Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Youngamerican

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

Youngamerican

edit

Final (71/0/0) Ended Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:45:21 (UTC)

Youngamerican (talk · contribs) – A registered user since February '05 and a dedicated contributor since that May, Youngamerican has been a pleasure to deal with and an asset to this community. He has 6,200+ edits, of which a healthy proportion are in projectspace and talk. In my experience (and I have a lot of interactions with this user) he has demonstrated good judgment, a cool demeanor, and an enviable deliberateness. So unlike me, this user is not known to jump into fights, run off his mouth, etc. That is generally a very good thing. In the mainspace, Youngamerican has toiled to greatly expand the world's knowledge of all things West Virginia (which apparently is a state somewhere) - but can venture out of its borders as well, see, e.g., Idit Harel Caperton. He has not told us what his views are on race-gender-sex-politics-God-eventualism-Jimboism-chocoholism, keeping his userpage completely devoid of anything remotely resembling a userbox. Finally, let me throw in his considerable experience at AfD, a handful of reports at AIAV, and his status as one of the founding fathers of Wikipedia:WikiProject KYOVA Region (five bucks to anyone who can guess what KYOVA is without clicking). So, in conclusion, while he will not be an administratively obsessed sysop like, say, me, he will definitely benefit the project more if he is armed with an Uzi, a Roomba, and The Club. This November, Vote Youngamerican. Bring Accountability Back to KYOVA! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:05, 27 October 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:

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: I believe there are several areas where I can be an effective sysop. As Wikipedia continues to grow at an rapid rate, the backlogs of needed administrative actions also expands. I would focus much of my attention on sorting out the various articles and images nominated for speedy deletion by deleting those that clearly meet accepted criteria and assigning those that do not to more appropriate methods of deletion (prod or AfD) or removing those from consideration that are nominated for speedy in bad faith. I would also work to clear out prodded articles that had been tagged for the proper amount of time and close AfDs by paying careful attention to the arguments presented and to community consensus (regardless of my personal opinion). Additionally, I would assist Wikipedian photographers that want to move their images to the Commons by deleting their photos from the 'pedia once transwikification has been properly completed help out other users as needed as my skills with the mop develop over time.
Essentially, I would use my new tools with the utmost respect for the trust placed in me by the community with a pragmatic balance of caution and diligence while always placing the good of the encyclopedia above all else.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In addtion to the Idit Harel Caperton article which I worked to morph from a boderline promotional piece to a "Good Article," I have worked on several other articles and topics on Wikipedia. I have used my time as a Wikipedian to bring balance and compromise to the article on Robert Byrd, expand upon issues related to the hot dog, enhance and create, in a neutral manner, various articles related to West Virginia, and keep an eye out for vandalism to the 400 or so pages on my watchlist. I have also taken several pictures for the encyclopedia (some good, some utilitarian) in an effort to bring visual context to several articles, especially those dealing with a geographic feature or location.


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: That is how I met CrazyRussian! A few months back we butted heads over some AfDs regarding shopping malls. After our various sparring sessions, we developed a mutual respect and admiration (if not universal agreement) that has improved the quality of my work on Wikipedia. This and other instances of contention has taught me that these disagreements, when handled in a respectful and constructive manner, allow for excellent opportunities for networking, consensus building, and personal growth to the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.

Totally optional question from Konstable (talk · contribs)

4. Under which circumstances would you consider putting an indefinite block on a user who is not new but is not really well established either (say someone who's been here for a month or so)?
Excellent question. I would only take such extreme actions (especially early in my career as a sysop) under specific circumstances where the user was putting the safety, welfare, or career of another editor in peril. I would immediately report my actions and the reasons for said block to Arbcom and Jimbo, as policy dictates. I would want any such action to be completely transparent and open to oversite and, if neccesary, being overturned.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ahh, good ol' IAR. One of the most important lessons that an intermediate Wikipedian learns is that while policy and process are important, we must not be slaves to rigid dogma. I've always been a firm believer in the power of common sense, so IAR can and should be used in cases where it is a "no-brainer." For example, I argued that the article on Dixie Chili and Deli should be kept, even though it might not have lived up to WP:CORP in its purest reading. However, I believed that the article should be kept as it dealt with an important part of the social fabric of Cincinnati and the city's popular and unique variation of chili. But when the policy is used, the user (especially if they are an admin) must know exactly what they are ignoring and why such circumvention is necessary and proper in case they are called ot explain their actions. In other words, know what your doing before you do it (or, as the case may be, don't do it or do something else).
As for the snowball clause, I think it is an important read for any Wikipedian. I think a great example of its use on AfD is a speedy keep (although I am not sure that I would directly cite it as a reason for closing an AfD as such). I would be less-inclined to include it in my reasoning for issues that would remove content from Wikipedia. With speedy deletes, for example, I'd be more likely to look for user's making a case for one of the CSDs for a speedy delete than a mound of consensus. In those cases, I'd be more inclined to let it be for the five days, unless a compelling reason to delete sooner was given by one or more users.
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the word "punitive." If by punitive, you mean blocks for disrupting Wikipedia as listed in the above link (3RR, vandalizing the bio of a living person in a manner that can harm Wikipedia, etc), yes. Punitive blocks are at times appropriate. (note: I see that is a matter of semantics, these blocks are defined not as "punitive", but rather "protective." I, however, stand by my contentions of when blocks are and are not appropriate, just not by my original understanding of the use of the word). I am, however, less inclined to block for what amounts to basic crankiness or what some might call incivility. As long as a user is not making threats or character assassinations, it is not appropriate to block because someone is just being a "big meanie." For example, there is a user who edits the Robert Byrd article that is very intelligent, very opinionated, and very strong-willed. He or she is prone to not using pleasantries and demanding that those that differ in their opinions use quality sources and logic to back up their beliefs on how the article should be structured. Basically, if you cannot deal with smart people that disagree with you and aren't always nice about it, then you are in for a big shock in the real world. That being said, if their comments devolve into personal attacks against the other user, threats, or other disruptive behavior, then punitiveprotective blocks are in order. But as far as mediating these sorts of disputes, the role of an admin should focus more on enforcement of RfCs and Arbcom judgements as opposed to riding into a conflict like an Old West sheriff with his posse.
Update: Based on the use of the word "punitive" on the blocking policy page, the correct answer is simply "no."
7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A: After reading G11 carefully, I feel that it would be best used to delete an article only in the case where said article was written about a company that by no stretch of the imagination merited an article in Wikipedia AND the article itself was written in a manner that made it appear to be someone using Wikipedia as free webspace to promotoe their product or service. In other cases, prod or AfD should be used.


General comments

Youngamerican's editcount summary stats as of 04:54, October 27 2006, using Wanabee Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support Smart, effective, and overal great user. Crz summed it up quite well. Yanksox 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong nominator support - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wow, someone who wants to be an admin and has experience in the areas they want to help out in as an admin? That is something you don't see every day.--Andeh 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mike | Trick or Treat 03:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support should have been done a looong time ago. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seems unlikely to abuse the tools - PStrait
  7. Strong Support despite the crazy nomination. Youngamerican appears to be an excellent user who is certainly to be trusted with the buttons given his longstanding experience and dedication to volunteering for the project hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems a level-headed editor with many effective contributions; unlikely to abuse the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose nom is crazySupport! Can't think of any reason to doubt that Youngamerican will be a fine admin. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and they've demonstrated willingness to accept mistakes in a friendly, mature way, which gets a major tick from me. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a he, DD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support per excellent nom. Rama's arrow 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support balanced and fair Wikipedian. I have come across him a number of times.--Alex 08:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, mainly because I like your answers to the questions. Image-knowledgeable admins are very helpful. Grandmasterka 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Crazy Young Russian-American Support Per nom and his good standing with wikipedia. Liked your answer to konstable's question --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good answers, definitely has experience and a good endorsement from a crazy Russian!--Konst.ableTalk 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Jusjih 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Alex (Talk) 10:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per my User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. Enjoyed reading talk pages.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support 0L1 Talk Contribs 13:24 27 10 2006 (UTC)
  19. Pepsidrinka supports. 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support I offered to nominate this user some time back, but he refused the nomination. I am glad he accepted this nomination now. On top of this, this user is the one who welcomed me to this project way back in January 2006! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, excellent candidate that will help out a lot. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Excellent candidate, I have seen him around and he makes wonderful contributions. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom, answers, comments above - good user with no issues. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support; an excellent editor, likely to be an excellent admin as well. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support easy enough. Teke (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support easily based on a convincing nomination, persuasive replies to the questions and a solid record. Sandstein 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Very good user, deserves the tools. Hello32020 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support.  Grue  22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. End-of-cold-war Support. Seriously though, some of the best answers I've read on RfA. Irongargoyle 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A consistently responsible and thoughtful contributor, in my experience. Malepheasant 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per all of the above. Khoikhoi 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support very persuasive nom, thoughtful and experience contributor.-- danntm T C 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--MONGO 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Impressed by his answer of Q4 (I would fall into that catergory ;)), plus seems to have a good record Qaanaaq 11:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, great guy, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Youngsupport ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Great user, who will make a great admin. Nishkid64 19:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per the answers  Doctor Bruno  23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, of course. Someone's got to explain West Virginia to us.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per... everyone! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support; I've seen great work from Youngamerican at AfD and various political articles. --Allen 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support seen him around, will mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Seems like a sensible and experienced editor, don't see any issues. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Roombas? All I got was a toaster! How times have changed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Upon review of this user's work I feel comfortable echoing what everyone else is saying. Congratulations!--Caliga10 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. DarthVader 11:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. John254 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support; everything looks good here, and he should be an excellent admin. (The easter eggs were pretty, and the nominator owes me five bucks ... just kidding ... used to live around there.) Antandrus (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support T REXspeak 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Consensus says so.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Ctizens, please "!Vote".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Let's make happy some guy on the edge of the world, in West Virginia. - Darwinek 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support. Pleasure to deal with. Brings a sense of fun and humor to WP (which is very much needed). Armed with a Roomba —he probably has a Flowbee in that gunbelt too. I'm MJCdetroit, and I approved this message. 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per above --Steve 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yea, I guess Jaranda wat's sup 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Excellent user, will be a fine admin. gidonb 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per nom. --A. B. 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Great Candidate Support – Yes sir! JungleCat talk/contrib 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. By this point, a completely unnecessary support. Everything I wanted to say has already been said - damn! :) riana_dzasta 13:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- Tawker 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, seen YA around a lot, my impression is overwhelmingly favourable. Guy 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support looks like a very good candidate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Answered all the questions perfectly. NauticaShades 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support As per looking at this user's history, I think its a spot on choice.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/Youngamerican&oldid=1147968953"