Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ynhockey 2


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

Ynhockey
Final (98/15/13); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

- I have known Ynhockey pretty much since I started editing Wikipedia almost a year ago. I am still very impressed with his contributions and his deference to Wikipedia policy. I believe he would make an excellent administrator. Nudve (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom: I've known Ynhockey for quite a while from our experience in editing articles related to the Bleach manga series, and I've developed a respect for his level head and civil nature. His content contributions, in anime and manga related articles and Israel-related articles, have been impressive, and in the latter, I've had an opportunity to witness his level head when he asked me to moderate a contentious merge discussion on Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Although he does not have a great deal of participation in traditional administrator areas, I believe that after 25,000 edits, he has a clear knowledge of policy, and will show due diligence if he has the tools. A net plus. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept the nomination. Thank you. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I will mainly be active in WP:RM (requested moves), WP:RFPP (requests for page protection) and WP:AIV (administrative intervention against vandalism). WP:ANI is also an area I'm interested in contributing to, but it's one of the more difficult areas for administrators, so I will probably not be active there until I have thoroughly learned the use of admin tools and WP:ANI precedents. I have also been asked by Nudve to coordinate WikiProject Israel (although a coordinator has not been chosen yet), and will perform the necessary administrative tasks in the project.
 * Follow-up (2008-10-22, !vote count 10/3/4): It appears that some of the neutral/oppose votes are based on the seemingly little experience I have in WP:RM, WP:RFPP and WP:AIV (the areas I pleged to work in initially), so I feel that this deserves clarification to avoid misunderstanding. This is not an argument against current oppose !votes, and I fully respect and appreciate the opinions of all users who commented so far.
 * Basically, I feel that after being on Wikipedia so long, there isn't a process I'm not familiar with, despite not directly participating in them—especially basic processes like WP:RM. I believe that understanding of a process is mostly based on understanding of policies and guidelines, i.e. WP:NC (and sub-articles) for WP:RM, WP:PPOL for WP:PPFP, etc. I have been around WP:NC since my first (bad) page move in December 2004, and have myself helped draft a naming conventions guideline. In regards to page moves specifically, I have made 352 page moves to date, which does not include non-controversial 'complex' moves and WP:RM requests. Therefore, I believe that the ability to handle WP:RM for me is mainly based on mastery of the actual admin tools, which I will learn and read about if received. As for page protections, I have been around Israeli–Palestinian conflict articles, which are often semi- and fully-protected, and have gained knowledge of when a page should be protected and when it shouldn't. For vandalism (AIV), the same thing applies, only regarding Bleach-related articles, which are vandalized all the time (mostly by anons). On my previous RfA, a user commented that I did not warn vandals, and ever since (It's been 2 years), I have left a message to almost every single user I reverted based on vandalism, nonsense, content removal, etc.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have mainly worked in two areas on Wikipedia: Bleach-related articles, and Israel-related articles. A while ago I completely disengaged from the former and focused on the latter, although an article I contributed to a lot has been promoted to GA there (and a few to FL, although I'm not so proud of those). In the Israel-related scene, I am particularly happy with Arad, Israel, Military Police Corps (Israel), List of Israeli cities and Battles of the Kinarot Valley, and my contributions to Commons. Anyone who is interested in welcome to browse my non-image contributions.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have been involved in a number of disputes related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. My rule of thumb is to never take a dispute to the mainspace and instead talk it out (even if it takes a very long time) until a clear consensus is reached. An early example of this is Talk:Machsom Watch, but there are many more recent ones, in the articles Battle of Jenin, Template:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, etc. I have been accused by several editors of being too pro-Israeli and other things, but this has not prevented me from strictly adhering to policy. I have made WP:ANI complaints against 2 users IIRC, who I believed were engaging in overtly disruptive behavior (User:Eleland and User:Deanb), but again, this never involved an edit conflict in the mainspace.


 * Additional questions from  Blooded Edge ( T • C • A )''':
 * 4. As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
 * A: I don't believe the cool-down block is ever a good idea. Either the user is disrupting Wikipedia after numerous warnings which would warrant a block per WP:BLOCK (I will first complain on WP:ANI or WP:AIV if I'm involved, or block the user following such a complaint), or the user is not disruptive enough to warrant a block, so there should be no block. Borderline cases usually involve editing disputes between two editors, where there is a thorough review and discussion on WP:ANI and other processes. In these cases, I will leave the decision to other admins until I have more familiarity with the tools, as I said in another answer.


 * 5. This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account. Please note that isn't some carefuly orchestrated plot to get at your account.
 * A: I believe my password is difficult enough so that no one will ever guess, and simple enough so that I can remember it. It does not consist of any single word or part of a known word, and involves two kinds of characters. I believe that the fact that my account was not hijacked in almost 4 years of having it is testament to the password's strength, although if the RfA passes and I get into situations where my userpage is excessively vandalized, I'll change my password more often just in case.


 * Additional questions from  tennis man '''
 * 6. You have shown a interest in working at request for page protection, as such I was hoping that you could provide a example in which you would fully protect a page, and for how long. Also, when do you feel that blocking is a better option than protection?
 * A: Some of my experience with page protections comes from working in Israeli–Palestinian conflict-related articles, where pages have been often protected or semi-protected. For a page to be fully protected, there first needs to be an official request, either at WP:RFPP or after a discussion on WP:ANI, the ArbCom, etc. I believe that a mainspace page needs to be fully protected if it has been unstable for a sufficient period of time, either as a result of clear-cut vandalism, or constant edit-warring. In both cases I'd message the users first and request an explanation of their behavior, and would protect the page if the disruptions are not stopped. Note that the above applies to pages which are disrupted by a sufficient amount of users. When only one user/IP editor vandalizes a page, other measures can be taken, so that good editors don't suffer. Lastly, high-risk templates should be protected, but I won't get involved with that in my early adminship period, if elected.


 * 7. You have also expressed an interest in working at administrator intervention against vandalism. I have two questions: What is the difference, in your opinion, between a block and a ban? Is there ever a time when it is appropriate to use a "cooldown" block? Also, please explain your stance on when different lengths of block should be used.
 * A: For cool-down blocks, please see A4. As for the difference between a block and a ban—a block is a technical tool to prevent someone from editing, while a ban is a sanction against a user. A ban does not have to involve a block (although it often does, after a ban is violated), and can be topical or article-specific, unlike a block.
 * As for different block lengths, I think it largely depends on the severity of the situation and the user's history. A user who has been blocked numerous times recently is not the same as a user who has a clean log and was never known to edit-war or violate policy. As for the 'severity of the situation', I believe there's no blanket/clear-cut answer to this, and each case needs to be examined thoroughly before a block is applied. I place a large importance on a user's answers to talk page concerns, and would say that someone who ignored/deleted talk page comments about their improper conduct would be more liable to a lengthier block, if that makes sense.


 * Optional questions from Aitias:
 * 8. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
 * A. I believe that it's usually fairly easy to see whether a mainspace article warrants speedy deletion, and have nominated dozens of articles and images for speedy deletion myself. Most criteria are very clear-cut and when this is the case, I would delete the article despite a hangon tag. For example, if the article's whole content is "John Doe is a high school student in South Harmon High School", or "rher sed455d", I would delete the article. In borderline cases where I still believe the article should be deleted, I'll message the user who placed the tag to ask why he did so.


 * 9. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
 * A. Hopefully I will not have to involve myself in this task anytime soon, but if I will, the decision will be based on a thorough examination of the user's activities on Wikipedia. I'd expect reasonable experience on Wiki, and would be more prone to give the tool to someone massively involved with fighting vandalism (although a clearly trustworthy user who only sometimes fights vandals would generally be fine). I wouldn't remove rollback rights unless the rollbacker is clearly disrupting the project despite warnings, and in harder-to-decide cases I'll wait for more input from other admins.


 * 10. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
 * A. This really needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and in fact I have learned a lot in this field because my last RfA failed mainly because of my insufficient knowledge of copyright laws. Almost all such images should not be used, and I can think of two main cases where it would almost always be fine:
 * If the person is alive but inaccessible to the public, e.g. kidnapped and held in captivity, and there are no known free photographs
 * If the person is well-known for a previous look (especially with very old people or plastic operations) and there's no known free photograph of the previous look
 * Despite there above, there are still exceptions and each case needs to be examined thoroughly.


 * 11. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
 * A. I don't see vandalizing my user page after a final warning as a conflict of interest when the case is as clear-cut as the question presents, so I'd probably block the vandal (although a case even a tiny bit more controversial would go to AIV, because I'm generally opposed to non-AIV unilateral blocks). Even so, I wouldn't block a user vandalizing pages I'm heavily involved in, because that, IMO, would indeed be a conflict of interest no matter how obvious the vandalism is. Because complaints to AIV usually get treatment very quickly, I don't see this as a problem.


 * Question from Stifle:
 * 12. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
 * A. Please see A10.
 * Oopsie :) Stifle (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions from Ncmvocalist:
 * 13. Scenario. You come across an article where 2 editors, A and B, are in a dispute. A's claim: B is inserting content without citing sources, and keeps removing the content that A inserts. B's claim: A is inserting content that does not adhere to a neutral point of view, and cites unreliable sources while removing the content that B inserts. Which position prevails?
 * A: From my experience with such cases in Israel–Palestine articles, cases like this are really better left to an official process, rather than a single deciding admin, who might not be able to properly assess the situation—either the admin is involved in the topic, which makes him knowledgeable but possibly biased/COI, or the admin is not involved in the area, which generally makes him not knowledgeable enough to immediately tell which sources are considered reliable, what consensus was previously reached (in controversial areas, content disputes usually repeat themselves over time), etc. If indeed I accidentally stumbled upon the article (as is implied in the question), I'd first leave a message (both on talk and user talk) asking the editors to keep their dispute off the article (mainspace), and use the talk page. If this isn't followed, an appropriate process can be started. This ranges from an informal WP:RFC or more formal WP:RFM, but depending on the situation, could be more WP:ANI- or WP:RFPP-appropriate. The choice would be based on a number of factors which are too many and too complex to list here. I wouldn't take any unilateral administrative steps in a content dispute, which is almost never clear-cut. I'll be happy to answer follow-up questions given a more specific scenario.
 * Follow-up question: If I were to ask the same question, with the additional fact that both users claims are legitimate/accurate, which position would prevail according to Wikipedia policies and norms? In effect, this follow up question is designed to assess your understanding of these in practice rather than how you would approach a content dispute in general.
 * Follow-up answer: With the previous answer I did assume that both claims were legitimate, but I think I understand what you want answered, and will try to do my best. Firstly, let me reiterate that I believe that admins should not take sides in content disputes and take special care with their actions there. In addition, it is always wrong to take a content dispute into the mainspace, therefore even if both editors are right, they are also both wrong for disrupting Wikipedia for the sake of their own arguments. In practice, I have witnessed that WP:V gets a preference over WP:NPOV in most articles (either that or the 'original' version before the dispute), so the one who cites more/better sources will usually get their version kept (often a temporary POV tag would be in order). However, sources on Wikipedia are not copied verbatim (obviously), so there's always room to convert POV to NPOV using the same sources, and therefore while the verifiable version could be kept, I would advise the NPOV editor to reword the POV version using the same sources for reference. I would also advise the WP:V editor about WP:NPOV, perhaps with some advice about how to tone down the language, create balance, etc.
 * I'd simultaneously ask for more opinions from admins and editors alike, because as I said before, an uninvolved user/admin cannot always properly assess the reliability of certain sources, or whether certain wording is NPOV (some words/phrases may be offensive to one side, without most people knowing about it—believe me, I've had a lot of such cases in Israel–Palestine articles). Again though, my core rule is that content disputes should be kept to the discussion namespaces and therefore any dispute similar to the one in the question would require more action against both parties than just favoring one version over another.


 * 14. If you find that edit-warring is occurring on an article you are uninvolved in, what would you do as an admin? NB: this is a deliberately broad question, so try to cover a few different scenarios in terms of type of article, number of editors involved, and how your use of tools would differ (if at all) in each scenario.
 * A: Firstly, the basic rule is to take great care with unilateral steps, and seek more/broader comments from other admins. An exception can be made when one user/party is a clear vandal. If that isn't the case, I'll ask both/all users to stop edit-warring (on both talk and user talk), and also examine the nature of the edit war. In case my advice isn't followed, I'll take it to one of many processes.
 * In clear violations of WP:3RR, I'll likely make an exception and unilaterally block the editors for the time I deem appropriate (usually 24 hours, unless there is a history of previous blocks).
 * In borderline violations of WP:3RR (especially involving tag team reverts), I'll take it to the 3RR noticeboard. Requests there are usually handled quickly and properly, so it wouldn't really hurt the article to wait and go through this process.
 * When no violation occurred, and only a small amount of users are involved in the edit war (usually 2-3), I'll go to WP:ANI, which is the best place to get general admin comments. After opinions have been voiced on ANI (especially by other admins), I may or may not make the administrative action which gained consensus myself (mostly depends on timing and how clear the consensus is).
 * When no violation occurred, but there are a lot of involved editors, making content edits and reverts left and right in order to 'bury' the opposition, I'll first and foremost ask for (usually temporary) page protection in WP:RFPP (again, simple and quick process, shouldn't hurt the article to wait and go through it), and after that probably file an RfC/RfM depending on the severity of the situation, until all parties cool down. Of course, if it's an area where I have no conflict of interest (as the question states), I'll make extensive comments myself on what I believe should be done, and would expect other reviewing the case to take them into account when making their own comments and ovservations.


 * Questions from Sarvagnya
 * 15. Do you think any of Wikipedia's standing policies and guidelines need changing? If yes, which ones and in what ways? If none, why not?
 * A: That's a tough question, because Wikipedia has innumerable policies and guidelines, many of which may need tweaking (for instance, I proposed a change to WP:CLN and got no reply so far; will open policy RfC when I have time). The only guideline I ever had a major issue with was WP:FICT, and it appears that this was a major dispute, because there was an all-Wiki discussion about WP:N and its sub-pages, and WP:FICT was demoted to 'essay' status. I believe most guidelines on Wikipedia are fine on the whole (again, some could use minor tweaking), because they are a result of long discussions involving users adhering to all parts of the broad spectrum of WikiPhilosophies. For technical reasons, guidelines (and even some policies) may evolve over time (notably, the recent decision to remove date linking), but the core policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. are just fine the way they are and worded in a more-or-less timeless fashion.


 * 16. Do you have something in mind you wish was a policy or a guideline?
 * A: I guess if WP:FICT was re-written to a version I support, I'd wish it would become a guideline, because Wikipedia has thousands of articles about fiction, and there should be a basic notability guideline. However, it's not a high priority for me at the moment, as I don't engage much in writing about fiction anymore. Can't think of anything else I'd wish to promote to guideline/policy status, after successfully promoting WP:HE to guideline.


 * 17. Is there any "guideline" you wish was "policy" or vice-versa? If any, why do you think it is not already a "policy"/"guideline"?  If none, why not?
 * A: I think that was mostly answered in A16.


 * 18. If you were to be given a free hand, what, if any, radical changes would you effect to the way Wikipedia functions?
 * A: I believe that the more power a Wikipedian has, the less they should be involved in controversies (other than required tasks, e.g. administrative tasks for admins, RfAs for 'crats, and ArbCom cases for ArbCom), and this especially applies to radical changes in the way Wikipedia functions. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, WP:CON is one of the basic building blocks of how Wikipedia currently works, and this requires that radical changes are discussed first. On the other hand, I may make proposals for such changes if need be, but that doesn't require a 'free hand'—rather, even regular users can, and have, proposed major changes on the project.

Look forward to your answers. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question from AlexiusHoratius:
 * 19. What are your current views on the ability of unregistered users (IPs) to edit Wikipedia?
 * A: Unregistered editing is a double-edged sword—from my experience, 'anons' make some of the best minor corrections (probably from personal knowledge), maybe because they're not generally too preoccupied with reading policies and adhering to WP:V so they can just look at a passage and see what's wrong with it. On the other hand, this is precisely also what makes many of them the most dangerous subtle vandals, because of minor edits which turn out to be incorrect (precisely because they didn't read policy and WP:V) that often go unnoticed for ages (a great example is population figures for Israeli localities, for which we use one general source (ICBS), but some anons use primary source figures to inflate the population by sometimes over 10%). I therefore believe that IP editing should be allowed, but restricted, much like it is now (no article creation, page moves, etc.) There are certain small changes which I'd like to make, but haven't fully considered the consequences (it has never been a top priority for me) and therefore haven't suggested anything specific. In any case, I support leaving messages to IP editors, especially those who make worthwhile contributions, and encouraging them to register/log in. I do recognize that 'anons' are responsible for by far the most blatant vandalism, but as Jimbo Wales once said, we can just laugh at that and move on, they can't damage Wikipedia permanently, really.


 * Additional question from VG:
 * 20. If a negative aspect of someone's life is published by mainstream media like Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, and Wikipedia has a biography of that person, should that information be included or excluded from the Wikipedia article? In a nutshell, what is more important WP:BLP or WP:V? If the question is too vague, feel free to discuss some example(s) of your choosing. VG &#x260E; 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A: This depends on the nature of the BLP violation, the importance of the fact, and the type of article in the media. In borderline cases, there should be discussion and the case should be solved by consensus after the statement is removed (so as not to risk a temporary BLP violation). I'll explain each of the above point by point:
 * Certain statements could be considered negative aspects by some, or simply neutral/factual by others (i.e. not WP:REDFLAG, e.g. in an article about PersonX: "PersonX criticized PersonY for his involvement in the XYZ affair"). Given a mainstream media source which generally satisfies WP:RS (including Haaretz and Jpost), I'd consider it appropriate enough, although if the claim is disputed, I'd consider it a borderline case where discussion is needed, and not immediate removal of the content. Same goes for clearly positive/neutral statements, which can also be BLP violations if OR. For clearly negative statements (e.g. "PersonX died", or "PersonX was charged with killing PersonY"), I'd look at the other 2 points.
 * Certain negative facts (e.g. death or lifetime milestones) are essential to a biographical article, and therefore would need to be included if true. In these cases, mainstream media is usually the first reporter of these facts, and there's no reason to suspect their truthfulness, unless the article does not aim to be factual news (see point 3 below). On the other hand, many facts are not very important and either border or WP:UNDUE, or clear violations thereof, e.g. "PersonX was caught shoplifting at the age of 10". In such a case, I'd remove the information from the article, but if I believe the case is not 100% clear-cut, I'd immediately initiate a discussion on the talk page, and make sure to warn the users that the discussion is about WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, not the factoid itself, because presenting it as clear fact on the talk page would also violate BLP.
 * In many mainstream media sources, especially Haaretz and Jpost, there is a staff of highly-regarded editorial writers, and often the editorial is presented in the same way as news, especially on the media outlet's website. Generally-agreed WP:RS mainstream media sources (including Haaretz and Jpost) usually check their sources, so there's no reason to doubt their accuracy when reporting news about a serious event in a notable person's life (especially a person's death), and if the event is recent, there won't be any non-news sources, so it doesn't get any more reliable than mainstream media. Great care needs to be taken not to source an editorial for this, and this can actually happen often as a result of web search (as opposed to directly browsing the website).
 * I realize that the question (in a nutshell) was whether WP:BLP was more important than WP:V, and the answer, in a nutshell, is that these two policies go together—a WP:V violation in a living person's biography is a WP:BLP violation, and usually vice-versa (other than WP:UNDUE BLP violations).

General comments

 * See Ynhockey's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Ynhockey:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ynhockey before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support User has been around since Nov 2004 and had the first RFA in 2006 and has waited for 2 years to try again after overcoming the points raised in previous RFA.User has more than 19000 mainspace edits and over 25000 overall.See no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User is highly experienced, trustworthy, neutral, knowledgeable and committed to Wikipedia. I have known him on Wikipedia for at least some 2 years and during those years, he has always displayed excellent professional behavior. Despite him holding a 'job' as Israeli prison commander for Arab prisoners (don't know whether he still does that), he has never displayed any bias in anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a very remarkable and positive fact. He recently did a huge amount of excellent work on the Arad, Israel article, which IMO should be a featured article. I see no reason at all not to support Ynhockey for adminship, so hereby, I give my full support. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as nominator. -- Nudve (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Ynhockey is a talented editor who is dedicated, thoughtful, and experienced so would make an excellent admin. DVD (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as co-nominator. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Pending a deeper review. I'm at least partly voting support this early in order to counteract some of the neutrals/opposes below. In my opinion, the purpose of an RfA is to determine if the candidate is trustworthy and reasonable enough to be granted admin tools. A wide range of evidence can be considered in this determination - simple participation in XfD, AIV etc. is not the only method. These forums also aren't rocket science - it doesnt' take a huge amount of participation to get the idea of how things should work and what the problems might be. To put it more plainly:no one is still an "unknown" after 25,000 edits and 4 years. Avruch  T 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) PEr WP:WTHN, but only because I don't see anything in my brief review of your edits worth actionably oppossing... lolz. &mdash; Ceran (Sing)  21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't see a need per se, but I do see a trustworthy well intentioned editor.  Garden . 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support I'm concerned by the user's lack of experience in the areas described in question 1, but he's not totally inexperienced. The answers to the questions seem fair and well-judged. Should be fine, but I urge caution, and perhaps admin mentoring if the result is successful. It may help to bridge the gap experience-wise. Best, Peter Symonds  ( talk ) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with the nomination regarding Ynhockey's contribution to Israel-Palestine articles. Also concur with Avruch - in all honesty, I don't envisage Ynhockey is going to struggle helping to clear backlogs at requested moves. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Experience in one area presupposes experience in other areas. RyanGerbil10 (Unretiring slowly...!) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support almost 80% of your edits are to article space. RMHED (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per net positive. Even if this admin makes mistakes, I believe they will be very few because of the massive amounts of time he has spent he and the policies he will have undoubtedly pick up. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per especially Pharaoh of the Wizards but also after a look through his contribs, especially considering the fact that Israel is such a hot topic (bias-wise). As to the concerns that this user doesn't have enough experience in the areas he mentioned - I see no problem. They will not be the exclusive area of work, and after 4 years I'm sure he knows enough. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support due to a combination of no memorable negative interactions with the candidate, the candidate's creation of over 150 articles, the candidate's contributing to featured lists, and as the candidate has never been blocked. --A NobodyMy talk 02:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support So let me get this straight: we have here a candidate with 25K+ edits and 4 years of involvement in the project, good article builder, no serious incidents, no blocks, edit-warring or civility problems despite working in the oh-so-friendly area of Israel-related articles. And people are criticizing his experience? How many times to we have to debunk the "no need for tools" argument? Adminship is not rocket science. The guy can read. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support- Pascal.Tesson's just said what I was thinking, and better than I could have said it. Reyk  YO!  03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Ynhockey is familiar with Wikipedia processes, and I am sure he can pick up new responsibilities as needed without causing much disruption. His interactions with other editors seem reasonable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Really, how long has it been since the "doesn't need the tools" argument was first demurred? Anyone can learn to be an admin;  trust is more important. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Great contributions to Wikipedia, especially in an area that is highly controversial. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Admin tools are easy. There's no real way to gain experience with them before RFA anyway. Your article work is good and stuff so yeah. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Hell yes - one of the best and few unbiased Israel-related contributors around. Will be a great asset as an admin. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support He is an excellent editor and very experienced, fair, and neutral. Always provides insightful additions to wikipedia and would make an above par editor. I agree with all of these comments under support. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Fantastic editor. Give him the mop. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Sound, experienced editor. Good luck.  Nick mallory (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Although I'm concerned with his lack of experience in the areas he wishes to work in, his great levels of experience in content building and general trustworthiness overcome this and I gladly support. --Banime (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Civil and mature, 4 years experience and 25000 edits? Most definitely. As stated by others, the most important thing to look for at RfA is the proper temperament; everything else is easy to learn. Glass  Cobra  11:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 28)  Cautious support  per reasons I gave in neutral section below--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 11:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I should note, that one of the things that I did while vetting this candidate was looked through the history on his talk page.  The talk page is relatively clean of anybody complaining about him, but he has a note saying that he retains the right to delete personal attacks.  So I looked for cases where he might have done so and was surprised at how rarely that occurred considering his area of interest---and when he did so, I agreed that his deletion was justified.  I will reiterate what I said below though, I strongly encourage people to keep conversations on one page.  It is a major pain in the butt trying to trace discussions through various user talk pages and their archives.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for the anti-Israeli crowd to show up to demonstrate how Ynhockey is a biased POV pusher and shouldn't be trusted with the tools. So far, they haven't.  Well, there is one, but the incident that person uses is so benign that if it was evidence of POV pushing then nobody would edit anything.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC).
 * 2) Support - I think you know what you're doing and have amply demonstrated that you're sensible and level-headed. While yes, you are short on some direct experience in admin areas, you do not come across as the kind of person that's likely to botch his way through things he does not understand. Your followup to question 1 is very convincing. ~ mazca  t 12:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - Brilliant editor. I've seen his edits pop up all over the place. A net-benefit user of the highest regard. -- Flewis (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Although I do understand the concerns of editors cautious of supporting someone who wishes to work in administrative areas in which they have little or no experience, I believe the possibility of misuse of tools by this candidate is still very low. Other than that, the candidate seems to be a solid content builder who has earned the trust of those he works with; that's something that always makes it difficult for me to oppose. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. 25,000+ edits. Consistently editing since September 2005. Never blocked. Can there be any doubt that ynhockey has a commitment to making this a great encyclopedia? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support. — Realist  2  14:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Needless to say, the facts mentioned below can't be ignored. However, the important question is whether Ynhockey is likely to abuse the tools. Given the answers to my questions I think this can be negated. The answers provide evidence that Ynhockey uses common sense and this is indeed very important. Overall I think there is no reason not to trust the candidate. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 14:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Being highly involved in a Wikiproject is not a valid reason to oppose. Contrarily, user should have a good understanding of the tools. User has made a significant number of edits, more than sufficient to gain understanding of policy and guidelines, and no one has provided any specific example of a lack of understanding. No reason to believe user will abuse/misuse the tools.   Dloh  cierekim  14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I trust this user with the tools. He will make a fine admin. --Patrick (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support call it an irrational bout of trust (I know it when I see it). The candidate's record is a good prediction that he won't abuse the delete button. NVO (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - He'll do fine — Lost (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support (changed from oppose) - Ynhockey2 is a highly experienced editor. His article work is impressive, and I don't think he will misuse the tools. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Over-the-top Support An Israeli hockey fan? It's certainly a demographic that is under-represented on Wikipedia. :)  But seriously, my interaction with him has been outstanding.  He has contributed heavily to this project despite his rather unusual outside commitments.  My only critique is his lack of involvement in Wikiproject Ice Hockey, but I think the world will move forward.  But actually (back to being serious), I see him everywhere, which is the kind of editor and admin that is great.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, user is involved in a WikiProject and is willing to learn. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Suppory: He failed an RfA in 2006, and seems to have been happy to simply continue working on building the encyclopedia since then. Not exactly a sign of someone who is likely to cause disruption with the mop by any far stretch. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for the "Oppose Too soon since last RfA"! Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence, because 2.5 years between RfA's is hardly enough time to consider life's meaning.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Avruch hits the nail square on the head. And I do so wish I'd thought of Hiberniantears' rationale. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Extremely impressed by the breakup I see here and the answers to my questions (though the answer to my fourth question was a little too politically correct for my taste). Sarvagnya 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support:The experience shown here convinces me that the candidate would have to be familiar with said policies, even if it was gained through tangential action. I see no problems. XF Lawtalk at me 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support. Answers to optional questions show a high level of maturity, tact, intelligence, and all around clue. Dearth of drama-laden ANI experience is a plus in my book; reading through contribs and discussions makes me very confident that Ynhockey isn't going to jump into administrator arenas and start bashing the banhammer around uncontrollably. Tan   &#124;   39  23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) support Editor likes hockey which is bad. But he likes Bleach which is good. Ok, joking aside, Ynhockey is a competent editor with better understanding of wikimarkup then I probably will ever have. He's one of the few editors on the Israel-Palestinians articles I've seen who seems to both understand that NPOV is not the same one's personal POV and moreover seems to be genuinely interested in achieving NPOV content. I find the editor's response in question 1 about experience issues to be while not completely compelling to be very reasonable especially given that the answers to the other questions generally demonstrate good understanding of wiki process. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Great article contributions and seems to interact well on article talk. Some more work at the noticeboards would be nice, but do we honestly need another admin that spends all of their time there? Nah, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not patrol noticeboards. A  ni  Mate  02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I liked the responses to the questions, and I feel that the editor will use the administrative tools properly, and has demonstrated interest in helping the project out.  I see enough here to trust him.  Lack of previous activity on the messageboards is not concerning in my view, as there's always time to learn, and as long as he doesn't jump in and start doing crazy things without consensus, he should be fine.  Fraud  talk to me  04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support this experienced editor who gives clear answers to questions. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support While some of the issues raised are important, I think that, as several users above have pointed out, the most important one in handing the mop to a janitor is whether you trust him to actually mop up the muck, and not just start running around showing everyone how big and powerful that mop is -- I have no fear that this editor will misuse the bells and whistles granted through adminship. Morever it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Cheers!JasonDUIUC (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I agree with whoever first said you don't need admin tools to be a Wikiproject co-ordinator, and of course any admin should steer clear of controversial tool use in areas they regularly work as an editor. As its been raised ind etail in this RfA, no doubt Ynhockey has got the emssage to stay clear of any perceived conflicts of interest. Re WP edit history, longterm editors can easily have a detailed understandign of WP policy and practicve without having made hundreds of edits to the policy pages. For example, extensive article editing will make anyone familiar enough with common vandalism to be able to take action on AIV reports, without having made 50 such reports themselves. Ynhockey's contribution record and (admittedly limited) WP work is enough to say its unlikely the tools will be abused. A net positive, and clearly someone who is committed to improving the encylopedia. Euryalus (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support My only real concern was with some material on one of Ynhockey's user subpages (marked as outdated) about IP editors, but I'm satisfied by his answer to my question. Other than that, the candidate looks fine to me. I would suggest, though, that Ynhockey either remove or strike through the stuff on that page with which he no longer agrees. Open editing is a foundation issue, and as an admin, you'll be, or at least be seen as, one of the foundation's representatives. Alexius  Horatius 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - nice responses, good work in the sensitive area of racial/national conflict. Good luck! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) If someone is intelligent, cautious, and gets what we do here, especially if there is a long history of demonstrating it, "experience in admin areas" is completely unecessary. --barneca (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good responses to questions &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 12:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.-- intraining  Jack In  13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) -- Y not? 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Responses confirm what the contribs show - a user who is level headed, thoughtful and understands policy. Lack of experience in admin areas is mitigated by the clear indications that he will not abuse the tools. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. I personally have no problems in seeing the nominee receiving adminship. Seems knowledgeable enough, and I can't think of any major issues caused as a result of the promotion.  Blooded Edge ( T • C • A ) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support 19,000 mainspace edits, here since '04, period. &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and per Xynmax. &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Time-tested editor who shows NPOV, thorough understanding of policies, and trustworthiness. Shirulashem (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Ynhockey is one of most knowledgeable candidates in recent times. He also edits in a potentially contentious area, and managed to do so for a long time without stepping on any mines. I also think he has demonstrated sufficient commitment to the admin areas in which he plans to use the tools. VG &#x260E; 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support; I was -ahem- slightly brash in my decision. He's been here long enough to do mostly everything right. Net Positive. RockManQ  (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Everything I have seen with this candidate demonstrates he is ideal admin material. Able to work well with others, demonstrated ability to learn and grow, strong familiarity with all of the relevant policies in their current form. Ynhockey works in areas with some pretty heavy administrative observation; there's no 3RR to report if the action's already been taken, or the page protected, or the vandal blocked. He's been there, done that, and got the t-shirt long before almost everyone else on this page had made their first edit. Clean block log despite editing in very intense areas - a good sign. I will forgive his Canucks fandom.  Risker (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG I think I'm going to have to change my !vote to oppose based upon the last sentence... Go Avs!!!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per my RfA criteria  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 12:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Nothing concerning here. Sam  Blab 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and some quality contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) SuPPorT Risker said it all. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ  00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I literally starting editing wikipedia like 4 days before Ynhockey. I've never been elected for adminship. I WANNA HELICOPTER!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - No concerns. I reviewed a number of his article Talk comments. He seems to be very patient. Good answers to the RfA questions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: As sephiroth bcr mentioned in his nom, I think the user's immense experience (which would naturally result in a clear knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) will help him to overcome any difficulties and make the correct decisions in his role as an admin. C h a m a l  talk 04:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: His experience and judgment I like. — Jojo  •  Talk  • 13:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: Tremendous experience. Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support: definite support, great overall experience. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Every time a trusted user, as is this candidate, uses the sysop tool it means another admin does not have to - thus giving a trusted user the mop increases the effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support The responses are solid - YnHockey has done himself justice. I had already chanced upon just a few (of a considerable body of hard work) of his admirable contributions and was impressed enough to look up the editor. These include subjects for which I had some knowledge and resources to contribute but was too put off by the sctual and potential heat to get stuck in; anyway, Yn makes a better job of it than I could. As for the "needs tools?" rattle, I'm mildly astonished at how this could be an oppose-worthy issue for this candidate. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Excellent candidate, reasonable and thoughtful. No valid issues concerning him yet raised. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. A trustworthy, good editor. NoCal100 (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor appears to be trustworthy; I do not believe he will misuse the tools. I therefore support his request.  Fraud  talk to me  04:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Whoops, my bad.  I didn't think I voted in this RFA previously.  My apologies. Fraud  talk to me  01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indented as duplicate vote. X clamation point  05:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, great editor which could and would benefit from the mop, definitely fits my criteria and frankly the reasons cited by the Oppose voters are ridiculous. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Very good candidate, no problems I can see. You clearly have a strong history of productivity in controversial areas and I cannot see any reasons that you will abuse the tools. I have reviewed the concerns of the opposition with varying merit, and overall none of it concerns me. I think you have enough general experience for the admin areas you wish to work in, such as WP:RM. I disagree with the view that being involved in a WikiProject gives you an automatic COI in the area it covers. Yes WP:UNINVOLVED applies but many WikiProjects are in need of admins that can sort out day to day issues such as page move fixing and dealing with vandals. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - a committed, clueful editor, and there is no reason to believe that he won't figure out how to appropriately use any mop-like cleaning tools too. --Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No reason to believe tools will be abused, and worthy of community trust -- Avi (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems trustworthy from his answers and contributions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  Impressive contribution history.  Trust is a given and therefore so is my support.  I am not concerned about lack of activity in admin-areas cited by opposes.  My criteria is trust, as anyone who can be trusted with the tools can only help when they choose to use them.  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Clearly the user can be trusted with the tools, therefore Support. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Seems ok to me. Amerique dialectics 06:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Yep Frank  |  talk  17:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: I see him as seemingly trustworthy candidate with lots of wiki contributions. Just 2 RFAs in 4 years should be seriously an eyeopener for many admin hopefuls :) --  Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support good experienced editor who doesn't cause waves in a very controversial area.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: been around a while, none of the opposes are deal-breakers for mine, i.e. highly likely will be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Of course, one of those RFAs that should have been automatic. Longstanding user, always been a reason of calm especially with the 9-11 articles which has been a source of wiki biggest dramas for years. Experience oppose votes are very weak Secret account 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I concur with much of the above, I'm seeing a good, experienced user with quality contributions. No reason not to trust them with the tools. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I hate to be the first to oppose and not to be able to cite any diffs...Anyway. It's good to see an editor with this much experience, but I just don't see a need for the tools. Ynhockey expresses a desire to work in WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:RM, but out of the total 25000 edits has made a total of 14 edits to WP:RM, and fewer than 5 to the other two areas. The nom has also made 20 edits to WP:ANI, but states that they will wait for some time to work in that area. Additionally, I could see a potential on-wiki COI issue; as a main editor to a Wikiproject, using admin tools to work on that area seems like it could cause issues. NOTE: I'm not flaming possibilities here, I'm just noticing an issue which could arise. As such, I feel I must oppose; though he is a trustworthy user, the tools are not needed in the current areas in which he works. -- tennis man  19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this rationale. Would you prefer an inexperienced and untrustworthy editor who trolls around WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:RM? Ynhockey has devoted his time to content editing, including many unique contributions (such as graphics and templates). If and when he gets the tools, he will start working in those areas and, in time, will start using those tools. Why is that a problem? -- Nudve (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I see it this way. If/when he gets the tools, he'll not know what to do with them, having not worked in the areas he wants to yet. Trial by fire may be a good thing, but I'd rather see users becoming admins already having a good bit of knowledge of AfD/CSD/AIV/etc policy beforehand. For the record, no, I don't want users "troll[ing] around WP:RFPP, WP:AIV and WP:RM". I just want admins working there to know what they're doing. -- tennis man  19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK :) But as long as you trust his judgment and his understanding of policy, in what way are you afraid he might abuse the tools? -- Nudve (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it really doesn't matter seeing as he's going to pass anyway, but his past edits don't show any need for the tools. It's not that I think he'll ABUSE them, it's that I don't see for what he WILL use them. -- tennis man  23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in a manner of speaking, if someone 'needs' the tools, they probably shouldn't get em. No one really needs them but rather it is necessary for the project that some trusted users have them. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Given my previous neutral rationale. It's enough to warrant an oppose.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not enough experience in areas candidate wants to work in. Basically per tennisman. RockManQ  (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. RockManQ  (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC) (see above)
 * 1) Oppose As per the previous comments and, ironically, as per this comment by his co-nomination: "he does not have a great deal of participation in traditional administrator areas..." This lack on project input on that front does not make him a net positive and, thus, cannot support him. Sorry, Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per tennisman. The candidate could use more experience in the admin areas in which he says he plans to participate. In time he'll be ready for the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per teh tennisman. macy 04:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not enough experience within admin-related areas. Perhaps in another six months? Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that he has been around for four years, it's hard to imagine what another 6 months will add. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Teh tennisman. Not enough experience in admin-related areas. AdjustShift (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to support, please see above. AdjustShift (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm sorry, but I cannot support !vote on a candidate who wants to work in areas they have little experience in to start with. Come back with more experience (although it does indeed look like this will pass anyway) and you will no doubt be getting a support from me. Good editor, though. &mdash; neuro(talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose per nom? Your answers to questions clearly show that you are intelligent and have clue, and your efforts in improving the project are commendable, however, you need more experience in admin areas, specifically the areas you want to work in, before I can support. Erik the Red  2    00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per User:teh tennisman and also due to lack of experience. Sorry Ijanderson (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - weak and inconsistant XfD experience. Some inappropiate keep votes. Lack of AN/I experience. And frankly, admins with huge interest and membership in highly contentious WikiProjects who plan to use their admin tools in said project are not the sort of thing I'm looking for in admins. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with virtually every statement here. "Weak and inconsistant [sic] XfD experience" - Ynhockey has made about 20 XfD votes in the last three months, and about 100 votes over his entire Wikipedia career of more than two years.  I don't know what standard of experience you're looking for, but if 100 XfD votes is not enough, we've got serious problems here.  He also does some deletion sorting.  "Some inappropriate keep votes."  Name two, since you used plural.  Cite evidence for your statement or else retract it.  "Lack of AN/I experience" - this is not required for adminship anyway, but he does have 10 edits to WP:AN/I, most recently this very reasonable reaction to a series of personal attacks.  "And frankly, admins with huge interest and membership in highly contentious WikiProjects who plan to use their admin tools in said project are not the sort of thing I'm looking for in admins."  And frankly, there is nothing wrong with being involved in WikiProject Israel - it is not inherently "highly contentious" and frequently produces and improves articles on noncontroversial encyclopedic topics.  If Ynhockey has personally been involved in edit-warring, present evidence of that - otherwise, don't play a game of guilt-by-association.  That's not the sort of thing I'm looking for in RFA voters. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't feel that I can support a user with virtually no experience in the areas that they want to work in. Sure, the user has good judgment, but judgment is no substitute for experience. Furthermore, the user said many times that they would look for the opinion of other admins in areas that they want to work. Input from other admins should not be necessary for most decisions that an administrator needs to make, and if it is, it should hold the same weight as any other users input.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As per MWW113 and the areas where he says have TOO many admins there anyway. Itfc+canes=me Talk   Contributions  14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many admins? Aren't the pundits saying that the admin corps are running dryer by the day when it comes to day-to-day maintenance on the encyclopedia? - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible to have too many admins working to resolve the backlogs. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many admins? Let's kill that ludicrous meme right now. There cannot be too many admins. You know what admins do when they're not busy doing admin stuff? They do editing stuff like improving articles, helping to organize content, getting involved in talk page debates. Seriously, anyone opposing an RfA on the grounds that there are too many admins deserves one of these. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to tell RfB that. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Lack of project space experience disturbs me.-- Koji †  23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for lack of project space and per Tennisman, Erik and Eco. -- ₪ Amused Repose   Converse!  16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose Sorry I am late on this vote (have been away), but I urge everybody to read what I have just written on Talk:Karmiel. In short: Ynhockey has done thousands of useful, though mostly minor and uncontroversial edits, on many articles, including geography-articles of Israel. The problem is that he has a strong POV regarding MiddleEast (Israel/Palestine)-articles, and he has become an editor which strongly pro-Israeli editors notify when they want/need support. Nothing unusual in that, but I am very reluctant in giving the tools to somebody with such a strong POV, when he has not  in any way shown that he has a great need for the mop. Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with Ynhockey comments on the talk page. It should be noted that his edits on the article itself are uncontroversial, and his response just mirrors Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution and NPOV and are highly appropriate given the edit war on this article. I cannot see anywhere from his edits on this page that he holds a strong POV. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Blue here, I don't see anything to demonstrate that Ynhockey is doing anything besides presenting WP policy. If this is the most egregious example of Ynhockey's POV pushing, then I'm going to have to change my !vote from cautious support to support.  I see a person who is making a policy based statement, providing a firm rationale for it, and asking for reliable sources.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this is the "most egregious" example of POV pushing, this was an example I knew, where he supported the removal of sourced information (that had been in the article for more than two years). (I have not had time to look through his other edits). You don´t solve WP:UNDUE by removal of stuff you don´t like. I can agree that discussions should have started earlier on the talk-page, but that editors goes straight to him, (and, suprise, suprise,  gets support for *their* view,) doesn´t that tell you anything? No? What he supported the removal of was a reliable source; that is the point. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since that article's talk page is almost a case of WP:TLDR, can you provide any diffs supporting your comment that Ynhockey supported the removal of a reliable source? It seems a little unreasonable to expect us to just read what you wrote and pick out that one detail. I'd like to evaluate your concern but don't have any specifics to do so. Frank  |  talk  18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume it is this diff, Ynhockey's only edit before today (ignoring adding a tag for the wikiproject Israel and fixing a typo). All other edits were done after the discussion started here on the Rfa page. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral - Candidate has virtually no experience in the areas they wish to work (AIV, RFPP etc..), and indicates that they will implement the tools in a wikiproject they coordinate (or will coordinate) and contribute heavily to.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Netural leaning Oppose Candidate exprasses to work in areas he has little experience. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Switch to oppose Wisdom89 and America69 said it best...and first (I have to figure out a way to get to these things earlier). Also, one doesn't need to be an admin to be a WikiProject coordinator (as per the candidate's response to Q1). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral — Per Wisdom89, America69 and Ecoleetage. I'll switch accordingly later on. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I hate to give a useless "per User:X" comment, but Wisdom89 said it all. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Ynhockey is a good contributor, but has little experience is admin-related areas he/she plans to work on. Will gladly support with more experience in these areas.  DiverseMentality  (Boo!)  03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * neutral Pascal's reasoning does makes sense here... I'd like to have seen more in the areas where he wishes to contribute and I'm not 100% sold... but if he can endure Israel without getting tons of POV pushing complaints that says something... should this fail, I would recommend that you start responding to people where the discussion began... talk pages like yours are a major pain in the butt! I might have supported if I could easily see your responses, but I just don't have the time to trace your conversations adequately.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Pending A to my Q's. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Some well thought out answers in some ways, however, I don't think it attacked the issues strongly enough either. For me to support, most of the fundamentals are there - sufficient for a lot of the stuff he wants to work in. However, I expect that an editor who goes for RFA after 3 years should have, and be able to demonstrate, a strong and deep understanding of these fundamentals. Like others here, I'm not satisfied that there is enough experience, which is why I suspect that part of the understanding fell short of what I was hoping for. In such cases of that missing "depth", users with tools can (without realising, and without the community noticing) do more damage than good. Despite my concern, there are some other positives, and it seems he is trying to be very careful which may avoid that problem. Overall imo, it's certainly not enough for my support, but it just falls short of oppose. Neutral. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per not enough experience in the areas that they wish to contribute in as an administrator. With as many edits as the candidate has, I think it would be reasonable to expect to see a significant number of additional edits to their declared areas of interest. --Strikerforce (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Overall, good contributions. However Ynhockey does not have much experience in the areas that he intends to mop.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I was borderline before reading this discussion; I think there's too much fence-sitting in the answers to questions. As an admin, you will have to take strong positions one way or the other. (And yes, I am aware of the irony in voting neutral for this reason.) Stifle (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per Erik the Red. Icewedge (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. I would answer Q10 slightly differently myself:  in almost all cases, I would be inclined to disallow a non-free image of a living individual, even in the exceptional case of somebody who is &#8220;inaccessible to the public.&#8221;  As for Q5:  TMI.  Overall, however, seems like a good candidate.  Bwrs (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Meutral. Just not enough experience in admin-related areas for a support, though I sincerely hope this does pass. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral seems like a good editor, but not enough experience to become an effective administrator. More experience in admin-related activity will gain my support in the future.  Seems like this editor does have decent judgment, so I hope this RfA passes.  - Jameson L. Tai  <sup style="color:#660000;"> talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral leaning Support Admire work at WP:ANIME very much. Some issues with Ynhockey's votes in XfD's, though. I c  eUnshattered  [ t ] 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.