Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生

AfD Stats don't work for this candidate
I tried to check Yamaguchi's AfD stats using the usual method but for some reason it says that his votes in any AfD's that he didn't nominate are undiscernable. Any know what's going on? Brustopher (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm seeing the wording as "had no discernible vote by this user". I'm simply not seeing that he !voted on anything -- he made noms but never !voted on any AfDs. Is that correct? Perhaps he only listed (categorized), re-listed, closed, or commented, but never !voted on those? -- Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you search through his contribs he's !voted keep on several AfD's and hasn't just !voted on those he nommed. For some reason the app isn't picking up anything that he wasn't nominator for. Brustopher (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is odd then. Is there an alternate AfD stats tool to use? Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for this is because his signature does not include an internal link to his user page, talk page, or contributions page as recommended by the guideline, so the tool is confused. Interestingly enough, I brought this up earlier, and now we see why it might be important. —  Earwig   talk 15:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this help? Although this only includes deletion nominations. sst✈discuss 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Following a request, I have gone through his AFD contributions using AWB to update the signature. The AFD tool works better now (see ), at least on recent votes, but while going through the contributions I have noticed he has a lot of votes from around 2006 that the tool is unable to process. Not sure what's going on there. —  Earwig   talk 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to do with the non-English username? Leaky  Caldron  22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, since it manages to parse the more recent votes correctly. The old ones have the same format. —  Earwig   talk 23:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Responses to Softlavender's Oppose !vote

 * 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 and a non-notable straight-to-DVD film with only a plot and a Trivia section . 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. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Softlavender, but I don't understand your thought process here. A user becoming more active recently indicates "severe WP:EDITCOUNTITIS" to you? How? They haven't even mentioned their edit count at any point in their self-nomination or when answering questions. And how would they resolve this issue to your satisfaction? Editing more? Editing less? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A user making 35,000 mainly non-substantive edits within 13 months is textbook editcountitis. Not a good sign at all in an admin candidate, in my opinion. Especially considering they were barely active prior to 13 months ago. There's nothing wrong with typo corrections, or rollbacks/reverts and userpage warnings, but an admin candidate needs to demonstrate quality editing, not quantity. I've already indicated in my !vote how the candidate can remedy this to my satisfaction. I will add/elaborate and say cut out the mass typo correction (and any other mass automated or semi-automated editing) if you want to be seen as a viable admin candidate in my eyes. Leave the typo corrections to the wikignomes, and focus on quality editing, substantive editing, and admin-related tasks such as dispute resolution and decision-making; also, gain some experience in decent article creation. Or, be content to be a typo-correcting wiki-gnome if that's your real calling, but I won't take you seriously as an admin candidate if your edit history is filled with that. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation; I think I understand your comment a little bit better now. I strongly disagree with "cut out the mass typo correction"—discouraging (and effectively punishing) productive editing is absolutely absurd in my opinion—but you're entitled to your opinion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "punishing" or "discouraging" anyone for or from "productive editing". I am performing basic due diligence for an RfA, which includes closely examining edit histories. Editcountitis is a red flag, just as is quantity over quality in edits, actual length of editing versus length of account, etc. This is even elaborated in Advice for RfA candidates. You're free to disagree and/or !vote as you please. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, though. You're !voting against someone—at least in part—because they've been fixing typos, with the explicit suggestion that they should "cut [it] out". That discourages fixing typos, which I'm sure you would agree is a productive thing to do. Therefore, you are discouraging [a certain type of] productive editing. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm voting against someone for several combined reasons, one of which is obvious editcountitis and in that respect far-and-away valuing quantity over quality in their own edits. You are interpreting my lengthy analysis and !vote as something different from what it is, and cherry-picking what you don't like. This isn't about you, or how you edit, or how any given editor spends their own chosen wiki time/edits. It is about evaluating someone for adminship. I would appreciate it if you dropped this, or moved this conversation to the Talk page, because it is becoming obtrusive in its length even though I was already quite clear in my advice to the candidate in my initial !vote. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that a candidate should refrain from correcting typos utterly depressing. It is one thing to say that you don't give much weight to such editing and would like to also see quality content writing. It is quite another to actively discourage people from this kind of useful editing. We need typos to be fixed, and everyone should be encouraged to help out with that process. You can't fix typos in multiple articles with one edit, so that is bound to generate a lot of edits. It's only editcountitis if obtaining edit count is seen as goal in itself - having lots of edits ≠ editcountitis. WJBscribe (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No one should refrain from correcting typos. I did that for a living for most of my entire career, so that's the last thing I would ever insist upon. And I greatly appreciate it when it is done to the articles I create or contribute to. I am merely advising the candidate on what a successful adminship candidate would look like in my eyes. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to word this softly, as I mean no disrespect, and people are fully entitled to their opinions. Those that are quick to point out editcountitis may actually be the one's afflicted with it. Regardless of how this RfA turns out, I also encourage Yamaguchi先生 to continue their efforts to improve the encyclopedia by correcting typographical errors. These types of edits are often downplayed, but they are crucial in maintaining an up-to-date encyclopedia. North America1000 13:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NA, you're making a thinly veiled accusation there which you should back up with evidence. I'm a slow editor, a content editor, and I've never made a single automated or semi-automated edit. In nearly 9 years of steady editing here I've made 40,000 edits -- approximately 4,400 edits per year. I would appreciate it if you withdrew or striked that insinuation. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you are a "slow editor" does not mean that you have to force other users to follow your personal editing habit. Nobody is perfect. It is ridiculous to discourage any productive and useful editing. sst✈discuss 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would people kindly read my entire !vote rather than making unfounded assumptions about me, my editing choices, and my motivations? Do people even understand what editcountitis is and how it is a known red flag in RfAs? You can disagree with my analysis and conclusions, but the personal aspersions have got to stop. I have nothing against people who do automated edits and mass spelling corrections. I do however view editcountitis as a major red flag in an RfA, especially for an editor who has only been continuously active for only 13 months. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect for your long editing history, it's hard for me not to view this as a case of "their editing history is different from mine, therefore wrong". Some people write FAs in eight edits and eschew useful tools like Twinkle and AWB, and others spend hours fixing typos and reverting vandals to make sure our wonderful content remains presentable. The one isn't better than the other. I haven't spent much time looking into this candidacy, but it seems unfair to accuse a good-faith editor of abusing the site without strong, strong evidence. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would people kindly read my entire !vote rather than making unfounded assumptions about me, my editing choices, and my motivations? Do people even understand what editcountitis is and how it is a known red flag in RfAs? You can disagree with my analysis and conclusions, but the personal aspersions have got to stop. I have nothing against people who do automated edits and mass spelling corrections. I do however view editcountitis as a major red flag in an RfA, especially for an editor who has only been continuously active for only 13 months. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand perfectly what WP:EDITCOUNTITIS is: "material which is kept because it is considered humorous". You're justifying your oppose with a joke page. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't believe it is an observable behavior or valid concern, or that it is a valid reason to question an RfA candidate's suitability. Then we are not in agreement; that's fine. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't much matter what I believe. You've directly cited a "humorous essay" in your oppose rationale, and mentioned it half a dozen times more. If you have evidence of frivolous or unprofessional edits, I'd love to see them. As it stands, though, you've moved to reject somebody's offer to help contribute in a higher capacity based at least partially on a joke. That's very rude, in my opinion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, I'm sorry to say this but the unfounded assumption here comes from you. Editcountitis is described as "an unhealthy obsession with the number of edits one has made to Wikipedia". You assumed that because a contributor has made a large number of edits, they are obsessed with the number of edits they have made. That is both a logical fallacy and fundamentally an assumption of bad faith. You have continued to mischaracterize the responses to your position as being a rejection that editcountitis is a problem. But what is actually happening is that people are challenging your assertion that this particular editor has editcountitis, just because they have made a large number of edits. WJBscribe (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am evaluating a candidate as objectively as I can based on the evidence. Your evaluation may be different. Please AGF on both sides of the equation. I'm tired of all the personal aspersions and am going to stop here, because conversations are becoming repetitive. If people want to have the last word, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Side note on ...and when your signature is fixed. – That's an issue with your browser, you need an update/plugin to be able to properly view Japanese characters. Nothing wrong on Yamaguchi's end, I can view the characters just fine (as can most others). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no link to his userpage or directly to his full talk page. That's the issue, not the Japanese characters. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad. Well, technically there's nothing wrong with the way they have it formatted, hence my misunderstanding. The policy doesn't explicitly state it has to be to the full talk page, just that one to a user page is highly recommended. It's still a link to their talk page so I personally don't see the issue (and viewing their full talk page is just a click away anyways). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an issue for newcomers and newbies. It wouldn't signify except that he wants to be an admin, in which case it is unacceptable. You'll find the discussion about it in the General Comments on the main page. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmm, fair enough. Overlooked the newcomer aspect so I guess being thrust immediately into an edit screen would be a bit unsettling (alongside the issue with AfD being discussed in the above section). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Editcountitis" is an unhealthy obsession with edit count. Doing a lot of edits in a short period of time is not that, however focusing on how many and how quickly edits were made is. I would say that Softlavender's justification for their oppose is far more editcountitis than simply doing a lot of edits quickly. HighInBC 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Every edit count analysis of users who have been registered for several years tells a story. In her vote, immediately graps a straw that can provide a rationale to oppose and to express herself in a way that other participants might take as an accurate portrayal of a candidate's history. What she is carefully omitting is that it is entirely possible that the sudden burst in activity in 's contributions might well be due to some major event in their RL, such as is blatantly obvious in my own editing history which shows almost to the day when I retired from teaching, when I passed my RfA, and when I found a retirement job, and that of Sofylavender herself which is not completely dissimilar given her published DoB. I could expect a noob with nine months tenure and 30,000 edits to be seeking adminship as a trophy to parade around the schoolyard, but please not someone who has been around and editing steadily for ten years. Lets get real or either find another retirement hobby than making misleading votes on RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [[User:Kudpung, I said I wouldn't reply further but you pinged me and also I respect your opinion. The fact is the candidate has not been editing steadily for ten years (at least not by my definition). I pointed that in my !vote. Please look at his editing history . Thank you. I'm also going to make the observation that the persons who objected to my analysis (at least the ones I was responding to before I stopped reading this discussion) are editors with stratospheric edit counts, so I'm not surprised they take offense at my analysis and I should actually just have let the matter drop because of extreme prejudice (in my opinion) on their parts. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * must think I'm stupid if she really believes that I, of all people, didn't already thoroughly examine the candidates edit count history; instead she prefers to ignore good faith theory completely. Perhaps she should take the cue and compare his with mine - and hers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never assumed bad faith or that you hadn't examined the user's edit history thoroughly. But if you feel that the candidate has been editing steadily for ten years, then we simply disagree ... as witnessed by the fact that I already noted his lacunae on my initial !vote, and that I said in my reply to you above "by my definition". Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The only "long-term" the user was missing was between April 2008-May 2011, all other times s/he was very active, and making 20/30 edits a month prior IMO is active enough ..if Yama can account for those missing "3 years" that would be great...-- Stemoc 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Until we start to get a pay cheque then I think it is nobody's concern what was going on during a wiki break. We are all volunteers, we should count the time this candidate has freely given us and not worry about the time they have decided to devote to other things. HighInBC 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 2 breaks, one for 3 years, other for 2 years..if he can't account for those missing "5 years", then all I can say is that it doesn't matter if he made 30000+ edits in the last 13 months or so, he will probably disappear again for another 2 or 3 years so after becoming an admin...the wiki needs "active" admins, not lazy ones..in the meantime, i have to somewhat agree with softlavender-- Stemoc 03:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)



Removing a question
I thought Question 10 was a little odd and when I looked into the editor, ßlaïsi Furstqurzel, their account is only an hour old. Would it been inappropriate to remove this question which appears to be trolling? Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the question as ßlaïsi Furstqurzel has been indefinitely blocked. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No edit conflict appeared for you? :o Acalamari 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Question 14
(moved from RfA page under question 14)
 * Comment: More than one of the questions on this RfA are unfortunate. This one will make little sense even to a dedicated fan of American football, and will be complete gibberish to anyone else. I've asked the editor who posted the question to consider removing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have said on my talk, I've prepared a written statement in justification. I don't want to discuss this at length as it will defeat the purpose of the question.  It is legitimate and it is based on things the candidate has said in this nomination, and knowledge of football is not needed to answer it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this be for now, but this better be good.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is fine. If he blows off the question though, I don't consider myself so bound.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've shortened it. If you have some further need for my attention in future, please consider a ping as more than adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Admins. often face confusing situations and ambiguous wording. We all respond to such situations with our own best abilities, and perhaps this is a measure of such a situation.  I don't know, but Wehwalt isn't known to make random posts without divulging or clarifying his/her intent, and I've never known them to be unresponsive to questions.  — Ched :  ?  04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but this is the most obtuse question I could possibly imagine. I'm very interested in what the point of it is. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Since  and  and  have questioned Question 14, I'd be grateful for their opinions on question 17 18 here, before the candidate goes to the trouble of answering it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think the questions are fine as posed. They appear to be straightforward and relevant to evaluating the candidate.  One note: you may need to ping the user, or drop a note on their talk.  They do not appear to be watching this.  Question 16 was asked at Nov. 3 6:29 UTC, and their contribs show that they were editing as late as Nov. 4 2:20 UTC.  To be honest, this leaves questions in my mind; not only about the boilerplate and template style of communication, but also I am wondering how serious they are about this.  The reason I mentioned the "experiment" idea in my original oppose was because I recall years ago that several experienced users created "new accounts" to "test" how new users were treated.  Perhaps I'm being cynical, but that old "Fool me once" proverb sticks with me. — Ched :  ?  08:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, and thanks, but I'm actually more concerned with the substance of what is in the diffs I gave. His response about promotional editing seems strange and not responsive to the concerns raised by the editor. And this was less than a month ago.  There's reason, I think, to question the manner in which he interacted with that editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that question is much more like it, drilling down into actions that the editor in question has actually taken. IMO, Q14 was some weird "hypothetical" wrapped up in impenetrable gridiron-ese. Not that I would ever apply to be an admin, but I would just have ignored it (and 99% of the rest of the voters would have been fine with that). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I have no issue with the new question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidate unresponsive
Perhaps I'm too quick to be saying this... but I have communicated with Yamaguchi先生 many times via email and they are usually responsive. My attempts to contact them over the past several days have been to no avail. It is my opinion that this RfA should be suspended and discounted if we do not hear back within a day or so. This is not like Yamaguchi先生. I fear something in real life has gone awry &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My best wishes that everything is ok. There was also a request at WP:BN, perhaps your personal experiences should be noted there. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you all for the concern, all is well. I am usually not online during the weekend.  In hindsight, I should have been proactive in mentioning this.  My initial plan was to respond to additional questions on Friday and then resume answering those questions on Monday, but there were some unexpected events that transpired on Friday related to the holiday celebrations which did not allow me to be in a place to provide thoughtful responses.  In any event, I apologize for the delay, which was partially expected and unexpected, and will be reviewing and answering additional questions today and throughout the process.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)