Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yuser31415 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Yuser31415[edit]

Final (6/28/2); Ended Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:01:45 (UTC)

Yuser31415 (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I nominate User:Yuser31415 for adminship. This user previously nominated himself (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yuser31415) but the nomination was closed early due to a lack of support. I am confident that in the past three months Yuser has garnered more experience, which was the main reason for opposal of his previous RfA.

Yuser is a helpful, kind and polite Wikipedian, and I believe the community as a whole can only benefit from granting him the admin tools. He is a model Wikipedian, always helping other and assuming good faith when it is sensible to do so. I have a few users who use me as a first point of call when requiring assistance, and he has helped me answer questions and deal with those users when I was unable to answer the questions myself. He frequently closes AfDs that are keeps, and very rarely has anyone disagreed with his closure. He has 3953 edits (according to this, which apparently is 34 days and 22 hours out of date).

In summary, please consider giving Yuser31415 adminship, as I believe he will not misuse the tools, and I think he is experienced enough to know how and when to use them appropriately. Deskana (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With respect and gratitude, I accept the nomination. Yuser31415 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last RfA, I feel I have improved in a number of areas (oh, bother, I hate showing off, so I'll try to make this short):

  • Much more participation in admin-related backlogs and pages.
  • More experience in dealing with conflict.
  • More knowledge of policy, guidelines, et cetera.
  • My writing style has improved (in my opinion, anyway - it's up to you to decide).
  • My Wikipedia e-mail address is now enabled. Feel free to drop me a line.
  • My signature is now a miniature 24 characters long; "''[[User:Yuser31415|]]''".

If anyone has got any questions, please feel free to ask them. I request one thing, however: Please don't argue too much with each other; this is a RfA, not a RfAr. If you have disagreements over a matter regarding this RfA unrelated to myself, please continue your discussion between your own talk pages or on the talk page for this RfA in a civil and calm way - that avoids unnecessarily messing up this page.

Oh, and one more thing I might as well note. If I pass (or fail) this RfA, I'll post one thank you message on my talk page. That way, I don't have to spam what hopefully will be above one hundred talk pages to get a single point across.

May the edit be with us all, Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Due to my previous experience in the areas, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:AN would be the first on my watchlist. On the deletion side of things, I would help out at CAT:AFD, CAT:CSD, and WP:MFD; I already close unanimous 'keep' decisions in XfDs, but would like to extend to closing 'delete' and 'no consensus' results as well, helping clear the seeming rather large backlogs. The tools would also be especially useful when I recent changes patrol and new page patrol. I anticipate touching WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP in the future, but do not list them as my primary goals due to my current lack of participation in those areas. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: To be completely honest, I don't currently have any FAs or even GAs that could be attributed to my name. Occasionally I fix links to disambiguation pages, but that is fairly minor work, most of the time. I'd say the participation I enjoy the most is helping other contributors to the project, and making their job easier, by removing spam, reverting vandalism, clearing backlogs, helping and helping more, and welcoming new users to the project. In my opinion these contributions are a small drip in a vast sea, but I believe they help Wikipedia in an (albeit minor) manner. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I can think of only one instance that made me really stressed. I believe it was regarding WeniWidiWiki's userpage - the content of which criticized IP editors, and I believed it violated all the guidelines and policies in the book including WP:ATK, WP:NPOV, WP:BOLD, WP:BITE, m:Non discrimination policy, et cetera. A minor edit war ensued, including myself, WeniWidiWiki, and a couple of administrators. The matter was brought up on ANI, and discussion quickly shifted to debate over my actions - I ended up archiving the incident listing, which was the wrong thing to do - I shouldn't have closed a discussion, even an off-topic one, regarding my own behavior. Quite a bit of stress followed after, but that is entirely gone by now and I've since apologized to WeniWidiWiki for acting in haste. I very much object to pages whose sole purpose is to disparage, and hence I've been in an edit war over both CroDome's userpage (in this case the userpage was attacking Serbs, and the issue was not particularly stressful, since I knew I was doing the correct thing) and another attack subpage, the name of which I cannot recall, although both it and CroDome's userpage were speedily deleted per CSD G10. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs)

This is a listing of questions I see asked most often on RfAs. I might as well answer them now and get them over and done with. Of course, I've probably forgotten a few - feel free to ask any you feel would be appropriate. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q: (ST47's question somewhat.) You've been here for nearly five months and have devoted much of your free time to the project. What motivates you to continue editing here in light of the fact you receive little or no reward for your work?
A: There would be, perhaps, two things that motivate me. The first is collaboration and the enjoyable side of working here with others; and the second would be that I, personally, believe Wikipedia is a great informational resource that I, myself, can help, even if in a small way. I think that's what draws many people to the project - they are enticed by the fact that practically anyone can edit practically any page, and they wish to try out and continue the process. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: How do you interpret, use, and cite WP:IAR and WP:SNOW?
A: I have written a small essay on IAR here. Contrary to what many new contributors can appear to think, IAR is not a catch-all for all things done wrong, nor is it a reason to enforce a personal opinion, ie., citing IAR as an excuse for an edit war is inappropriate, since obviously two people's definitions of "improving the encyclopedia" differ.
An example of an inappropriate use of IAR could be expressed in this way: Say someone uploads a copyvio image and inserts it into an article, citing IAR. The image might seriously improve the article, but could have longer term effects on the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole, possibly including a formal lawsuit brought against the Foundation by the copyright holder of the picture. Anyone would be justified in removing, and furthermore deleting, the image.
SNOW is, I believe, a derivative of IAR. If the result of a discussion is clearly apparent after a reasonable length of time, for example 24 hours, there is usually no point in letting the debate continue longer without reason - in which case, the debate may be speedily closed legitimately. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Under which circumstances would you consider blocking a user indefinitely from editing Wikipedia?
A: I would consider blocking a user indefinitely if it became apparent they had no future intention of helping or improving Wikipedia, and instead only of causing disruption and ill feeling amongst the community. As I understand, IP addresses should generally not be blocked indefinitely due to their tendency to change and rotate often, possibly causing collateral damage and much "wikidrama", and due to the fact that occasionally IPs are shared by more than one user, for example if they are assigned to a school or university. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Under which circumstances would it not be appropriate to block a user for any length of time, regardless of whether their edits helped or did not help the encyclopedia?
A: Any editor who is intending to help, or, more specifically, who is saving their edits in good faith, without knowing their contributions are in some way inappropriate, should not be blocked, but instead welcomed (if they have not been already) and directed to the appropriate medium for guidance in regards to their edits. Furthermore, an administrator in a content dispute with a user should not block that editor themselves, because of a possible conflict of interest; they should instead raise the issue with another, neutral, administrator. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Who has the authority to ban a user?
A: Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee, and administrators as decided via community consensus. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What is wheel warring, why is it bad, and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Wheel warring is an occurrence when an administrator re-executes an administrative action, without discussion or compromise, when another administrator opposes it and has, therefore, undone the original action. It is highly counterproductive due to its disruptive nature and tendency to inflame an already heated situation, especially since less experienced editors tend to look up to administrators for help and advice. If someone executes an administrative action and another administrator undoes it, the matter should be discussed politely between the two administrators until an agreement is reached. Continued wheel warring may result in an Arbitration Committee ruling, potentially resulting in bans or desysopping. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Do you object to asking candidates their age?
A: Generally, I don't mind such questions, although I previously tended to strongly oppose them (I still feel they are highly irrelevant) - as long as editors are not discriminated or disadvantaged because of their age. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: Technically speaking: I believe Wikipedia needs more administrators - we have, as far as I recall, the third lowest ratio of administrators to editors with "standard" access of all the Wikipedia projects. While I think most of us would say we have enough admins to handle the current backlogs, the backlogs are going to grow as Wikipedia increases in popularity, and the number of admins needs to grow with them.
Philosophically speaking: I think the answer to my first question sums it up, but I wish to help the project more; I am, finally, reaching the limits of my current tools. Yuser31415 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • I feel the need to provide some perspective here on one issue—I think people are way overreacting to the issue with the early oppose from Jeffpw (talk · contribs). Jeff added his oppose comment before Yuser31415 ever edited the RfA. The comment was deleted by the nominator (with the comment that it would be readded) and just after the nomination went live, was readded by Matthew (talk · contribs). Finally, Yuser struck out the oppose vote on the grounds that is was made a week before the RfA went live.
    Now first, I think the primary problem was caused by Jeffpw !voting on an unlinked, unaccepted, unedited-by-the-nominee RfA. The subsequent removal and readdition of the oppose was not done by the nominee. If this had been a support comment, then people would be complaining about prevoting before the RfA was live (if you don't think so, I can dig up several examples of where this has happened.) Yuser didn't delete the comment, or attempt to otherwise hide it, he simply struck through an inappropriately registered opinion as he should have. I think this issue has been way overblown. Unfortunately, this was a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation, and I think it unfair for people to base their oppose vote on this single issue. (My comment here is not directed at oppose comments based on other criteria, only at the pile-on opposes based on an incorrect interpretation of Yuser's action on this single issue.) —Doug Bell talk 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support without reservation, as nominator. It is time you got the tools. --Deskana (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Suport - Really Good answers and if willing to work overtime then why not,,--Cometstyles 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support without hesitation or reservation. There's the start of a sing in there, me thinks. Ah well. -- Nick t 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support this RfA looks to be at a bad start, but really, the user was bold and closed some AfDs, he's ready for the challenge. He edited a userpage but at least one admin thought that was a good idea. He says we block indef for death threats, which is true, and even if it's a joke, a block reversed or shortened by another admin in such a case would not do a great deal of damage IMO. I've seen him act like an admin, and this RfA should have some support. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I (not afraid to be in the minority) met Yuser31415 on opposite sides of a content dispute. S/he advanced her/his position strongly but continued to be civil. Yuser31415 does make mistakes -- we all do -- but s/he admits them and moves on. I believe Yuser31415 will make a positive contribution as an administrator. -- Selket Talk 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support, would have been stronger, as I like what I have seen of Yuser, but striking out someone's oppose vote in your own RFA, irrespective of when it was made, is a very silly thing to do. And it's going to cause this RFA to fail, abjectly. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support a committed user - his all-round work is quite good and reassuring when you look at his mistakes. He's done some controversial and unwise things w/o understanding of policy, but I'm impressed with his energy - he's always had the best intentions and purpose of Wikipedia in mind. I hope this RfA succeeds. Rama's arrow 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support to register appreciation for this Yuser's enthusiasm and participation (including his comments in a situation that arose my very first night as an admin). Many of the concerns raised by the opposers are valid, however, and I hope the candidate will bear them in mind going forward. Newyorkbrad 10:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. I have seen Yuser act aggressively to modify other's user pages on more than one occasion, and threaten the user when reverted. I have also seen him/her warn users who didn't archive their talk, in spite of the fact that no guidelines or policies exist requiring that. I was also concerned when s/he declined to unblock a user, thus giving the false impression that s/he was already an admin. I also wasn't happy to see him/her closing Afds which did not have clear consensus. This too, has happened more than once. I was also quite surprised that when mediating a dispute, Yuser didn't bother to read the article and take action to rectify the egregious violations of WP:BLP, where living people were actually accused of being serial killers with no sources given to support the assertions..Taken as a whole, I don't see someone who is ready to be trusted with admin tools. I don't think Yuser knows the difference between being bold and running riot. If this is what we see now, I am highly concerned at the possible problems that can ensue if Yuser were given actual power and authority. Jeffpw 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I don't want to sound argumentitive but I'd like to respond. Firstly, my failure to read the "zodiac killer" article was definitely my mistake, and I should have done better - I apologize. In the "do not edit other users' userpages" thread, I should not have acted so aggressively, and I need to apologize for that too, but I do think I was doing the correct thing as far as the issue over editing userpages was concerned. Thirdly, in the AfD matter, I was frustrated at the instruction creep surrounding the deletion process, regarding the fact non-administrators could only close absolutely non-animous debates. My apologies if I appeared to act rashly at that time. Yuser31415 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate doing this but I noticed Jeffpw had opposed this nomination seven days before I accepted it. No one but the nominator(s) may comment on an unaccepted RfA. Yuser31415 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose (with a passion after the above heinous activities[1]) - I’m sorry but I must sternly say: no. I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the Wiki to grant you sysop abilities, I do believe you are here in good faith, I have, however, seen some *very* worrying activities from you. To begin, on a personal note I’ve seen you edit my comments at RfA/B.[2] (and just as I’m about to post this I see you striking peoples comments, this is amazingly *unacceptable* [strongly emphasized], I’m almost screaming that making you a sysop would be a sincerely bad idea![3]) I also get the very worrying feeling, from the way you behave and that you believe this is a “game”. I’ve seen you culling people’s user pages under the guise of NPA before as well[4], this is simply unacceptable for a highly trusted member of the community. You’re lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia as well is, to put it bluntly: horrific, at the time of this RfA since the 20th of February you’ve made a grand total of 50 main space edits, unacceptable, maintaining integrity is a crucial role for an administrator, I’ve seen it to often where an administrator forgets what it’s like to be a user and becomes trigger happy on the block/delete/protect buttons, the fact is as well: We’re building an encyclopaedia, not playing a game of Wikipolitics 3.0. Your AfD activity also gives me something to think about, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OttoBib.com, clearly there was no straight consensus for a user to be closing that AfD. Frankly I do not trust your judgement, you show no actual needs to be a sysop, to quote your self, paraphrased: “I'll be ready to support when you have a little more experience in administrator areas and editing areas, however”. Sorry, Matthew 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Oppose. I have seen Yuser act aggressively to modify other's user pages on more than one occasion, and threaten the user when reverted. I have also seen him/her warn users who didn't archive their talk, in spite of the fact that no guidelines or policies exist requiring that. I was also concerned when s/he declined to unblock a user, thus giving the false impression that s/he was already an admin. I also wasn't happy to see him/her closing Afds which did not have clear consensus. This too, has happened more than once. I was also quite surprised that when mediating a dispute, Yuser didn't bother to read the article and take action to rectify the egregious violations of WP:BLP, where living people were actually accused of being serial killers with no sources given to support the assertions..Taken as a whole, I don't see someone who is ready to be trusted with admin tools. I don't think Yuser knows the difference between being bold and running riot. If this is what we see now, I am highly concerned at the possible problems that can ensue if Yuser were given actual power and authority. Jeffpw 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I wrote that oppose before you had accepted the nom. I saw the link on your page, followed it and saw the support, so thought the process was opened. You're certainly welcome to strike my comments on a procedural basis, but it doesn't change the thrust of them; hence my reinstatement of them here. I have to say this action makes me think you less ready for adminship than I had already thought. Jeffpw 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. While I agree that Jeffpw should not have commented on the nomination prior to it being officially, transcluded. That is not a valid excuse for the candidate to strike through the comment. This shows too much readiness to be confrontational and especially when matters of self-interest are at stake. This was a serious lapse in judgement. Johntex\talk 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per this, this and this. One Night In Hackney303 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per evidence provided by One Night In Hackney. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I dunno what to say. Golly gosh. -- Nick t 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I have serious concerns about this user's judgement based on actions in this RfA and diffs provided above. An explanation would not be sufficient, I would need to see a few months of displaying better judgement before reconsidering. ChazBeckett 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The diffs provided above are sufficient to give me pause in supporting this user at this time. I would encourage moderation and constructive criticism when commenting in the policy space, user Talk pages and edit summaries. The above diffs do supply you with a harsh voice but I realise that they have been extracted from the sum total of your contributions for evidence purposes. More experience is required. (aeropagitica) 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. Sorry. Majorly (o rly?) 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose unfortunately the diffs provided above are worrying enough to make me doubt your judgment. - Anas Talk? 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - the candidate struck out the first oppose vote on his RfA. His belligerence and arrogance are unbelievable. I spent a couple of minutes trying to decide whether I should use my own adminship to unstrike the comment, but I suppose the right thing to do is to just vote oppose and encourage others to do the same. - Richard Cavell 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's best to leave the strikeout, so others can see what he did without checking diffs. He may have gotten my support were it not for that action. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Appallingly bad behaviour with initial oppose. While Jeffpw might have been technically wrong in posting early, this is good time to practice ignoring all rules. Poor, poor judgment exercised at the worst time possible. Pigmandialogue 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think this is a flawed argument. The same would be expected of an early support, and he struck it out, not deleted it. It wasn't a matter of a few minutes early, it was a week early. —Doug Bell talk 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I grant the flaw in the argument, Doug, particularly the time frame issue. I still think it shows remarkably poor judgment in doing it himself and to an oppose comment/!vote. Just sayin'. Pigmandialogue 05:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - I started typing this as a neutral, ("conflicted", actually) but now feel I must oppose. I agree with every point Jeffpw has made above, and a month ago would have vehemently opposed this nom. However, in the past weeks I've seen Yuser calm down and back off a bit. I believed he was making an honest effort to improve. I still believe he is trying. However, the striking out of an opposing !vote (which, if you look at the history, had already been reverted by Deskana and then re-added by Matthew after the nom was official, thus nullifying the procedural concerns) was appalling, and tells me that Yuser is still too impatient for this job. I know he has energy and enthusiasm, but he is just not ready to be trusted with more power or responsibility. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. It may have been improper for Jeffpw to write an oppose prior to your acceptance of this RfA, but it is much more improper for you to strike it out yourself. There is a clear conflict of interest in doing so, and this doesn't suggest good judgement on your part. It may have been a momentary lapse in judgment, but it is a serious and very public one when it involves your own RfA. Sorry. --Kyoko 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above. Michael 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose The substance of Jeffpw's oppose worries me. Mediating a dispute without reading the article is very poor practice- where WP:BLP violations remain as result it is extremely serious. But the way in which that oppose was dealt with worries me even more. The oppose, made by accident before the nom was accepted was correctly removed by Deskana [5] and a polite note left on Jeffpw's talkape that he could restore his comment once the RfA was accepted and posted. Fine. It was then reposted by a third party [6] after Yuser accepted the nom [7]. Yuser then inappropriately decided to strike the comment and comment upon it [8]. The heavy handed approach taken to dealing with this very valid opposition seems to me to raise serious concerns as to how Yuser would conduct himself as an admin. Evidently criticism is not well received. WjBscribe 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose You've got quite a file of facts going against you, man. From the above instances, it seems you take WP:BOLD a bit too far. Cool it down and next RfA you have, I will support. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I don't think this user has the temperament to be a good admin. Zaxem 00:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Jeffpw and Kathryn NicDhàna. Too much of a risk at the moment. Will (aka Wimt) 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose as I do not believe you have a clear understanding of the boundaries of admin authority or propriety (per Kathryn NicDhàna, Jeffpw, and Matthew). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Many of this user's comments at the various noticeboards have left me with the impression that this is a person who is quick to point to rules without looking closely at the situation. Jkelly 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose in the hopes that a seconder will reinforce the importance of Jkelly's statement above, which is exactly what I came here to say. Opabinia regalis 04:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Frankly, you seem to be acting like the second-worst kind of admin (the worst get desysopped and/or community banned), and you're not even an admin yet. WP:BOLD is not a license to blindly charge at situations. --Amarkov moo! 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. The diffs provided by One Night leave me with an impression of poor judgment. I agree with the above opinions that you need to cut it down on the WP:BOLD. Sandstein 06:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I do not completely trust this user's judgement, One Night's diffs demonstrate the reason why. Rje 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Having seen the diffs, I shudder at the thought this user could become a sysop. Errabee 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - Sorry but I think I was wrong about you...--Cometstyles 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Sorry, but those diffs that are being posted are quite scary.--Wizardman 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I think Yuser acts on good faith and has improved markedly since my early interactions with him in October 2006. However, I think he needs some more time to mature as an editor. Some of the oppose comments raise valid concerns—I hope Yuser takes the feedback from this RfA positively and uses it to continue his development. I find that I cannot support at this time, although I expect to support in the future if he continues to improve. —Doug Bell talk 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Some of the points raised by opposers are valid, some less so. I've seen some quite strange comments from you at AN and ANI that, together the fuss over Jeffpw's first comment here, leave me feeling less than enthusiastic. On the whole, I prefer too much boldness to the opposite, but a little more reflection would be a good thing. Still, I see progress: just slow down a little and all will be well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:29, 16 March 2007 (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/Yuser31415_2&oldid=1079096018"