Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yaris678

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

Final: (93/1/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 18:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris678 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it's been a while since I've nominated anyone here, so I'm very pleased to have such an excellent candidate to present. Yaris is a generally uncontroversial, gnome-y type of person. He's been with us since the middle of 2008 and editing consistently ever since. The main thrust of his editing is in anti-vandalism, but he's a mathematician by training, which gives him quite an analytical outlook. In other words, he's not just a button-masher, he can also exercise intelligent judgement. Yaris would like to help out by blocking the occasional vandal and, once he's got some experience, perhaps evaluating consensus in RfCs and other areas.

All in all, I think Yaris is exactly the type of admin we need—somebody humble, sensible, and with excellent judgement. You won't see him rushing in headlong and making a mess of things, but rather taking the time to quietly and carefully evaluate things and make the best decision possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yaris678 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Because of my anti-vandal work, it would probably mostly be blocking vandals and protecting pages. I think I would be good at judging whether or not a page needs protecting and what type of protection to use. I feel very familiar with the protection policy because I followed the discussions on the use of pending changes closely. I also think I would be good at determining consensus in RfCs.

Requested addition: I created most of the summary of the discussion that can be seen at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. I think this shows that I am good at following and summarising a large discussion, which is essential for determining consensus. In addition to all this experience with PC, when considering whether I can apply protection policy, you could consider my contributions to Template:Pending changes table which shows some of the protections available, what their effects are and when they are appropriate. Yaris678 (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am most proud of when I have dug into an article's history and recovered content that was lost. The content was usually lost because of vandalism that wasn't spotted at the time... Although sometimes a good-faith but inexperienced edit is the cause. Here are some examples: Music of India Theodor Schwann Entrepreneurship Forbesganj

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've had a few difficulties. The most recent example is Talk:Algebra#Recent changes to the lead. In this case I tried to discuss the different versions of the text we were talking about, but we seemed to be talking past each other. I don't really know how that happened. A third opinion was sought and received. I still felt that something was being missed... but I couldn't put my finger on it. One theory I had was that we were all aiming towards a similar article but we had different ideas about what would be best in the interim. Anyway, I was clearly outnumbered so I thought I should just drop it and find something less contentious to edit.

In future, I will continue to try to do the following things to reduce conflict:

1. If I'm considering an action that might be contentious I will discuss it in advance in an appropriate forum. Getting consensus is often easier before something has happened.
2. When conflicts do happen, I try to take a step back and try to understand what the other editor is getting at.
3. When an editor is being uncivil, I don't respond in kind. I try to stick to the subject at hand.
4. If I have to point out that another editor is being uncivil, I try to do it tactfully... but normally is is easier to let it wash over me or let third parties point it out.

Additional question from Minorview

4.What's the point of banning people when they can just make new accounts? Minorview (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, either temporarily or indefinitely. Users who get banned obviously care about their reputation enough to have gone through a dispute resolution process, rather than just walk away from the account. I can't say much more because this isn't an area I have thought much about.

Are you actually referring to blocking? That is something I have thought more about so I can give you my opinion if you are interested.

Yaris678 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking about banning. Users can be banned without formal dispute-resolution, and certainly without initiating it. Minorview (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. I can't say I've got much of an opinion on banning. Yaris678 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this question a bit... weird. Banned users will get all their accounts blocked, and new discovered accounts will also be blocked, per the banning policy, since the ban applies to the person. Though, I find to grasp why, as framed, the question is important to this request. I'd understand a general question about the banning policy and how it is handled, or the weaknesses in the policy, but the current question is a bit too difficult to answer without being ambiguous. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is slightly worded weirdly, but it shows that the candidate doesn't understand the difference between blocks and bans fully. buffbills7701 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, banned accounts are usually blocked, but that's beside the point. Maybe we should ask Yaris678 about bans and blocks? — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the lack of understanding. The stated purposed of banning is to prevent that person from editing. But, it doesn't prevent anyone from editing. So, what actual purpose does it serve? Minorview (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question and comment seems to suggest you lack the most basic understanding of what WP:SPI does. Bans work quite well, but at times the sockpuppetry needs to be addressed. So what? Have you ever participated at SPI? I share the candidate's bafflement at what you want him to say, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that this editor is no stranger to ANI or SPI and has himself been blocked. So this would seem to be a form of WP:POINT or forum shopping about his own ability to avoid a block via socking, rather than a valid question that requires any sort of answer at this RFA. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

5. What is your view of Process is important?

A: Process is a tool. If we have a common process, it is easier for us all to understand what is going on and see what needs to be done next. People often make mistakes with a process, especially if they are new to it. It is important not to bite these people. WP:BITE has the handy reminder “in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers.” and we could easily say “such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope or using a process we are unfamiliar with”. For some mistakes of process, the best response is to just correct it with an explanation in the edit summary. For more complicated mistakes a fuller explanation is required, especially if there is a danger of someone not realising why the correction was made. Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 How strictly should the literal wording of the WP:CSD be applied?

A: It is definitely worth seeing if there is potential for a decent article to be created. The criteria most prone to a mistake in this area are those relating to indication of importance. (A7 and A9). See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/July-September#Ria van Dyke Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: I think I’d be pretty good at it. I can analyse a situation and be civil with all parties and encourage them all to be civil with each other. I have some experience of giving third opinions through WP:3O, but this was several years ago. Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Go Phightins!

8. Hi, and thanks for volunteering to be an admin. I wanted to give you an opportunity to alleviate potential kerfuffle that might ensue from your answer above regarding banning. What is a situation in which a ban might be better than a block?

A: To determine if a ban is better than a block, one could consider the differences listed below (in answer to question 9) and which is more appropriate of the two options. This can not be determined by an admin alone. An exception is discretionary sanctions, which can be applied by a lone admin, but these relate to page bans and topic bans, rather than site bans. For example, if an editor was being disruptive on the subject of India and Pakistan, and continued despite warnings, it may be appropriate to apply a topic ban. Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9: What is the difference between an indef Block and a Ban ?

A: A ban is stiffer than a block for three reasons:

• A single, un-involved admin can block or unblock a user. Bans can only be overturned by consensus or by a decision of the arbitration committee.
• A ban covers talk pages. A block (usually) does not.
• A ban-evading sock can expect all edits to be reverted, as per Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. A block-evading sock may get all edits reverted, but that would be because of their content, rather than because of the contributor.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Epicgenius

10. Do you think that indef blocked users should have their user rights removed?

A: I've never thought about this question before but I can see that it could be contentious. If the community came to a consensus on this it would be great... although I can see that might be difficult. Yaris678 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-urgent additional question from Newyorkbrad

11. I saw the ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }}$ userbox on your userpage. Why are you always the negative one?

A: You're right! I should use ${\displaystyle e^{2i\pi }}$. That's the positive one.

To non-mathematicians, I can only apologise for the in-joke.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Tucoxn

12. It seems evident from your response to question one and your level of work at Articles for Deletion and content creation that you would likely stay away from administrative tasks in those two areas. Could you please respond to that statement and detail why you would be good at page protection and determining consensus in Requests for Comment? Provide examples of your experience to back up your responses. Thanks!

A: Answer to question 1 expanded as requested.

I agree that content creation has not been my main focus. I agree that I haven't created many new articles, but I have expanded a few, such as Joan Clarke. I've also expanded a few older articles. For example I created the "Definitions" section of Colonialism in 2009 and it has hardly changes since, in contrast to the rest of this article on a contentious subject. Yaris678 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Yaris678: Yaris678 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Yaris678 can be found here.
• Edit count statistics for Yaris678 (talk · contribs) can be found on the talk page. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• @Minorview: Nowhere in Wikipedia:Banning policy does it state that the purpose of a (site) ban is to prevent a person from editing. If I had to guess at it, I'd say that the purpose of a ban is to minimise the disruptive effect of a person's behaviour on the project. Although, as you correctly surmise, it clearly cannot prevent every edit from a person who is determined to circumvent the measures put in place to enforce the ban (i.e. the block). If you ask a candidate a question based on an inaccurate premise, it's quite possible that you will cause confusion, don't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - I'll go with Harry's recommendation. Deb (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I don't see any issues while reviewing the user's actions. Seems pretty level headed and able to handle the mop. --AdmrBoltz 18:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - know Yaris well. -- KTC (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I have seen the candidate around quite a lot and have found no issues. Widr (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I've been looking over the history and seems like a good addition to the mop squad. Level headed approach to dealing with vandals - it's easy to bite and Yaris seems to take a very level approach with people. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yaris has plenty of experience in maintenance areas, and I think Wikipedia would benefit from having him as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I didn't see any glaring concerns, good luck! smithers - talk 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yaris looks like a good candidate, in my view. Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support: Admins are not created fully-formed, but learn and grow into the role. It's clear from Yaris' contributions and temperament that he is thoughful and will take on admin jobs carefully as he gains confidence. I have also had the opportunity to observe him in real life, teaching newcomers to edit Wikipedia. Having seen how he quickly learns from his experience, I have no doubts that he'll make a fine, uncontroversial admin. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support: I know that Yaris will undoubtedly make an excellent admin. His contributions are solid, his temperament is relaxed and drama-free, and I've witnessed his passion for teaching and Wikimedia outreach. Julia\^talk 22:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I have yet to interact with the candidate, but I trust the nominator as well as some of the users supporting above. Also, net positive and all that jazz; nothing to be worried about as far as I know. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 22:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No concerns. benmoore 22:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support trusting RexxS who met him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16.  – iridescent 2 22:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per RexxS. Having also met Yaris in person several times, I know that he is a great candidate. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support no concerns. --Stfg (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Dan653 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support --JamesMoose (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support why not? --Guerillero | My Talk 01:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Thoughtful user with a good reputation on Wikipedia. The user's edit count may be low, however the user does great work on Wikipedia maintenance and content fixing. It's all about quality not quantity. I'm pretty sure Yaris will be a great administrator, especially dealing with the vandals.///EuroCarGT 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support -- No concerns. And although the answer to Q4 is not optimal, it was an unclear question and not a good one for RfA IMHO. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support It's been a while since I've commented at RfA, but I've met Yaris a number of times and can confirm that he is one of the most sensible, level headed and interesting people (let alone Wikipedians) that I've met. I have utmost confidence in his abilities to be an administrator. Worm^TT(talk) 08:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Yaris is a great editor with sufficient experience to use the tools (or the mop?). I reviewed question 4 and saw that he may not clearly see the diffs between a ban and a block, which is crucial to vandalism. However, his work has been great and I believe he can contribute well to the community. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - No major concerns... Although I recommend becoming a little more familiar with the banning and blocking policies; almost all of us end up in that arena eventually. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per nom. INeverCry 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. The candidate has sucked up to the questioners enough by now. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support No concerns and seems to be a great editor with lots of experience. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Initially reticent, but now a fairly resounding support I think he has handled the subsequent block/ban questions (eight and nine) pretty well, and seems to have an appropriate demeanor for an administrator, although I am a little concerned by part of question three. While walking away from a contentious issue is an option, sometimes, I think problems arise when administrators and good faith contributors (i.e. this candidate) walk away from contentious issues, leaving only drama-mongers, POV pushers, and a general free-for-all. (Note: Not commenting on the specific situation he mentioned, just in general.) My qualms are eased, however, by his four steps later in the response, and by the fact that his conclusion to walk away and find something less contentious to edit was for that article in particular ... anyone wanting to close RfCs is going to see drama from time-to-time, and walking away is not a good option. I am glad to know this candidate will not. Go Phightins! 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - No concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - Nothing but positive collaborations. West.andrew.g (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Looking fine.--Razionale (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Excellent editor. Made many valuable edits especially to aid development of the STiki antivandalism tool. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I was awaiting the full edit count and now that it's up this editor meets my RfA standards. Mkdw^talk 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support See this talk and its archives you'll get to know why. Soham 08:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Never had interaction with the user and support only per nom. But seems to be good. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Good contributions. Appropriate warnings to vandals. Lacking a little in content creation, but good enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Trusted nom, good answers to questions (including Q4, which sure looked like trolling to me). Miniapolis 14:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, a solid admin candidate, plus it's a pleasure to support a fellow mathematician. Nsk92 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Secret ^account 17:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Per RexxS and many others I trust. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Stephen 01:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Good enough for me. StevenD99 ^{Contribs Sign} 05:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support After looking, I couldn't find a reason to oppose; in fact I found quality. — ChedZILLA 10:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I have occasionally encountered this user and their judgment is good. I suspect that more experience at WP:ANI would be useful because it's easier to pick up approaches that are generally expected there, and would help next time Q4 arises, but the demonstrated cautious approach indicates there is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support For the most part administration is different from content building. Everyone is a volunteer here and has their own strengths and weaknesses, but just because an editor does not contribute in a particular way it doesn't mean that they cannot be a good admin. Everyone contributes in different ways and in their own style and so what we should be doing is encouraging the best ways in which people can happily contribute. One of the most important factors in being a sysop is trust. So, can we trust this person to use the tools sensibly and for the betterment of Wikipedia ? I believe yes there is a purpose and it will obviously be a net benefit for the encyclopedia as Yaris has that trust, knowledge and experience to do that job. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Impressed by a lot of things, including User:Yaris678#Conflict of interest. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support The candidate shows the right spirit at neglected topics such as SMART criteria. And I like his idea for a DiffDeck. Andrew (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support --Rzuwig^► 20:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Good candidate, good experience, no issues. TheOverflow (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support but I am not satisfied with the candidate's content creation and other prose contributions to articles. I understand there's more to this encyclopedia than writing its articles but I hope Yaris678 tries researching and writing a new article that starts as more than a stub or disambiguation page (discounting his well documented COI on Bright Club). Try writing another short did you know nomination (in addition to the one on Melvin Tumin) or making a serious copyedit to some articles with the Guild of Copy Editors. I understand this editor's strengths but I believe some strong article contributions should be part of an administrator candidate's portfolio. Hopefully the candidate takes some advice to grow from this constructive criticism. - tucoxn\^talk 23:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I'm happy to support this RfA, because I've worked directly with Yaris in some content discussions about animals in scientific research, and I've seen first hand that they are able to deal intelligently and fairly with disagreements about content. That direct observation makes me discount the concerns that have been expressed about content experience (also Wikipedia has gotten to the point where creation of new pages is no longer as important as improvement of existing pages). As for the block/ban thing, I trust Yaris will read the applicable policy pages, but let's not play gotcha with the way a candidate said something. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. It has all been said. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I remember that it was pleasant working with them on the PC RfC, even though it was a controversial topic at the time. I don't see any reason why Yaris shouldn't be trusted with a few extra tools. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support – I am satisfied with the answers to the questions and think he would make a great admin. United States Man (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per the several dozen supporters above. My thanks to the candidate for their service to the project to date, and in the future. Jusdafax 03:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support As per HJ Mitchell and feel the project only gains with the user having tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I think Yaris will use the admin tools wisely and carefully as s/her gradually gains more admin experience. We can't expect admin candidates to know everything about being an admin before they've obtained the tools. HalfGig talk 12:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I seem to remember the instructions for RfA being confusing - I did manage to transclude mine but couldn't tell you how by now. I've not seen Yaris about much, but their answers look OK to me, and the Inquisition doesn't seem to have uncovered any major sins yet. Or minor ones, either, come to that... Peridon (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Trusted user, will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Good candidate. --John (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Per nomination, demeanor, contributions and answers to questions (at least one of which was unduly confusing). Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Good editor by contributions. Although I haven't interacted with him; it seems he is civil, and is understanding of the policies here. So +1 and Like from my side. Ethically^Yours! 08:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. Strong candidate. Good answers to the questions, and I am impressed with I created most of the summary of the discussion that can be seen at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. I think this shows that I am good at following and summarising a large discussion, which is essential for determining consensus. (in question 1). Complex RfCs require careful closers who are willing to explain their thoughts in detail. Based on Yaris678's analytical background and his work at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, I am confident that he would be able to do this well. Cunard (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: What can I say, the list at Question 3 shows he seems to have the capability and willingness to make progress and learn, and then there's the maths joke at Question 11 showing he has a sense of humour. I don't think I could answer Question 4 to the way that was being looked for (it seems like more of a question for someone that handles the account creation interface) so I'm saying nothing on that front. This guy seems to be willing to progress, learn and most importantly help, and for that I think he's worth it. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. Wizardman 15:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support I see no reason not to.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Good candidate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
76. Support. Welcome aboard! -- œ^™ 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support I have had interactions with this user on a few occasions over the years and always found the tone, tenor and professionalism of the conversations to be outstanding. Yaris clearly understands the importance of admin work, and despite the ongoing Inquisition of potential admins (a major reason I'm not here as often as I used to be), I wanted to add my voice in support. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support pile on support. 10 points extra credit for the math joke. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Should do fine with the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Why not? Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support about Q:#4 He can learn, about edit? does it even matter?-->AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support: a great candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Aamuizz (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support per HJ Mitchell's nomination - of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support due to there apparently being no major concerns, so WP:DEAL. (Apologies for not having found time to undertake a more extensive evaluation.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. Can I use my mobile account to support? Because I do not want to switch on my computer at this time. Though I don't know Yaris678 that well, but I think he will be a good admin. JianhuiMobile ^talk 14:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support While I am a bit concerend by the answers to Q4 and Q9, and I think Yaris678 should review WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, the answers to the other questions, comments by others here and a review of the candidates contribution record convinces me to support. Good luck with the mop, as this looks likely to pass. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
90. H.J. Mitchell pretty much hit the nail on the head in the nomination. I've had a look at Yaris678's edits, which indicate consistent and solid involvement for nearly six years, his talk page archives going back to August 2012, which indicate a level-headedness and a willingness to collaborate, and his answers to the questions here. I particularly liked answer three. I've looked through some of the concerns expressed here and, while I encourage Yaris to read them carefully (which I'm sure he will), I'm convinced Yaris will be a net positive and I'm happy to offer my support. We're always in need of more gnomish admins. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Earned trust over a long period of time and will use the mop 'n' bucket responsibly. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 15:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
92. I was hoping to be #100, but we're no there yet and this is due for closure soon, so I'll stick my support on now, not that you need it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support: I have had a little contact with Yaris, but what I have seen, and the support of editors I respect, and the above reasons leads me to support. Matty.007 18:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry but not being able to properly transclude your own RFA is a turn off for me. Although that may seem petty to some, admins need to be technically capable as well as just be level headed and they need to have attention to detail. They have access to a lot of pages and templates that can, even if only temporarily, lead to a lot of problems. I can't support someone for adminship unless they are well rounded enough to use all the tools, not just one or two. Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's how you want to change RfA? Right. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yaris has also been helpful and shown technical ability in the past by working with the developer of STiki with bugs and requested modifications to the program. Kindly Calmer Waters 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calmer Waters:. That may well be so, and looking at the editors history I see experience in a wide array of tasks. But when an editor cannot even transclude their RFA correctly (which in fairness happens fairly frequently due to the confusing and complicated nature of the wording in the template), it presents to me a sign that they aren't ready. Its not a trust thing, its just a matter of experience and ability.

@Hahc21:. I posted a comment on your talk pahe top prevent this discussion from a pointless tangent which happens to much on these RFA's as it is. Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the very worst oppose rationale on an RfA in recent memory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete it Brad, I don't really care its not like anyone really cares what I post anyway. Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I do care what you have to say and I think it's not unimportant to state that the failure to transclude it because it could point to a lack of knowledge. Of course, if there is enough indication for a lack of knowledge is another question. Just please don't feel discouraged to state your opinion and observations like that because scrutiny is an important part of the process.--Razionale (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important, Kumioko, that you present your concerns. It is a help to any potential admin to have areas highlighted where they may be lacking in knowledge. If it were the case that Yaris was uncomfortable with templates, then he should appreciate you raising the issue. Of course, it could just be that transcluding an RfA properly is a fiddly business and is inherently error-prone. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I had 2 Arbs both badger my oppose until I removed it so that should speak for itself about the system. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Anybody who lists this [[1]] as one of their best contributions to Wikipedia has not made enough contributions. The candidate doesn't seem sufficiently experienced, either in building an encyclopedia or handling disputes. His answer to the question about the rights of indef blocked users was virtually devoid of content. A new admin needs to be somewhat ready to do more than "block the occasional vandal" This is like hiring a police officer to issue the occasional traffic ticket. More experience in the trenches, please. Minorview (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I largely agree with the content-creation part of Minorview's !vote. I will add that of the five articles they've created in all their time (!), one is a disambiguation page, two are stubs, and another one is an unreferenced stub (and the other article isn't too substantial). The only major content edit I see in the past couple years is from yesterday. I find it strange that a few weeks ago people were concerned about content creation but now they aren't. --Jakob (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to neutral. --Jakob (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, from what I take from the answer to his questions, it seems evident that Yaris is going to use the bit to aid in page protections and anti-vandalism topics. I'm struggling to see how content creation essentially relates to those two areas of work, thus I'm confused why you're opposing for a lack of content creation. smithers - talk 03:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Smithers -- Content creation is not essential, but very helpful, when evaluating other users's contributions, among them vandalism. Lack of content creation is a long-standing, and generally accepted, rationale to oppose. No need to question the voter.

@ Jacob -- Whether the voters are concerned about lack of content creation or not, depends on the candidate under scrutiny, and has IMO nothing to do with any particular time of the year. In Yaris's case, nobody has come forward, so far, to complain about his reverts (of which consist many of his contributions) and that apparently substitutes content creation when it comes to show understanding of editing guidelines. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakob: A few weeks ago I opposed one or two for lack of contribution to content, other than mechanical reversion of obvious vandalism. But content creation means more than just creating new articles: it includes expanding articles and adding references. More generally, contributing to content includes all sorts of cleanup as well. In this candidate I see enough well-judged contribution to mainspace. In those earlier ones, I didn't. No inconsistency. --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Moved to Support. Awaiting the edit count summary but so far this candidate looks solid. Mkdw^talk 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral You seem like a great editor, but your answer to #4 scares me a little. buffbills7701 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   @Buffbills7701: The way I read it, Yaris does understand the difference between bans and blocks, but was unsure if the person asking the question was talking about bans or blocks (since the question could easily be interpreted both ways, and the terms are often used interchangeably). Yaris started out stating exactly what a ban was ("A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, either temporarily or indefinitely...") a pretty good definition if you ask me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Interested in seeing the answers to questions 5-9, but likely a support. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to support. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Moved to neutral per the replies to my oppose !vote. --Jakob (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2014 (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.