Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrew Yong

Andrew Yong[edit]

I was struck today by the fabulous work at Penang Hokkien, but also recall his various informative edits. Check his work. -- Kaihsu 20:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Awaiting acceptance from Andrew.

Support

Kaihsu
Jia ng 22:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1500 edits is enough, considering the quality of his work.[reply]
Been here since August and made over 1450 edits. GrazingshipIV 23:36, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC), nice stuff on Penang. I remember clearly from last year. --Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
Jiang likes him. And I like people named Yong. Support. (Whimsy, thy name is jengod.) :) jengod 20:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looked at his edits and realized that Wikipedia could use someone like this.--Beelzebubs 00:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Danny 02:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
172 03:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Users who stay out of trouble are exactly the people we want as admins. moink 17:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado 00:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC) - 1400+ edits and 9 months is more than I had when I made admin. Support.[reply]
Andrew has done a lot of good work on Mahathir bin Mohamad and other Malaysian topics. -- Viajero 21:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Far too few edits thus far for me to determine how he responds to different situations. Kingturtle 22:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

With respect -- Wikipedia is no bootcamp and not all topics are controversial; those who go for non-controversial articles should not be discriminated. Just curious, how many do you (y'all) think is 'enough'? (I set a soft threshold of 1000.) -- Kaihsu 22:23, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
He's repeatedly stated a 3000 edit minimum, which I think is too high--it would have taken me years to get there if I wasn't currently unemployed (I've been spending 6-10 hrs/day on WP since March). Niteowlneils 20:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My wonder is why you bother to go through with voting on this basis, when it's fairly clear that you're the only person who feels this way, and that voting on this basis is never ever going to affect if someone gets Adminship? I mean, I understand your argument (although I respectfully disagree), but what's the point of the forlorn stand on the RfA page? Wouldn't it make more sense to work to get some kind of official standard set? john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not true--rather, it will only have an impact on controversial nominations like User:Cecropia. I disagree with it and wish you wouldn't, though you're of course within your rights. Meelar 01:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I set the bar high. IMHO, to be an admin one must have a lot of experience using wikipedia and a lot of experience interacting with the community. I support those I feel are ready, and I oppose those I feel are not ready. Maybe gradually, in the long run, others will see why I set the bar high, and join me. Still, with that said, I also take my responsibility as a bureaucrat quite seriously; even if I oppose someone's adminship, if this peer group forms a consensus supporting an individual, I do the "paper work" to make that person an admin. Kingturtle 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful considerations. -- Kaihsu 10:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I just want to say that even though I disagree with your 3000 edit minimum idea, this is meant to be a vote, and of course you should register your objection if that is how you feel. It is by no means a "forlorn stand". Stick to your guns, I say! --Stormie 10:57, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is about voicing one's opinion, regardless how unreasonable or not. It is pointless to object to obviously competent people as admins to just make a point -- which is not even about the person in question really, but a separate "point" that "3000 edits is what I consider good". The issues are different and trying to stick them together confuses the issues and render them all ...pointless.
But, it's his vote. He's free to use it as a tool to rub his point in (which caused the above concerns) or abuse it or actually use it. His vote. His choice. But as a community, we have offered some gentle advices, and he can ignore it if he so desires. --Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... of course, many admins don't have 3000 edits (myself included); I had barely 1,000 when I became an admin. ugen64 21:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
I only looked at a few edits, but they didn't seem very good. anthony (see warning)

Neutral:

I like what I've seen of Andrew's work and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. However, he's stuck to fairly narrow and uncontroversial topics (not that that's a bad thing) and hasn't interjected much on content disputes or policy issues (not that that's a bad thing either, he doesn't seem to have gotten into disputes, no doubt in part because of his consistenly solid and thoughtful contributions). But I can't support because I don't see that he has the experience implementing Wikipedia policy in the cases where admin power is applicable, and, additionally, because I don't believe that we need him as an admin.

He certainly wouldn't do any harm as an admin, and I think that Andrew's continued work should be encouraged and praised -- but that said, I don't believe that we should grant admin status simply because we like someone or because they've done good work or because they've been around for a while. We should elect people admin because we expect that they will use their admin powers to substantively improve the project. I don't see Andrew using admin powers much, and therefore I don't see a need to support him. -- Seth Ilys 06:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with the tenor of that. We need admins (surely). Admin powers should go to solid contributors. Really, it would be a bad idea if anyone who wanted to be an admin thought profile-raising was required. Charles Matthews 09:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]