Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JYolkowski

JYolkowski
final (20/0/0) ending 01:05 5 June 2005 (UTC)

I have been here for around seven months and have accumulated roughly 3,300 edits. I feel that I am ready for the responsibility of adminship and would do a good job with it. JYolkowski // talk 01:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. Funny thing- I was thinking of nominating him today, but it somehow slipped my mind and he beat me with a self-nomination... JYolkowski would make a great admin. He has been relentlessly reverting vandals (see his user contributions) and is extremely dedicated to Wikipedia. In addition, he is polite and professional. He has also been involved in a meticulous picture tagging project. Finally, he has welcomed a lot of new users (including me!) Thus I am honored to give the first vote of support to JYolkowski. Flcelloguy 01:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. I haven't run into him personaly, but he seems like good sysop material. Howabout1 01:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Vandal hunter? That's my type of guy! Linuxbeak | Desk 02:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Excellent user. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I've had nothing but good experience with J, and he always explains his actions to the community - the most important quality in an admin in my view. Harro5 04:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Decent experience with this user. JuntungWu 06:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I've seen him on the RC Patrol, he deserves the extra tools. Rje 12:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Mike H 17:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A great editor (see his FA work at Canadian Pacific Railway), who has now turned his attention also to battling vandalism. Fawcett5 15:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I've seen this user revert lots of vandals, the rollback button will serve him (?) well. FreplySpang (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Edits show a strong dedication to RC patrol, and a worthy admin candidate. Bratsche talk  random 01:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Klonimus 03:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Why, yes. Good editor, interested in mopping and bucketing, interacts well, and a selfnom, my favorite icing on the cake? Of course! Bishonen | talk 10:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I usually disagree with self-nominations, but Yolkowski is a good and levelheaded contributor and so deserves an exception. Radiant_* 11:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Excellent user and valuable contributor. Will make a fine admin. Sjakkalle 14:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --nixie 01:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support--Duk 16:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. -- Silversmith Hewwo 20:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. As others stated above, he is polite and professional, and he explains his edits.  Furthermore, he has contributed to controversial talk pages without getting rattled.  Ann Heneghan 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I already spend some time patrolling Recentchanges, so having the tools to deal with vandalism would be great. I would also help out with VfD.  Also, if I noticed things that really needed to get done, I'd step in and help.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am most pleased with being able to turn turn Canadian Pacific Railway into a featured article and seeing it on the Main Page on April 23.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. Nothing more significant than some editing disputes, although I do get somewhat stressed about those. I have generally found that I achieve good results by assuming that the other person is also acting in what they believe to be for the good of the article, and discussing on talk instead of unilaterally reverting.