Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生

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

Yamaguchi先生

Final: (104/18/4) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 23:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Yamaguchi先生 (talk · contribs) –
Hello—

I am Yamaguchi and have been a contributor to Wikipedia, off and on, for the past ten years. I now respectfully ask the community for permission to continue my volunteer efforts in an administrative capacity.

The bulk of my time is spent performing

I am currently in the reviewer and rollbacker groups, and have relied on a combination of assistance scripts prior to becoming a member of those groups. I value feedback from new and experienced editors alike, and strive to do my best to be communicative and seek consensus when encountering a dispute or confrontation.

Thank you for your time and consideration for adminship.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: My intent would be to assist with backlogs at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and Wikipedia:Requested moves.

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

A: I am not sure how I would classify my best contributions, I strive to improve the quality of our encyclopedia with each change. In the aggregate I am satisfied with maintaining the overall project integrity.

I apologize that I do not have a better answer for this question. I consider most of my work to fall under the category of

WP:BLP

concerns.

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: When dealing with any conflict, I do my best to be patient and communicative. If a resolution cannot be found I typically will defer to another experienced editor at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

To expand upon this, conflicts may arise as a result of nominating an article for deletion, or enforcing our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, as examples. When a conflict such as this arises, I try to be communicative, firm on core policies, and considerate of how well versed they may or may not be in those policies.

One example of this might be a discussion with Atour Shmuel (talk · contribs) regarding the AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda George (Assyrian singer). [1] Another example of attempted dispute resolution can be found with Nagarukhra (talk · contribs), where a new editor was continually moving pages to undesirable locations. While this particular user was unfortunately blocked, I made attempts to communicate with this individual in my own words (over the course of 4 months) in an endeavor to explain why those changes were not constructive.

Additional questions from SilkTork

4. You come upon an AfD to close it and find all those involved, with possible signs of being canvassed, say A, with nobody saying B, yet B is the appropriate policy based option. What do you do? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: While I do intend to assist with performing AfD closures from time to time, if there were clear signs at attempting to manipulate consensus I would raise the concern immediately at the AfD discussion page and crosspost to

WP:AN/I

as well for administrative review, and would not take to closing the debate. Depending on the circumstances, the AfD may need to be relisted.

5. Would you look back on Nagarukhra (talk · contribs) and the history of the Nagarukhra article. You use that user as an example of how "patient and communicative" and "considerate" you are. Looking back on how events unfolded, and your contribution to those events, would you do the same thing again, and hold that up as an example of good practise, or are there aspects of that which on reflection you might change? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: In this case I feel that we, as community, made a reasonable and fair attempt to reach out and communicate with Nagarukhra (talk · contribs). The user made over 200 edits/changes to Wikipedia throughout the months of March and October 2015, with more than two dozen notifications regarding editing concerns going largely ignored. The only response from Nagarukhra was on 14 September 2015 [2] asking not to change their edits, and the highlighted disruptive actions continued. The talk page tells the rest of the story. The outcome is unfortunate, but reflecting on this I believe we lived up to our responsibility to be communicative, fair, and firm.

Additional question by Wehwalt

6. Two editors come to your talk page, seeking an uninvolved admin. You discover they've been going back and fourth for five cycles over three days passing and demoting an article as

WP:GA because they disagree over the merits of a controversial article within the James Bond universe which, each time it is demoted, is renominated by a third editor, who actually wrote much of it, and they excitedly press you with arguments when you civilly but noncommittally respond to them. The article has just been demoted from GA for the fifth time, it is renominated as you try to get past the edit conflicts on your talk page. A glance at all three's block logs shows each has a single block for 3RR, with time ranges from two months to five years previously. The demoting editor's post at WT:GA has gotten no response, other than from the three of them, for three days. What do you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A: I would remain an uninvolved admin, as this is not an area of expertise for me. I would politely ask that this concern be raised at the appropriate noticeboard, and would defer to another administrator who is seasoned in handling disputes of this sort.

Please see my comments following number 14. Although that is a very sound thing to do in practice, I"m hoping to get your analysis of the policy issues involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question by User:Reyk

7. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to block an editor for not answering a question on their talk page?

A: There aren't any circumstances that I can think of where it would be appropriate to block an editor for not answering a question on their talk page. If this theoretical editor had a history of disruption, and a question to the effect of "Will you please stop X disruption or explain why you are making X changes?" is placed on their talk page, and then continues to ignore these requests, it may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. In this theoretical scenario, the actual block would be for the continued disruptive actions that followed, combined with the unresponsiveness, and not the lack of response on its own.

Additional question from Brustopher

8. Quite a few of the editors you've brought to

competency issues

. Do you think Wikipedia admins should be strive to be tougher on good faith but incompetent editors?

A: With a site as large as our own, it is statistically inevitable that we will face these challenges from time to time. Understanding our editorial policies, wiki markup code, and interacting with our community at large can be a daunting experience for newcomers and I respect and appreciate this. I believe that the correct approach is to strive to be patient, fair, and firm.

9. If you were to end up site-banned from blocked on Wikipedia, what do you think the mostly likely reason would be?

A: I cannot envision any scenario where this would happen. I sincerely hope that I am neither site-banned or blocked from Wikipedia.

Comment: Respectfully, I don't perceive that as a very sensible question (I know that I for one would have no clue how to answer it), I ask Brustopher to consider removing or rephrasing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, now that I think about it I'm not sure I'd be able to come up with an answer either. I've rephrased it so it's easier to answer. The point was to find out what the editor thinks the big weaknesses in their approach to Wikipedia are, or under what circumstances they'd find it important to break the rules. Brustopher (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from

Rubbish computer

10. You go onto AIV. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. How would you respond to each of these?

10a. User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

— Were warnings issued to this editor? If not, please communicate with the editor.

10b. User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

— Once confirmed, vandalism after final warning would normally qualify as {{uw-block}}.

10c. IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

— Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is a forum for obvious and persistent disruption. A reminder to 1.23456789.12 to remain civil during a dispute would likely suffice, but AIV would not be the appropriate venue to raise this concern.

10d. User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago) —

— This is a judgement call on behalf of the administrator. If this were an IP address, there are increasing odds that with each passing hour there may be a new person assigned to that same address, based on the service provider and subscription type. This particular concern does not exist with a registered account. Depending on circumstances, I might opt to block the account or raise the concern at

WP:AN/I

.

10e. User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

This subject matter should be referred to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, not AIV.

10f. User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

— As with 10c and e, AIV would not be the appropriate venue. Edit warring concerns should be addressed at

WP:ANEW

.

10g. User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet)

— As the account has yet to edit, my inclination would be to place a {{uw-username}} notice on their talk page. If the editor ignored the notification and began promoting Rubbish Computer Industries, Inc throughout various Wikipedia articles, a full {{uw-ublock}} should follow.

--

11c. Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

— This should most likely be declined, as semi-protection is more than likely not warranted due to the low level of activity, as per Wikipedia:Protection policy.

11d. Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

— If the article has been reposted multiple times throughout the week, with no indication of notability, it may be a candidate for creation protection. If there were any concerns or questions regarding the subject's notability whatsoever, it may be prudent to discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for community consensus instead.

11e. Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

— How many times has the article been moved, is there evidence of persistent page-move vandalism? If the page has only been moved once, it should be restored to the original title. If the article has a history of being renamed in a disruptive manner, it may qualify for extended page move protection.

11f. Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

— This seems arbitrary and should be delisted. To do the opposite would require that we enable creation protection for an unimaginable number of articles and would serve little purpose or benefit, and may wind up unintentionally blocking the creation of genuine articles.

11g. Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

— If the warring is limited solely to the page name title, and not the content, page move protection would be warranted to refocus on the parties involved finding an amicable resolution through the discussion process.

11h. Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.)

— Thank you for this thoughtful question. If the vandalism rate was low and the positive contributing IP addresses were resolving the issues on their own, I would opt not to protect. In this scenario I would request that, although they are not required to, the two main contributors consider registering an account, and highlight the advantages of registering listed at Wikipedia:Why create an account?, notably the ability to edit semi-protected articles (following autoconfirmation).

--

Additional question from BMK

12. Assume that I am a grumpy old curmudgeon who doesn't really understand why anyone would want to be a Wikipedia admin, and tell me why you want to be one. If you can, avoid sweeping campaign-style generalities such as "I just want to do my part to help the community of this great project, which has given me so much, and which I believe in so deeply." Just tell me why you decided that being an admin was a thing that you wanted.

A: I feel comfortable opening my volunteer efforts to the role and responsibilities of administrator, and am in a place now where I can assist in that capacity.

Additional question from Noyster

13. Hello Yamaguchi. It seems reasonable that people considering this RfA may want to look over your user talk page for the past year or so. I know this can be done through page history, but your current talk page only offers us archives dated September 2015 and October 2015. Why no links to previous archives? Could you provide such links?

A: It was not until recent that I enabled archival via ClueBot III. Prior to that time, all previous talk page archives should be indicated with the comment "(archived)", and a sizable redaction in talk page size. I will do my best to add a series of links to historically archived contents.

Additional question from Wehwalt

14. Another editor wants to run something by you. You go along and she's asking you to eyeball the History of litigation in American football article and she slides a diff your way. It’s about an attendee at an American football game who got hurt there. The inevitable action was settled; he passed away due to a rear ender on the beltway in 2014. The properly sourced quote box that was inserted says sealed reports say that preexisting conditions were a contributing factor, something passionately denied by his widower when ESPN did a 30 for 30. What is the proper course of action and what factors do you apply? Do you give the guy who added it a pass? Do you punt? Throw a flag?

A: What are the exact contents of the quote box? Is this a case of sythesis of published material, or undue weight? I apologize, but I am having difficulty parsing your question and what it is that you are trying to ask.

A report sealed in the case of Smith v. Green Bay Packers says that a pre-existing condition helped cause Smith to collapse on national television, and that the Packers were in no way liable." After that is the source, and a proper footnote.Just to make the question clear, Smith died in 2014. Please state all policies that apply, and how they intersect.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost text to an edit conflict. Let me explain.

The formality of your tone, in answering the questions posed, struck me, as did the fact that you hardly use any idioms. Formality is good, but our BLP articles, an area in which you work, can be messy and use many figures of speech. Some people do not like idioms, others are uncomfortable with them for different reasons but our editors are not so reticent. They use them. And there are questions of nuance and tone based on them, things that can be gained or lost while being taken from source to article page. We must protect the subjects of BLP because they are living people and can be hurt. Thus an administrator at BLP must tread carefully, to protect living people, but in a way sensitive to the people who are writing an encyclopedia, and who may be inserting an agenda, or who may not be. The fact that you will be an administrator changes your role in BLP, necessarily. People see you differently.

It's delicate work, and after I posted my question, I read Carrite's oppose, which made me determined to see you respond to questions regarding intervention in somewhat messy article situations. Articles may contain biases or nuances, which may derive from the source, or may derive from the editor, and either way those can present BLP problems. I am entitled to look at how you are going to deal with situations in this area, whether or not Mr. Smith is alive. I would esteem it as a favor, regardless of whether you yourself would act in those situations, if you would analyze the policy aspects to numbers 6 and 14. It's OK if you say things like "assuming that". I expect the community will be very forgiving.

Semi-automated edits don't really tell us how you think when dropped into a mess like these. Because you seek to be an admin, and we do not do admins with partial powers. Many admins have worked in their areas of choice as expressed at RfA. Others have not. We don't know. So based on all those things, and the limited amount of content work you have done, I'd like to see attempts at answers for 6 and 14 before I reconsider my oppose. Thank you for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Moving discussion to talk]

Question from Gerda

15. Imagine you see a speedy deletion tag on an article marked as a

GA, saying that author is a suspected sock. What do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A: If there were probable cause that another editor was a suspected sock, the matter should be referred to

WP:GA

status, and the deletion template should thus be removed.

I wish you were right. It happened, and the article was deleted. (It was also restored since. More on AN.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

16. With reference to question 15 above, articles created by banned or blocked users are valid reasons for speedy deletion. Looking at the history of Christ Church, Newton, why you think the deletion was overturned and the article restored? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thank you for this opportunity to expand upon my hypothetical answer to Q15, so that I may illustrate some of the assumptions made based upon the limited data set presented, the policies considered, and how I came to my conclusion.

I was asked to imagine that an article which had attained

good article status was now on the receiving end of a {{db-g5

}} speedy deletion template, suspecting that the author of the article might be a previously blocked/banned user. With the added emphasis on the word suspect, I suggested that a report should be filed for confirmation. The G5 speedy deletion criteria is intended to be used when a user has created a page contrary to their block/ban, and there are no substantial contributions from other editors. It seemed unlikely in my mind at the time that an article would go as far as to reach the GA milestone, presumably on track to become a featured article, attracting all of the attention that comes with said process, that only a single editor was responsible. I then wondered how many other editors might have unwittingly contributed to the article in good faith such that it met GA requirements, and the impact a speedy deletion was bound to have. I considered our readers, and the potential loss of a merited article that, as I understood it, had been peer reviewed and promoted by members of the community who specialize in ensuring articles meet the appropriate good article criteria. Taking these factors into consideration, I would not have been comfortable blindly deleting an article in this situation and would opt to discuss the matter at the administrator's noticeboard to obtain consensus on how best to proceed.

Reviewing the article in question, Christ Church, Newton, and the DB-G5 post-mortem that followed at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion highlighted some excellent points. S Philbrick wrote "Imagine, as a hypothetical, that one of our most transcluded templates was created by a banned user. Simply deleting it would be a major problem.", realizing the impact this policy potentially holds, and why it may need to be amended. I saw that another editor suggested that if an article has been reviewed, it similarly ought not to qualify as a DB-G5. While I do understand the concerns of the administrator who opted to delete, in my mind that was a bold action to take under the circumstances, and I personally would have opted for the discussion route as before. The takeaway here for me is that our policies are not always perfect, but fortunately they are not set in stone, and when issues such as these arise we have the ability to tune and adjust as necessary.

Question from Ched

17. I'm not really concerned with the 2008-2014 gap in editing, but I'm surprised this hasn't been asked. Have you ever edited under any other usernames or notable/memorable IP addresses?

A: No, I have not. Earlier on in 2006 I did create separate accounts for patrolling and AWB work, but opted not to use them. [3]

Question from Wehwalt

18. I refer you to your response of 5 October 2015, in which you state that it is apparent that Ciybersal is violating the promotional editing policy. This followed Cybersal's questions, here, about the warning you issued to him here. This warning followed your reversal of Ciybersal's edit to Clifton, Karachi here. Your edit summary in your reversion stated "Reverted good faith edits by Ciybersal (talk): Unsourced change, we are not a directory of shopping malls" (though I see at least six sources added, at least three of which had nothing to do with shopping malls), but the warning you left at the exact same minute on Ciybersal's talk page has the edit summary "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Clifton, Karachi." A list of your contributions here reveals the reversal, and the warning, were the last two of nine edits you made in four minutes.

My questions are:

a) If you deemed Ciybersal's edit good faith, why did you issue the warning? I cannot tell which you did first as they are both timed to 14:56 on 5 October. Which did you do first? Explain your thought processes about why you did what you did.

b) Had the warning you issued to Ciybersal been an administrative action on your part, to what extent does your response here to his questioning your warning satisfy

c) Looking at the revision history for Clifton, Karachi, what is your opinion on whether Ciybersal was or was not attempting in good faith to comply with previous requests to source the material he was adding to the article?

d) Why do you think Ciybersal has not edited the encyclopedia since 5 October?

Thank you for your consideration and the favor of your response.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of time, I've stricken my followups on 6 and 14. You need only answer this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: While I stand behind the revert of Ciybersal's edit to the Clifton, Karachi page [4] on 21:42, 4 October 2015, on the basis of the change introducing original research in the form of adding six new sections without a source, removing markup requesting a {{

better source}} without explanation or improvement, giving undue weight to commercial/tourism aspects of the location while using a series of peacock terms that did not agree with our neutral point of view policy, I agree that a template was a less than ideal form of communicating this. The revert was issued first, followed by the boilerplate warning, after realizing that other members of the community had raised similar concerns. This changed my initial view that the edits were wholly made in good faith, but again that does not excuse a template interaction where a more personalized note would have been of better assistance. In light of all this, I have followed up with Ciybersal in order to apologize and clarify as best as possible the concerns, striking the template message. [5]

Additional question from Gerda

19. I like your view that some of our policies should be improved. - Today's featured article is an opera, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. In a recent RfA, a discussion about an opera played a role, Joseph (opera). How would you close that discussion, using the relevant arbitration findings cited in the discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: Would you please link me to the discussion you are referring to? I see that there is an open discussion regarding infobox removal for the Joseph (opera) article, but I'm not sure how this pertains to an RfA at this time.

The one. It's a rather short discussion, and I would get a feeling for how you evaluate a consensus (or lack of it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the disclaimer that this is not a content dispute that I am familiar with nor involve myself with, I am not seeing a clear consensus as of yet, but read the conversation as leaning toward inclusion. This is based solely upon the most recent discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera), without reviewing any discussions external to that page. You are welcome to provide additional links for consideration if you wish, but this is not a matter I would wade into.

No links, just looking at two things: number of supports vs. oppose, and strength of arguments. Do not fear, you are not closing, I would just be interested in a wording because I like if an admin can be fair to both sides of an argument. (We were requested to discuss each single article. IF you want to compare, there was a discussion for the other one mentioned.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Links for Yamaguchi先生: Yamaguchi先生 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Yamaguchi先生 can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Why not?
   ^talk_contribs 00:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support After 10 years and 40,000 edits, I think we must presume that Yamaguchi Sensei will do the right thing if made an administrator. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I see no reason not to trust this editor - long and good standing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - What Wisdom89 said, and MusikAnimal (below). Renewed support after concern over non-responsiveness to RfA questions Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per nom. Looks like a qualified candidate. INeverCry 01:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - experienced editor.
   discuss 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support I used to think that you are an admin. Anyway, only thing of concern is that you have created just 4 articles in 10 years, you could have done better in arena of content creation. But as you have vast experience of 10 years with good history so its net positive.--Human3015^TALK  05:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support To be frank, I did not know this was coming or else I might have been involved as a nominator. I believe this to a be specialized candidate who may not have all the traits we look for, but there is a lot more than what is at the surface. I have worked closely with Yamaguchi in the past and can attest that this is someone who truly cares about the project, is careful in their actions, and never afraid to ask for help. Standing by their AIV reports, I would say anti-vandalism is well within their expertise and wouldn't hesitate to give them a block button. I admire how they are so calm mannered yet frequently deal with the more troublesome users, beyond the run-of-the-mill vandals. Overall I think Yamaguchi is a promising member of this community and dedicated protector of the wiki, held back only by what they aren't able to do functionally. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I went through their talk page conversations and found that the candidate keeps calm when being insulted and explains policy to newcomers. Now that they are back for a year I feel this is exactly the type of candidate that should sail through RfA. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. MusikAnimal exactly expresses my experience with and views on Yamaguchi. Also, having looked at the history of the Nagarukhra issue, I think that Yamaguchi did exactly what they said they did. Yamaguchi left specific, individual messages in addition to templates and the disruptive user ignored them and made no effort to reply or discuss. Ultimately, that user was blocked for 48 hours and soon thereafter, after receiving further messages, the user was blocked indefinitely by a second administrator for "adding unsourced content, refusal to discuss." Yamaguchi's experience, proficiency and interaction skills will be helpful as an administrator. As noted above, Yamaguchi has a calm and patient demeanor, which is a noteworthy and important quality for an administrator. Administrative help in the areas of Yamaguchi's concentration is needed. Yamaguchi has contributed enough to show trustworthiness and that they won't break the wiki or go wild in some area in which they do not have much experience. Many of their edits may be "automated" but that does not mean they were not carefully considered, consistent with policy, and followed up with individualized messages in cases where these might help. Some more content creation might be desirable for administrative candidates but I think Yamaguchi has enough experience to know what the project is about and how to advance it. Counter-vandalism is important to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia and I am surprised that it often seems to be severely discounted in these discussions. See the RfAs for User:Thomas.W, who thankfully is back editing again, and User:Lugia2453, who now contributes more to other Wikipedia projects than to the English Wikipedia. In my view, the project is not better off because these users were unsuccessful in their RfAs or that their contributions were reduced thereafter. I hope we will not make what I consider another such mistake here. In my opinion, Yamaguchi passes the test as a competent, experienced, trustworthy editor with a good record who will be a net positive as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support clearly meets my expectations and standards for any candidate. Mkdw^talk 09:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong support
    BLPs. I am totally convinced that he will use his new responsibilities only to help the project in a more effective manner.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Support Good to go. Widr (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support experienced editor. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) 10:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. —Kusma (t·c) 10:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - qualified longstanding editor. Good BLP work. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Still supporting. The additional questions are optional. There is enough in the candidate's contribution history to evaluate his suitability without requiring answers to the optional questions. WJBscribe (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support Appears responsible and thoroughly suitable for the role of adminship. --
    HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support – I've seen Yamaguchi's around here and there and their edits have consistently been productive. I have the same experience at AIV with the candidate as MusikAnimal and can attest to their strong track record there. The two opposing arguments (at the time of my comments) don't sway me at all, especially Andrew D.'s apparent standard opposition to every RfA—or at least every RfA I've seen.
    WP:NOBIGDEAL in my book. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support - longstanding, experienced, productive, CLUE-ful editor. Has clearly demonstrated they can be trusted, which is ultimately what RFA is about. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - no real concerns here. GiantSnowman 16:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Looks good. Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support to make up for Andrew D's bizarre oppose. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Looks like a fine candidate to me. RO^(talk) 19:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. (
    patrolling recent changes, and I can say that their anti-vandalism contributions are simply prolific. Their intentions to help out with the administrative backlogs of Wikipedia puts a smile on my face, because Wikipedia needs more active administrators. This user has also remained surprisingly calm and patient even when exposed to the tantrums and anger of disgruntled users (Something that I haven't quite fully mastered). I'm happy that Yamaguchi is stepping up for the position, and I wish them Godspeed with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support I don't see any issues. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. No problems that I can see, and the opposers haven't presented any reasons to believe that Yamaguchi will misuse the tools. It's time for bureaucrats to start ignoring oppose votes (and voters) that make adminship a big deal. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Drafted an RfA nomination for this user some time ago. Wikipedia:Editcountitis point doesn't seem appropriate here. User has demonstrated competency and WP:Net positive. Note: Also, per MusikAnimal; couldn't have been better stated, quite frankly. On that note, Yamaguchi thought carefully prior to when I had requested to nominate them as an administrator earlier this month. --JustBerry (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support: their work at AIV, RFPP and SPI seems very helpful and I trust they will use the blocking and protection tools well. The edits of theirs I spot-checked all seem fine. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, per MusikAnimal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: If questions don't start to get answered in the next 24 hours, I'm moving to "Neutral" – while I'd applaud a candidate with the temerity to decline to answer a lot of the stupid or repetitive questions that pop up at RfA, not attempting to answer any questions can't be considered acceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC) (Now answering questions, so withdrawing this...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support You were very brave nominating yourself solo; it's something that has to be admired given how demonic RfA is. Also would make an excellent admin. JAGUAR  21:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Based on an extensive contribution history over many years. I have yet to see any good reason to oppose presented, I may reconsider if I do. HighInBC 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Yamaguchi always looked like an admin to me. It will be nice to see him be a real one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - I don't see minimal content creation as a war-stopper for this candidate, who clearly is a net positive for the Wiki. Appears to be a calm and measured gnome and anti-vandal who should be trusted with the mop. I see little if anything of merit in the oppose votes at this time. Let Yamaguchi get on with it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, after a look through the candidate's history of anti-vandalism work and noticing that they communicate clearly and effectively, especially with new editors.
    talk!) 23:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Conditional support if the user changes their signature to Korean characters or something. (Just kidding.) Whole support for this guy because of the anti-vandal work he has been doing. epic genius (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - not only, but also to negate a particularly disturbing oppose vote that carefully posits only a negative spin of a whole story - more here (and do please follow the link). Any other oppose votes are hardly compelling and come again from editors who regularly tend only to oppose RfAs and whose votes may rarely match the results. The candidate does not check all my boxes but what I see is regular editing over a great many years (hardly a flash in the pan from someone wanting adminship for a trophy to parade round the schoolyard), careful plodding, and gnoming, which with this candidate's level of maturity is essential work and can require a surprising high frequency of need to use the tools with a high degree of trust and intelligence. Whatever else needs to be said has been more than adequately covered by MusikAnimal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support People with this sort of editing history have made excellent administrators here. I see no reason why there should be any problems. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Should do a fine job. eurodyne (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I've seen Yamaguchi around and have no issues or reasons to think the tools will be misused.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support after checking several deleted edits, the prods and db-bio's look good. Thought there was confusion between attack and vandalism. The proposed areas of work seem suitable for a gnome, so I say give the man a go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Look I am not fussed on the deleted edits. But I do think he is an excellent editor and lets give him a go eh --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 11:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Civil, experienced, and is definitely
    WP:HERE to help build Wikipedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support No clear issues and shows a clear understanding samtar ^{t} 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Obvious
    net positive to the project. I always see him vandal fighting and participating on the project. I see no problems with giving this user my support. Best of luck :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Support. Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and it's clear that after 10 years without any blocks, this candidate is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per no big deal + those opposed didn't sway me. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Have seen the user around at AIV and has quality reports. Has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional support - good editor, completely unconvincing opposes, conditional only on answering the questions above.

    [majestic titan] 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Moving to oppose at least until the questions are answered.

    [majestic titan] 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

50. Support. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
51. Conditional support - everything checks out well,but I am very interested in the answers to the questions posed. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
52. support - I think that working in the little areas (fixing spelling/grammar corrections, AFD; among others) very helpful to the project than at first looked. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
53. If you asked, I probably would have nominated—or in other words, per my good friend MusikAnimal. Yamaguchi's accuracy rate at AIV is as close to 100% as I've seen; I can't recall ever declining one of his reports, he's seen what he's letting himself in for and all the abuse that admins have to deal with just for trying to keep the place tidy (and he still wants the mop!). None of the opposes hold much water, in my opinion (certainly not enough to cancel out Yamaguchi's many virtues), but frankly oppose #1 is as ridiculous as it is insulting; I can't think of anything that would justify that tone in response to a good-faith offer to take on voluntary work. It's worth supporting just to cancel that out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. None of the oppose rationales hold water, in my opinion.
    T|C 02:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory thus far. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support no reason to think they'll misue the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support everything looks fine to me. Based on what he has done so far proves that he is hardworking and trustworthy to use the mop. Ayub407^talk 17:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, whenever I've interacted with Yamaguchi先生 I've had a positive impression. The opposes generally seem unpersuasive. In particular, I don't think admins must be available 24/7, I don't think non-Latin characters are much of an issue when the signature links to user page and talk page, and I don't think prospective adminship candidates should be expected to revisit articles they created ten years ago to bring them into shape. Huon (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I appreciate his changing his signature format as requested. I trust that the candidate will answer the questions during his next editing session. (There are a couple of questions that clearly shouldn't have been asked, but that is a different issue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Seems qualified and I am unimpressed some ill-founded oppose arguments, like worrying that the candidate might talk time off in the future. Silly argument re unpaid volunteers. Edison (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Sensible user. Does just fine. Isn't obsessed with Wikipedia, which is a very healthy attitude (and one that some of the opposers should consider embracing). People who prioritize off-line life away from Wikipedia are, in my observations, generally more sensible administrators. Risker (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, exhibits common sense, which is the only essential ingredient for a successful administrator. Opposes are feeble and unconvincing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
63. Support. Good candidate. Rzuwig^► 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support – Impressive anti-vandalism work, a solid editing history and 10 years of service – they are not only worthy of a break (whenever they feel necessary) but more so: administrative tools. I wish
    MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support Returning to my original stance, good luck.
    open channel) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Support WikiGnomes make great administrators. clpo13_(talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Great potential here, as I love his work.
    talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Support. Highly skilled at what he does, and we definitely need more vandalism fighters these days. GAB^Hello! 16:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - Looks to be a great editor and a fully qualified candidate who I am happy to fully support. I certainly hope they finish answering the questions soon so as to avoid spoiling this opportunity, because it looks like the patience is starting to wear thin. I find the rest of the opposes to be very weak at best. Swarm ♠ 22:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support no reason to think this candidate would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Seems to have a good amount of clue and a calm demeanor. I have no concerns over the inactivity on weekends, even during RfA. We're all volunteers here and real life should always take precedence over Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - A calm, polite and reasonable editor. Their edits look fine, and has shown good understanding of policies. They are open to suggestions and they learn from their mistakes. Seems like a user who would use the mop wisely.
    sh! 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
73. Support I find no good reason not to support. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. I'm somewhat familiar with Yamaguchi and felt supportive of his RfA when I saw it. However, I wanted to see how he responded to the questions. The answer to BMK's question wasn't very specific, but, otherwise, the answers are mostly good. When issues were raised with his signature, he changed it without any fuss. If he's only available on work days, that's a little off-putting for admin accountability, but at least you know in advance when he's available. Overall, I really don't see a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support- no worries here. Satisfied with the answer to my question. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support There's no obligation on admins to be available 24/7. I'm lucky to work from home a lot, but others aren't. Answers to questions look OK to me - and I would have had problems with understanding one of them. What the heck is a beltway? <8-( Anyway, I've not seen any problems with his work here (which only means that I haven't - others may have evidence that he is an avatar of Satan...). Peridon (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Candidate comes across a bit naive, but naive in a good way. They're someone who makes mistakes but as their withdrawal of AfDs shows, they're willing to change their mind when proven wrong. I'm confident that Yamaguchi will act cautiously and patiently as an admin, and take on the advice of other admins when wrong. Overall a net positive. Brustopher (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Has worked on content. Gnome work is the administration of Wikipedia, some of it requires the bit. Candidate shows a healthy disinterest in getting involved in drama, and a healthy interest in backlogs. Sig is clickable - name is cut-and-pasteable, no serious editor will be unable to cut and paste a name. A five year gap is fine, shows long term interest even when other factors prevent contributing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
80. Support I am satisfied with the candidate's handling both of the hypothetical cases presented in the Questions section, and of actual situations in the recent past. (As an admin, though, it may be advisable to add a talk page notice about regular periods of unavailability): Noyster (talk), 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Yamaguchi is an excellent recent changes patroller, and usually beats me to the revert. His patience when confronting troublesome users is admirable, and I am I confident he would be a good admin. The opposes concerning availability and signature readability are not convincing. Altamel (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
82. Answers to the questions are concise and professional. We need more admins who can communicate in short, easy-to-parse posts. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Seems even-tempered. Also on the basis that "Yamaguchi先生" (specifically "先生") isn't easily typed or remembered, to counteract the opppose vote on those grounds. I'm considering a name change to რებეკა ბლეკი myself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - I will elaborate more on my reasoning when I have time later, but I thought it important to register my support now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - I see no reason to believe Yamaguchi will burn the place to the ground if granted access to the tools. I'm really surprised, impressed actually, that anyone thinks that non-English characters in a username is an indication of a propensity for admin abuse. I mean, we all know how to cut and paste, right? ... Right? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (also I thought you were already an admin)[reply]
86. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position. Hoping candidate increases their activity in substantive content work and doesn't pull a disappearing act.--MONGO 23:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
87. Yamaguchi strikes me as thoughtful and cautious, so I see little chance of abuse (temperament is key here). Reasonable answers to questions. Mistakes can be corrected, and learning on the job is allowed. Username is not a concern to me. I'm sure you'll do fine. — Earwig ^talk 00:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
88. Samir 03:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. I'm satisfied that this candidate can be trusted with tools. Like many here, I'm concerned that the candidate has created very few articles and I encourage the editor to demonstrate to the community over time that they are here to build the world's best online encyclopedia, not just administer it. That said, net positive and I especially like a candidate who admits they made a mistake and corrects cheerfully. That's the sort of editor who may make a solid sysop. BusterD (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. I've reviewed the candidates's answers to the questions, as well as all of the oppose votes, and nothing therein convinces me that the candidate would misuse the tools if handed the bit. Furthermore, I'm convinced the candidate will learn from any mistakes that are made. I explicitly reject the argument that the candidate's history of editing primarily during an eight-hour window, five days per week, somehow reduces the candidate's suitability for the mop. I do understand concerns about the candidate's user-name, but a simple test of entering "user:Yamaguchi" without the additional characters, provided the opportunity to select the correct user, and one can always select the user's name from a signature. Previous issues with this are not relevant to whether the user should wield the mop. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. I'm perfectly satisfied with the candidates record and answers. Aparslet (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Knowledgeable candidate, with a good temperament for adminship. Intermittent activity not a concern; it's a plus, IMO, if a candidate doesn't live here. Miniapolis 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amen to that, Miniapolis. The encyclopedia and community would generally be better served by more administrators who are not constant participants in the wikidrama, and who are not caught up in the dramatic personalities who populate the boards. Maintaining a healthy perspective with real life obligations and activities outside Wikipedia should be seen as a Good Thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I'd be more concerned if somebody was editing here 24/7 every day of the week. Wikipedians need breaks and once in a while have to focus on their real life responsiblities. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

93. Support - //nepaxt 19:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - I like this candidate's name... Good luck.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support, but my support is based in part on the
    current RfC on the RfA process, which seems to reflect consensus on a few key points. If it does happen that pressure increases to pass more candidates than we're currently passing (none in September, one in October), then we'll probably all be happier, supporters and opposers, if we can find a way to promote a few more before the hammer falls. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
96. Support The candidate is level-headed, willing and able to discuss concerns with other editors, and would make a fine admin.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support -- Yamaguchi先生 appears to be calm and even-keeled in their approach. From their responses and comments here, it my impression that they will take to heart the issues raised by opposing comments. And that they can be trusted as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support, with advice to go slow at first. I decided to wait until late in the RfA before making a decision, and I'm glad that I did. I've read and thought about all of the opposes. (I also want to grouse about there being too many questions to the candidate.) Many of the opposes just do not seem at this point to be what I would consider disqualifying, but I recognize that Wehwalt, SilkTork, and Ched have raised some legitimate points. When I take everything in balance, I think that this candidate will be a net positive in helping with some backlogs, and I get a clear sense that this is someone who is careful not to overreach. So – please be careful not to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - I see no issues, will be a benefit to the encyclopaedia with the bit. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - I'm happy. Glrx (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
101. Stephen 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - I trust they will do a good job. Cloudbound (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support: Joining the party late, but I see someone volunteering to do the work who has been generally level headed and never truly bone headed. I want to support them.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support (will this be the last vote in this RFA?), because you probably would have passed if you'd created this RFA nine years ago, and nothing arising since then looks like a reason to think you shouldn't have gotten adminship then. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Basically MIA for 8 years (October 2006 – September 2014), so the length of service is grossly misleading. 35,000 of the candidate's 42,500 edits have been in the past 13 months, indicating to me severe
   WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Most of those are automated or semi-automated typo-fixes, rollbacks, reverts, warnings; these aren't sufficiently admin-related tasks or experience. The only articles created are a two-sentence stub [6] and a non-notable straight-to-DVD film with only a plot and a Trivia section [7]. Candidate seems fairly well-meaning, but I can't support now. Come back in a year or so when there is more substantive editing, admin-type behavior, and content creation, and less edit-countitis, and when your signature is fixed to link to your userpage and full talk page. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC); copyedited 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Discussion moved to the talk page.

2. Oppose The candidate does not offer any specific examples of good work in response to Q2. Perhaps they have forgotten or are too embarrassed to show their work but they did create two articles: The Wild Women of Wongo and Benoist (tea). These are promising topics but their standard falls short of our customary expectations. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Those articles were made in 2005 and 2006, when standards were very different. Sam Walton (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   It would have been easy for the candidate to revisit the articles to improve them ahead of this RfA. They either didn't know how or couldn't be bothered. They were then left without anything to show in Q2, which is a standard question. If you fail to plan then you plan to fail. Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I fail to see how this "criteria" is relevant to adminship. Why does Yamaguchi needs to have developed an article to GA or FA? Is that all that happens on Wiki? What possible bearing would that have on their suitability to wield the mop? This is a highly spurious ground on which to oppose this candidate, and yet another example of entirely "made up" criteria that some who frequent these pages come out with. I am heartily sick of it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:ADMIN explains that "The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become a Wikipedia administrator ... each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way." So all criteria are "made-up" in that sense. But Q2 is a standard question – it's part of the nomination boilerplate – and so evaluating the response to this question is quite normal. If a candidate can't offer so much as a single diff then this doesn't seem an adequate response. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   quod erat demonstrandum, I believe. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems not so let's make a further point. The candidate understood that his response to Q2 was unsatisfactory; that's why he starts by apologising for it. I'm simply taking his response at face value. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate is probably (and quite naturally) hoping to address those that insist on this "boilerplate" nonsense. If there are no "criteria" there should be no "boilerplate", if there were "criteria", then this particular "boilerplate" would be contrived nonsense that isn't related to suitability for adminship. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose unless and until the unacceptable signature is sorted out. Before anyone gets overly worked up about this oppose, I am totally consistent on this matter, this being the 3rd or 4th such oppose over the years. Administrators on EN-WP need to be contactable by new users unfamiliar with our nuances. Reinstating Oppose. Unresponsive to doppelganger suggestion (01/11). Leaky Caldron 20:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Leaky caldron: The issue with signatures has been resolved [8] --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - purely on the basis that "Yamaguchi先生" (specifically "先生") isn't easily typed or remembered. Basically on the same order as is stated above in the now stricken comment, administrators on the English Wikipedia should be easily contactable and searchable. The only username of a current administrator that suffers the same problem, albeit to a slightly lesser degree, is "Vejvančický" (there could be more I glanced through them fairly quickly). I would withdraw my objection to the adminship of this candidate if they would change their username to something without non-anglicized characters. I would personally support a tightening up of the username policy to disallow these type of characters in usernames altogether, but I'm especially concerned when it comes to administrators, which I hold to a higher standard. Update 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC): Failure to answer any of the additional questions for the candidate (or untimely responses if the questions are answered later), when this RfA was at a time of their choosing, is unacceptable and unbecoming. Carrite also makes good points. However, in fairness, I'll reconsider should the candidate change their username and respond well to the questions above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Yamaguchi, you may want to consider a redirect or a doppelganger account at

   User:TAP. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I think I have a new example for when I try to argue that RfA should not allow arbitrary criteria. HighInBC 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you should get a grip on reality. The issue as expressed in this oppose is so convincing that I might reinstate my oppose. The point you need to understand is that an Admin who, for whatever reason, makes themselves deliberately hard to contact is no use to man nor beast. As far as your arbitrary criteria nonesense is concerned, that's a horse that will not run. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I beg to differ. Arbitrary (and nonsense) criteria are trotted out all the time here, and that is exactly the problem that I (and many other watchers and contributors) are heartily sick of. If Yamaguchi fixes their signature to accommodate a link to their talk page, that would address this oppose, would it? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Obviously, since this is easily remedied (like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TLSuda had a similar problem with the nominee's username, and the nominee changed it immediately), this is a pretty weak oppose. And Mr. Yamaguchi has already fixed his signature. epic genius (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I can type his name using Chinese characters (先生 (xiansheng) means "mister" in Chinese, so User:Yamaguchi先生 is thus easy to link.) But yeah, Yamaguchi should register a doppelganger. These dang Chinese and their hard-to-remember names!! ;) epic genius (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's Japanese? (Yamaguchi-sensei) — Earwig ^talk 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, that works too. Let's just say that Chinese and Japanese share some very similar character sets. epic genius (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I suspect the name is a tribute to the gent who was the only person to be a survivor of each of the two atomic bombings.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, it is. epic genius (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, Yamaguchi is the 15th most common surname in Japan. Yamaguchi-sensei (山口先生) is a fictional female doctor in the Hajime no Ippo/Fighting Spirit boxing anime, who may or may not have inspired this UserID. In Japanese, "sensei" (先生) is a commonplace honorific, meaning "teacher". Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Cool. (But I read it in Chinese as Mr. Yamaguchi, since I can read Chinese better than Japanese. In Chinese, "mister" (先生) uses the same characters as Japanese "sensei" (先生).) epic genius (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   For the sake of completeness, I'll note that "sensei" is used as an honorific not only for teachers, but also for doctors, lawyers and other professionals. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Gee, Japanese and Chinese cultures must be really similar. epic genius (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering kanji is basically Chinese, you would be somewhat correct. In fact, kanji is merely the Japanese pronunciation of Hanzi. There is a corollary in Korean where it is referred to as Hanja. Japanese are basically a mix of ancient Chinese and indigenous peoples. Blackmane (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

5. Sadly Oppose - since 2005, the user has been missing for a total of 5 years in between, what's to stop him from disappearing again after the success of this RfA.. the wiki has suffered from having over 900 of the 1332 admins we have been "inactive" and only editing from time to time to save their sysop bits from being removed, it would be much worse having admins who disappear altogether without a reason and then appear years later requesting their rights back....--Stemoc 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   If you're looking to stir the pot,

   Wikipedia talk:RfA is that way. Don't drag viable candidates into nonsense like this for entertainment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Your unjustified presumption about the candidate notwithstanding, I'd love to see your data/evidence that supports this assertion that inactive administrators cause Wikipedia to "suffer". I ask only because it sounds like bollocks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. This is as spurious as it gets. Yet another "criteria" that adds no value and does nothing but harm the Wiki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   When less than 10% of admins have been 'actually' active the last 12 months, why would i support someone who claims to be on the wiki for the last 10 years but has actually only been active for less than 5?...What's to stop him from disappearing again after passing the RfA? ..in both cases, no reason was given for leaving or returning..I would never trust someone who doesn't bother telling us the reason for their departure or return..if anything, this would make me more suspicious in relation to the user using other accounts during those times they were 'away'..I always support candidates for RfA, but I won't support one with too may 'red lights' --Stemoc 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't have any idea where you got that 10% which is completely off-the-mark. Where did you get your stats? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Admins should have typable / easily ping-able user names. Form over function has consequences.
   Townlake (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   @

   Townlake: Just to point out, Dank's suggestion above to have a doppleganger account would easily resolve an issue like this. --JustBerry (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   OpposeFailure to respond to reasonable questions in a reasonable time. I'm open to changing this, but would have to see what was said. It's said that you begin as you mean to go on. Admins who ignore or who do nor respond to inquiries regarding their actions in a reasonable time are a source of frustration and in my view evade WP:ADMINACCT. This RfA does not have a nominator, and is made entirely at a time of the candidate's convenience. I am sure the candidate is acting in full good faith. But there may be temptations, in future, that a candidate who sees the voting is going well for him though he has not answered questions be tempted to let it ride until dark storm clouds loom, or just wait until Day Six, by which most have voted. Why rock the vote(boat)? Additionally, since this candidate lists no conflicts or other places where we can see how he has reacted under stress, it's important to learn, as best we can, how he thinks, how he says he will react. We're giving a license for life. I take that seriously, as do the others who have taken the trouble to bring questions. Once I see how things go, I'm open to reassessing this, but I'm concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Striking vote, will move to the foot of my section[reply]

   Like

   The Wiki Patroller, I affirm my vote and am not open to changing it absent something absolutely dramatic. I have said that you begin as you mean to go on, and this is RfA, the first stepping stone beyond the whim of individual admins. Many have gone on from here to great things; others have gone on to disappoint the community. It is important, as an administrator, and when holding office or permissions that are in practice based on that, to remember those who wait for you to act. We have seen that three days have passed since SilkTork asked his original discretionary questions and they are unanswered. I'm fine with people taking time off during an RfA and that's good. A valid excuse for being incommunicado for three days is more difficult. It's like this: We don't see to the other side of the keyboard. We're not aware of what is going on. So when we are waiting on an administrator's justification for action, or for a group or committee to make up its mind, and there is no word, it is a real problem. It is important to keep people who may be waiting in tension, perhaps for their fate on Wikipedia, informed. Lackadaisical and slow action is a plague under such circumstances. The day you took off to please yourself while under obligation to others to reach a decision may seem like twenty to those who are waiting. Lawyers, for example, realize the promptness of seeing incarcerated clients. Regrettably, I've seen dilatoriness without information in the past, and it appears such attitudes still persist, judging by the candidate's action, of course. I like the candidate, but at some point, enough is enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC) @Wehwalt: You may want to consider your vote, or at least your rationale, in light of (a) the candidate is back and has answered most of the questions asked, and (b) The Wiki Patroller has been blocked as a sock puppet and his !vote removed. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   DL. Your ping didn't work. I am aware the candidate is back. I am engaging with him on #14. I expect to either support (my preference) or cite additional grounds for opposing. As a courtesy to the candidate, I will strike my lengthy screed. I'm going to keep the oppose on, because right now I can't say I feel otherwise. I'm planning to discuss that with the candidate before I do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. Strong Oppose On the ground that the diffs in my #1718 establish that the candidate apparently lacks either the communication skills or the inclination to respond to editors' concerns over his actions, as evidenced by his following:

   Ciybersal on 4 October 2015 at 17:42, a month ago, adds for the last time various content to Clifton, Karachi. Judging by his diffs, the information may or may not be necessary, but I'm having trouble seeing it as out of policy, particularly. He has for the most part been reversed by a couple of different people, including the candidate, who at 14:17 on 5 October resumes editing after a 41 minute break, diffs for that period

   At 14:56, after the candidate makes 40 edits in 40 minutes, most semi-automated, reverts Ciybersal edit summary "(Reverted good faith edits by Ciybersal (talk): Unsourced change, we are not a directory of shopping malls.) " The edit complained of contained six references, three on shopping malls (official sites) three on other matters.

   At the same minute of the same day, Yamaguchi adds a level 3 advertising warning to Ciybersal's page here with the edit summary "(Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Clifton, Karachi.) "

   At 18:15, on his own talk page, Ciybersal questions Yamaguchi's actions. He has not edited since.

   At 18:34, Yamaguchi responds, here with the edit summary "Response to Ciybersal regarding Clifton, Karachi article." It does not answer many of Ciybersal's concerns, but says "It appears as if you are promoting various corporate entities in locality articles, such as the Clifton, Karachi article, without providing proper attribution. Please, avoid original research and do not make material changes to these articles unless you are prepared to provide a reliable third party source for each and every change. If the subject matter you are adding has not received such coverage, then please refrain from adding it without consensus to do so. If you have any further questions or concerns pertaining directly to the Clifton, Karachi article, please raise them at Talk:Clifton, Karachi for community input. Regards,}}, which I gather is mostly from a template.

   Ciybersal may well have been adding matters better suited to Wikivoyage, and had run up against ThomasW., who had issued him a previous advertising warning along with some indication Ciybersal had added matters beyond the scope of Wikipedia (arguable). Given the relative sophistication of Ciybersal's edits, I'm willing to grant that he had probably edited before; that is not in and of itself socking though it is worthy of attention. But Yamaguchi's edits are so ham handed, without any real attempt to engage, and don't seem to reflect any understanding of the concerns expressed (and probably considerable misunderstanding of policy on Yamaguchi's part). At the best, coming as they do in the middle of a lengthy series of semi-automated edits, they are terribly, terribly hasty. I think setting Yamaguchi loose with admin tools would be a grievous mistake and would set things up for loss of editors as they encountered Yamaguchi's haste to make high-paced semi-automatic edits, with much regard for what he has run over in his path.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   {u|Yamaguchi先生}, thank you for your response. I appreciate your time. I am going to maintain my position, but I appreciate your recognition there was a problem and am gratified by your determination to do better. As the community's position is likely to be contrary to mine, I can but wish you the best in your use of the tools.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose: Strong Oppose: Echoing Wehwalt. I too am opposing on the grounds of failure to respond / or avoidance of answering questions of this candidate. At the time of my posting there are 13 questions and only the original standard three have responses. None of those asked by additional editors have a word. I am particularly interested in question 13 as to why there are currently only archives available of the past two months of your talk page contents. It is more than "reasonable that people considering this RfA may want to look over your user talk page". Even if there are gaps of years, this is still quite a bit to scroll through and read edit summaries to try to discern if I should click through to see what the conversation is. Not answering the questions is troubling to me and should be frustrating to those who composed them. Admin candidacy is serious; please treat it so. Fylbecatulous talk 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Amending at this hour to strong opposition.. I am beyond concerned. I am alarmed. I continue to believe an answer to Question 13 is of great importance as to why his talk page archive is hidden and I also expected a change to be made as to have access to earlier talk page content. But that frustration pales in conparison to a three day

   AWOL. His last change to this page was at: 16:40, 2015 October 30 (+225)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生 ‎ (→‎General comments: Switched to default signature format.). Most strong oppose. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 17:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I am striking my strong oppose and comments why since candidate has reappeared after vanish. The three day unannounced absence was misguided and in poor judgment and this is not a good sign for a candidate to be exhibing during their quest for the powers. When they become an admin, they must pass off the mantle of responsibility better if this is truly to be a five day a week assignment for them. Leaving unanswered questions dangling is the least of it. This has been a tiring and confusing RfA and should have been better planned by the candidate. Fylbecatulous talk 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose - I think it is misleading to say 10 years here. There is one year of adequate participation, which alone is adequate but not impressive by itself. I see 4 articles created, but two are DB pages, both of which have only two entries which kind of violates the good advice of
   WP:2DABS, ones a valid stub. His other, The Wild Women of Wongo is undersourced and otherwise lacking. Not a crime, but not indicative of someone familiar with creating content. So maybe he fixed other articles? I see 71% automated edits. All valueable in their own rights, but it reinforces my concern that he isn't actually familiar enough to do the job. Realistically, he's been here a year, done some good things but lacks the broad experience needed. The raw metrics are misleading here, but the actual facts say he needs to wait a bit and try again. No FAs or GAs needed, just actual editing beyond vandalism patrol. There are other concerns but others have already expressed them. Seems like a nice guy, hope he sticks around and gets up to speed, but I can't trust with the delete buttons and other tools right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Conditional oppose: waiting for answers to questions. See also
    [majestic titan] 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Oppose Dennis is correct here. I am a tad concerned by the bot finding "no discernible vote" on so many AfDs, but that is a gripe with the bot perhaps. At this point, the lack of responses to what do not seem to be onerous questions make me wonder how active the person will be as an admin. Collect (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - First off, let's start with something that might seem minor but does need to be corrected: a signature with no live links either to the User Page or to the User Talk Page. Who is this person, how does one communicate with them? It should not take a detective to find out, a new user should be able to get to either page with a single, identifiable click. I see this has been addressed... 2. I've always wondered what would happen if somebody gave brief answers to the three pro forma questions and ignored everything else. It seems we are going to find out. I'll tell ya how that tactic plays with me... Also finally addressed. Moving to Neutral. 3. Not a 10 year editor, more like a year and a half of active editing, including 30,000 gnomey or highly automated edits during 8 hour blocks, Monday to Friday this year. Warning flag. 4. In looking for actual Wikipedia content work, admittedly a low priority on my list for an administrator, I visited Michelle Phan, one of the "most actively edited" pieces in mainspace, with 20 edits. I was not wowwed, a series of very ownershippy reversions, including the attempt to add a birthdate for the subject from michellephan.com with the dubious rationale "Redacting date of birth pending source(s) -- link does not corroborate this claim, nor are blogs generally qualified as a reliable source. WP:BLP." LINK Now, sure, archive.org doesn't have this piece preserved any longer, but when michellephan.com runs a piece called "Twenty Five!: My Twenty-fifth birthday" on April 11, 2012 to document April 11, 1987 as her birthday, that should stand whether or not Archive.org still has the link that was viewed by the WP editor on July 20 of that year. Again, red flag, red flag. So... No. Thank you for the anti-vandal work, it is effort that is appreciated and needed by the project, but I am not seeing enough on this page or in the history for a lifetime granting of deletion and blocking tools at this time. Carrite (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per abandonment, or some sort of pointy experiment. Also per Q3. @Yamaguchi先生: is free to ping me if there are extenuating circumstances. — Ched :  ?  15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC) will review — Ched :  ?  23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose- The candidate does seem to have abandoned this RfA. Reyk _YO! 17:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving back to my original support.

    open channel) 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Oppose and suspend this RfA: with no prejudice on running again. The candidate has vanished as of 30 October 2015, now more than three days ago. There are 12 open questions that have not been answered. I move to suspend this RfA pending the candidate's return to Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that he's active again now, has posted a note on talkpage, and most important, is now answering all the questions. (Good answers, too, IMHO.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see that now. Vote struck. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose, based on review and concerns stated above by Wehwalt and Dennis Brown. Kierzek (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Canned non-responsive response to my question. I do not feel comfortable giving this person the responsibilities of an admin. BMK (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. It is unclear to me how editors are expected to type the candidate's name. (I certainly don't know how.) Editors, especially newer ones, should not be expected to use copy-paste to type the candidate's name. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    User:Yamaguchi. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

15. Oppose. Yamaguchi appears to be calm and inoffensive, and - albeit with some breaks - has been around a while, so there are no concerns there, and I prefer to support candidates than oppose, but I'm opposing because I have serious misgivings about Yamaguchi's judgement. When I first came to this RfA I was impressed that the candidate had self-nominated - that shows confidence and decision making. But then it became clear that he had not thought through carefully enough his nomination, so was making errors. His signature was wrong, he didn't reply enough to the standard questions and had to be prompted, he presented his history ("off and on, for the past ten years") in a manner that some have found potentially disingenuous, and - very disturbingly, he neglected to inform the community that he doesn't edit on a weekend. I don't care when he edits - we are all volunteers, so edit when we can; but not to let people know at the start of your RfA that you are going to be absent for what turns out to be the bulk of that RfA is to indicate poor judgement. The editing "off and on, for the past ten years" I'm not so disturbed by as it does say "off and on", but I do understand what people are saying. So I'm uneasy. After being prompted to give fuller answers to the questions Yamaguchi gives as an example of his patience and communication the templating of User:Nagarukhra. That user (now blocked) is perhaps not a fine example of our community, however templating and reverting is a poor form of communication. The user was not a vandal, but someone who wanted to build an article on their community. Yamaguchi did not give assistance, but - instead of looking back and noting that Nagarukhra was the main contributor to the Nagarukhra article (and possibly the creator under a different name), got into a slow edit war over removing content. There is no reaching out to help, no discussion on the talkpage, just edit reverts, template warnings, ignoring of communication, and a complaint about the user on AN. The user was making mistakes, but we all make mistakes, and the way to learn is to be assisted not to be warned or shouted at. By itself perhaps not a terrible example of bad treatment of others, but when a RfA candidate holds that up as their best example of how they treat others I get concerned. However, I ask a question about it, to give the candidate time to reflect back, and they see nothing wrong, indeed respond that they were "communicative, fair, and firm". Certainly the firm part I can agree with. The answer to Q4 is poor, making a drama out of the situation rather than dealing with it themselves. Even though they have been here ("off and on") for 10 years, they only recently got the hang of archiving their talkpage properly. Their editing record is one of mainly semi-automated templating, with very little of substance to make judgements other that what I have indicated. And - even though there has been an issue of their not answering questions on this RfA, they still haven't answered Q16 from yesterday, though they logged on and edited for over an hour with AWB. I am concerned that well meaning and gnomish though they are, that Yamaguchi may cause more problems than solve them as an admin, through poor judgement, and thoughtless treatment of others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose No - I'm sorry, but I can not support this. I researched Q3 because I think how an admin deals with conflicts is the primary measuring stick. I oppose this RfA on three fronts:

    Communication I researched the two items that Yam listed as conflicts. What I found was all templates and boilerplate communication. Considering the areas that this candidate is asking to be active in (WP:AN, SPI, AfD, etc), I expect communication to be much more than templates.

    Accountability Yamaguchi先生& has spent very little time responding to to any concerns here. Dropping in at a late stage to respond to questions troubles me.

    Why? I see nothing nothing positive that requires additional tools.

    At this late stage, this will likely pass. We have admins who post "by the book", and it does not always bode well for the project. — Ched :  ?  05:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose Per concerns raised by Softlavender, Wehwalt, Carrite, and Ched. User has made large numbers of automated edits in the last year to get within the range of acceptability to most oppose votes. Some of the reverts were not exactly beneficial and sources probably should have been checked.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose I still haven't got a satisfactory reply to Q3, and it has been a long time since I asked. Moving to oppose. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I'd like to see a fuller answer to #3, and will probably await the inevitable questions/answer session. As for number 2, I think that could be answered more fully, as well. Are there pieces of the encyclopedia that you wrote a significant part of, is what I'm looking for. What bit of this mosaic reflects you?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Move to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I see nothing whatsover in the Support !votes that indicate the candidate is suited for adminship; quite the contrary. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral: Unsatisfactory response to Q3. I do not see any example of conflict in the links provided. What I see is an editor who is very helpful to newbies providing guidance about policies, a definitely plus. But there is no conflict there, and I can't find any conflict elsewhere in their edit history either. I want to know how this person will handle disputes before giving them the block button. You don't need the admin bit to advise newbies on policies. To quote Bobby Fischer/Savielly Tartakower, it is not enough to be a good player, one must also play well. I do not see any evidence of "playing well". There is also the issue of content creation, but that is secondary at this point, though it might come to the fore later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has not edited since 30 Oct. I hope that everything is fine in real life for them. I would like some answers to the questions before I make up my mind. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

1. Neutral: Leaning support, but waiting for answers to questions. This is important to me, because, even after reviewing contributions, I'm not sure how the candidate would deal with the situations an admin will face, and those answers may help a great deal. Begoon ^talk 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC) (updated 12:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)) Staying here, in the end. Responsiveness is important, and the delay, coupled with lack of communication about it, eroded my "lean" to support. I hope the candidate bears that experience from this RFA in mind as he moves forward as an admin, and he has my best wishes, in that. Begoon ^talk 22:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - The candidate's AfD participation is very low, no !votes at all, 25 nominations of which 6 were kept and a few ended in no consensus. I suggest the candidate, if successful in his quest for adminship, refrains from closing AfDs until some better understanding of the deletion process has been achieved. Kraxler (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Kraxler: The tool you were using to review AFD !votes is missing data because of the user's signature, which previously did not include an internal link (see the talk discussion for details). I have gone through their AFD contributions with AWB and tried to fix this, so you should be able to properly review more of their !votes now. However, the tool seems unable to process votes made around 2006, of which there are many—I suggest a manual review if you are still unsure. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Please don't worry. The tools seem to still don't work. I don't have any time right now to dig any deeper, and will remain neutral here. Kraxler (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral: I share some of Wehwalt's and Softlavender's concerns, I am concerned about the long gap and then a return without a lot of substantive editing, and I too await answers to questions but I also share HighInBC's concerns about totally random criteria. I am appalled that anyone takes issue for adminship with this user having non-English characters in their user name (though the suggestion to create a doppleganger is well-taken), given that it reflects a language that the username itself encompasses; that's just bigotry! I also think that measuring a candidat's worth by AfD stats is the most utterly ridiculous standard of assessment on wiki; it only is used because someone created a tool to measure it, it is not an area of wikignoming any more important than CfD, RfD, TfD or AbcD. I shall wait to see how the candidate responds and do further research on this candidacy, but I seriously think some of the other !voters need trout all around for having ridiculous, random reasons for their !votes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral - I don't have confidence in this candidate's editing ability or decision-making with respect to notability or when it is or is not appropriate to accept unsourced or defectively sourced information. However, this does seem to be a dedicated vandal-fighter, and those folks do need blocking tools. While I can't in good faith support this nominee, neither will I stand in the way. I do hope the nominee recognizes their limitations and stays within their area of expertise. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Would you mind changing your signature so that it includes a regular link to your user or talk page (maybe in addition to the external link)? I don't believe this is technically against
  the guideline, but it's confused me more than once and I believe it might confuse bots/tools as well. Thanks, and good luck! — Earwig ^talk 04:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Strongly agree with this. Yamaguchi先生, your signature needs to link to both your user page and also to your talk page as a whole (not a "create new section" page). This is doubly important for admins. In fact, it's a dealbreaker for me for an RfA candidate not to have a signature that is easily understandable and accessible to other editors, especially newcomers. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that Yamaguchi先生 self-nominated as I like confidence and boldness, though there can be value in getting some advise from an experienced user before actually submitting the nomination so little matters like this can be picked up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern regarding signature links, and have reverted to the default signature format. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamaguchi! Much appreciated. Softlavender (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I am becoming a bit concerned at the candidate's slowness to answer questions. This RfA was at a time of their choosing. Promptness in responding to inquiries is a hallmark of a good admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: If you don't mind, I am pinging Yamaguchi先生 to make them aware of your concern. --JustBerry (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt and Fylbecatulous: A review of Yamaguchi's contributions over the past month indicates that he does not edit on weekends, which would explain the lack of answers to questions. I think this is excusable as one cannot schedule a seven-day RFA such that it does not intersect with a weekend. I suggest holding off on assumptions of unavailability/unresponsiveness until Monday. — Earwig ^talk 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Not everyone is on here 24/7, even admins. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True but ... that's something to post in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge this as well, but... A third party administrator reviewing his edits over the past month and indicating this explains unresponsiveness because he does not edit on weekends is even more awkward to me. We are all toe-tapping while the clock on the adminship runs down and we are awaiting the weekend to be over. I say this wryly but "I suggest holding off on any further !votes until Monday". I am open to being convinced otherwise after our missing candidate responds. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted fairly early Friday morning US time. Of course the candidate may not be in US, in East Asia, by way of example, that's Friday afternoon. But that's still within my point about admins who aren't available. Starting an RfA will get you a guaranteed community response. Being off for multiple days during that time is still an issue, unless you've let people know. We shouldn't have to decode from contributions. And at this point, I'm going to break this off on my part because I can feel my stance hardening and I still want to vote for the candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we put this RfA on hold for the weekend? I am concerned at the lack of response to the questions, and the lack of explanation for that. We can suppose all sorts of reasons - that this is the candidate's normal editing pattern, and he didn't see the importance of informing us, or that he is ill, or he can't get online, etc. But the reality is that we don't know, and folks might start voting oppose because it looks bad, when there might be a reasonable explanation. RfAs which start to go downhill are hard to recover from. Perhaps we can get some 'Crats to weigh in here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crats have exercised discretion in the past about such things though I do not recall the details. I don't think this should close without his answers and I think the community should have reasonable time to react (48 hrs?). The vote count seems low, though, and possibly people are on the sidelines waiting. I think his original answers to 2 and 3 were cursory, which is why I really want to see these answers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The candidate has attended at least 76 RfAs and so will be quite familiar with the usual timetable. They seem to edit on a very regular schedule (M-F, 16-24:00 UTC) and so their current silence seems quite normal for them. As this was a self-nom, it seems reasonable to suppose that this timing was deliberate. Perhaps they wanted to have the closing stages during their active window. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are speculating, the truth is we don't know. I'd like to give the candidate a fair chance of explaining, and to suspend this RfA so we don't speculate him into a corner he might have trouble getting out of. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am speculating that if this person we elevate to administrator is never available but the five working days of the week (for whatever), I do not wish them to be having other admins handle their responsibilities every weekend. Some prickly problems are just not nine-to-five (or four til midnight). It is ludicrous to not even be able to be contacted...and I do not take well to the idea that this was timed deliberately to gain a better outcome (as was mentioned above) Fylbecatulous talk 13:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mean me. I'm convinced that Yamaguchi's being straight with us. But RfAs are closely watched by potential candidates, and I fear one might get the idea that this just might be a useful technique. I specifically referred to future candidates.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, no. no. It was mentioned by Andrew Davidson at 10:50 this morning. Sorry. I am striking that as an aside. The idea was certainly suggested before my comment, but I take my reply and all its intent and meaning as mine. My comments are mine alone and please forgve me for even a hint of incorporating you or others, So sorry, Wehwalt. (and Andrew). Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the apologies are mine for not realizing that. It was actually eating at the back of my mind that you might mean that. I should have thought more before hitting enter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All's well and paw pats. I speak in ramble much of the time :) I should have directly iterated to the comment in this section I had in mind, and had quite forgotten the specifics of your oppose. Actually, I didn't want to have involve Andrew D. by user name and then ping. Lol. peace... Fylbecatulous talk 17:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am sorry for not proactively communicating this beforehand. As mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生, I am usually offline during the weekend, and in hindsight I realize that I should have mentioned this at the start of this RfA. [9] The outage on Friday however was not anticipated, my sincere apologies. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, even people who get paid for their work get to take weekends off. It always amazes me what arbitrary demands the community decides to place on volunteers. HighInBC 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To all who are suggesting that Yamaguchi register a doppelganger: He can't because the SUL is already taken. He can create a redirect to his user page, however. epic genius (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I created

  User:Yamaguchi. Perhaps he can register User:Yamaguchi-sensei (or something) as a doppelgänger. Also, I just noticed the Yamaguchi SUL has zero public edits and registered seven years ago, so he could probably usurp that if he wanted to. — Earwig ^talk 02:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  People could just use any signature link or any history link to talk to them. I hardly ever need to actually type a name in, when I do need to I copy and paste. HighInBC 15:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your personal ability is no benchmark, I'm afraid. It is always important to ensure that there are no obstacles to less able members of any community to access the people that administer the site. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 3 November 2015 (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.