.
  • WP:RPP: I often read this page with fascination and have posted here a few times (both for protection and unprotection), and have read admin's summaries for declining or accepting requests, which has given me more insight into the protection policy. It seems are certain times when I am online there are no admins to examine the requests, and I would obviously examine each one and grant semi-protection if heavy vandalism from new or anonymous users or full protection if a massive editing dispute is resulting in an editing war that no solution is being reached on the talk or elsewhere. Of course, I would decline any request that didn't seem to require page protection.
  • And, finally, I would close any XfDs that have reached their full maturity and consensus has been gained or is beyond the point of a coherent consensus. I have participated in AfDs, MfDs, and RfDs, and would assist in closing any in those three categories. I have been acitve enough (especially AfD) that I understand how it functions and I have experience in how to properly close already.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am highly active in the maintenance aspect of Wikipedia, which is quite strange, considering I first came to the site just to read numerous articles about things I knew or wished to learn more about. The work I do at New Page Patrol is not limited to just applying CSD tags, that's less than half of the true nature of NPP. As Mailer diablo stated in his RfA, "These 'newborn articles', some unwikified, need tender-loving care and attention to integrate with the ever-growing encyclopedia." I fully believe in this and assist with new pages with slight cleanup, wikifying or applying the necessary tags if they are needed. It's through this that I learn something new everyday[16].
In addition to NPP I do lots of copyediting[17][18][19][20][21].I have also contributed to articles on Baseball and articles that regard the New England area.
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 sometimes make edits that may be out of line(i.e.[22]). My first real stressful situation was over William Sams and his "notability" with User:Lentisco. As the page was originally created, it appeared no effort was made in stressing importance, and the article was deleted three times by three different SysOps [23]. Lentisco and I then had a debate on William Sams and his notability over each others talk pages. I don't feel that I acted completely properly [24]. After that incident, I really started to develop as an editor. I don't know which one of us acted improperly, but I tried to be as neutral as I could. The incident really taught me that deletion of other people's work is a serious matter, and not to be taken lightly. I have since kept that philosophy in mind since that moment.

Optional questions from JamesTeterenko:

4. You user page history has been completely deleted. If you don't mind, what was the rationale for this?
A: The reason for this was because when I first registered I actually placed personal information about myself that would make it easy for someone to find me. I do trust Wikipedia and it's users and editors on the whole. However, I did not want to place myself or anyone else close to me in danger of being harmed. It was more an issue of privacy and not controversy.
5. Do you have any other pages in your user space that were deleted? If so, why?
A: I did have one other userpage, that was User:Yanksox/Messiahtest, which was a joke page that I created stating that in order to garner a vote from me, a user would need to "make any supreme being envious." It was a page that didn't get used often and I didn't see any purpose for it and I tagged it as a U1.
Thank you for your questions, and feel free to ask any more if you wish to. Yanksox 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ian Manka (stolen from Yanksox (suprise!) on my RfA):

6. What do you think is the biggest burden facing Wikipedia? Specifically, how could you as an admin fix it? (This is, of course, optional, and you said that you were "Pleasently surprised by the answer," so I'm just curious on how you'd answer it)
A: I was wondering when one of these would come back to bite me =). I, myself, am not entirely sure of the "greatest" burden, since there are a great deal of things that we can repair. I do have to agree with you on colateral damage of IPs and good faith users/editors that use AOL and the like. However, I am not entirely an expert in the subject, so I really couldn't assist directly but act as a mediatator (which I can do as a regular editor, but obviously as an admin I could unblock) in the matter. I think another issue is that we have alot of eager users that want to contribute what they know about the world, however, what they know or want to talk about doesn't meet our guideline suggestions or seem to merit an article in the eye of some editors. I have been involved in alot of AfD discussions and speedy deletions, and people get confused and flustered when they think we are moving away from our "values." Personally, I think a huge issue is the conflicting outside views of Wikipedia compared to those of editors whom contribute as often as they can. Alot of people that I personally know, seem to think that Wikipedia is going through an "identity crisis." I don't think it's an identity crisis, as opposed to the real issue, which is complete misconceptions of how we function and how hard this can be at times. Obviously, as an administator, my tools couldn't help except with following policy and as an editor in explaining how we work. I know that this may seem to be rambling answer, but it's rather complicated and it will continue to follow the project as long as it exists. It's important to guide new users that have encountered the complex underworkings, and try to keep their enthuasim so that they can better the project. I guess the easiest solution would be to keep doing what we do, understand the suggested guidelines, use our given intelligence, and be completely open. Yanksox 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from Lar:

7.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Great question. I am actually aware of both admins open to recall and the proposed admin review. I really like the idea of both, I particularly like the idea of keeping everyone honest since I believe fully in accountability. If my RfA was to successfully pass with community consensus, I would absolutely add my name to Admins open to recall, since I think I should be reminded that being an admin is a privilege and not a right, and I should act within reasonable lines. I do have some concerns about admins open to recall in what exactly constitutes an "editor in good standing." Of course, no matter what the outline for such an editor, it will be disputed and contested. I view the Rouge admin page as an amusing page and I believe it should be viewed as such. I do understand what the deeper meaning of the page is (like the wrong version), but I think it's more of a page that is done in jest and could possibly be misinterpreted by anyone whom is new to the project. Again, the same can be said for the cat of Rouge admins, however, I wouldn't add myself to said category. The reason being that: A) It seems to be judged upon admin actions and reactions to said actions, of which I have no idea about since I am not currently an admin and B) My userpage is meant to be a friendly page in which both current members of the community and people not yet enriched here can be assisted. I don't think someone would understand the joke if they saw that cat on my page, and they could hold an objection against me or the community. Of course, this could see over anxious, but I believe anyone, and I repeat anyone, that can gain access to this project is fully capable of bettering the project, and I do not wish to defer them from doing so. Yanksox 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Yanksox&oldid=1146626708"