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

Yunshui[edit]

Final: 97/0/0. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Yunshui (talk · contribs) – Whenever I get a chance, I try to help out at Editor Review, with the vague hope of finding an excellent candidate for adminship. A few months ago, I found Yunshui, a hard-working editor who wanted a bit of feedback. The more I investigated, the more impressed I was and now I believe he's reached the point that he should put himself forward for mop-duties.
Yunshui clearly has the right temperment to be an administrator, I've not seen him lose his head in any of the investigations I've done. He certainly has a good track record in administrative areas, participating in hundreds of WP:AfDs, has a long CSD log (despite only moving to Twinkle in May), along with hundreds of edits to WP:UAA and WP:AIV.
Although not one of our most prolific content creators, he has created around 75 articles and does spend time working on those articles that interest him, pretty much singlehandedly creating Chikaraishi. Instead, he occupies his time helping new editors, answering questions at the helpdesk, responding to feedback, even writing a series of essays "for beginners".
In short, I believe Yunshui would make an excellent administrator, I hope you do too. WormTT(talk) 13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Vibhijain[edit]

Its a pleasure for me to co-nominate Yunshui for the admin tools. A great vandalism fighter, he shows all those signs which I look for an administrator. He is trustworthy, helpful, civil, and most importantly, he knows what he is doing. Instead of simply reverting newbies, he always makes a point to help them in learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which makes him a great asset to the project. Also the way he deals with conflicts is superb. I believe that handing the administrator rights to Yunshui will benefit the project in a great sense. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you; I accept. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Much of my best work has been in the field of anti-vandalism and dealing with other unsuitable additions to the encyclopedia, so I anticipate being active primarily at AIV, UAA and RPP. I've often noticed backlogs at these pages, especially RPP, and as a regular reporter to them I know how frustrating it can be when a report doesn't get a quick response. I also expect to work at CSD and AFD; I've spent a lot of time using both and believe I have a fairly sound understanding of the relevant policies. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm quietly proud of Chikaraishi, which I took to GA virtually single-handed; who knew there was so much to say about a load of rocks? Much of the content I create has been, by necessity, fairly stubby; there isn't much available in English on many of the topics that interest me, so I've often had to put together what I can from sources and then wait for other Japanese-speaking editors to finish the job. I've recently joined WikiProject Japan, which will hopefully give me better opportunities to create content. A list of some of the articles I've had most to do with is available on my userpage here, for anyone who's interested. However, I see my efforts to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia as my most useful work on the project: reverting vandals, tagging patently unsuitable content and trying to help new users learn the ropes before they do too much damage is, sadly, as important as content creation nowadays, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've gotten into a few disputes so far. I'd point to the furore over Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (see this AfD, this AfD, the article talkpage (including archives) and this talkpage thread for details) and the incident over Downside School (details here) as a couple of the most heated. I suppose the most stress I've been caused to date was when User:Ksanthosh89 started systematically proposing every article I'd ever created for deletion (in response to this thread), although that was over with fairly quickly after this ANI report. Feel free to delve through my talkpage archives; there are plenty more instances there. My usual approach to such events is to remain detached and try to help the other user(s) understand why I believe Wikipedia's policies support my position rather than theirs; that's the vein in which I plan to continue. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Callanecc
4. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.
An IP user completely changes a large section of an article on a living from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level ((uw-vandalism4im)) warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.
Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.
You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.
I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).
A: "The community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information"? That doesn't strike me as very likely scenario. Policy requires that BLPs be referenced, and policy is consensus, writ large. A talkpage discussion on a single article doesn't overrule that. In addition, your hypothetical rollbacker is clearly making some very serious errors that no experienced editor should commit: using a 4im warning for a first offence, using a vandalism warning for an edit which clearly isn't vandalism, using rollback to edit-war (against policy, at that), refusing to engage in discussion... Please tell me this scenario isn't based on real events!
My course of action would be as follows:
  1. Check the sources added by the IP (to ensure that they are actually appropriate sources and not links to lemonparty.org or similar). Assuming they're legit:
  2. Deny the AIV report (probably with ((AIV|nv)), although there are a few other appropriate notes that could potentially be used).
  3. Contact the rollbacker to warn them that the IPs edits do not fall under the heading of vandalism and that they are misusing the rollback tool to edit war. In particular, point out that their rollback rights will be revoked if they continue, per the rollback guidelines. I'd also leave them a 3RR warning.
  4. Contact the IP to welcome them, thank them for their efforts and reassure them, then explain the three revert rule and suggest that they leave the article alone until it has been discussed, inviting them to participate in the discussion.
  5. Head to the article talkpage to challenge the consensus there, quoting the BLP policy, if necessary opening an RfC to open the debate to a wider audience. Consensus can change, and in this case, almost certainly should. Depending on the content of the unsourced text, I might revert to the IPs preferred version for the duration of the discussion.
Additional question from Rcsprinter123
5. If for instance there was a new editor who kept coming to your talkpage asking for advice constantly, and then it turned out to be a sockpuppet of an editor in good standing you knew previously, what would you do to A) the sock, and B) the editor? Would you let them explain themselves and have another chance or block instantly?
A: Sockpuppetry is specifically the use of multiple accounts for improper purposes. Assuming that they weren't using the new account to circumvent a block, vandalise, support their previous account in a dispute or otherwise disrupt the running of the project, I would suggest to them that they link the accounts on their userpage and point them at the appropriate policy - and that's all. If I believed they were attempting a clean start (if the old account was retired, for example), I might not even go that far. Blocking certainly wouldn't be my first thought. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Dennis Brown
6. Very briefly, and in a very general way, please explain the role of admins, as you would to someone who has just discovered Wikipedia.
A: An admin, to my mind, is basically an editor whom the community has equipped with a handful of additional tools to help maintain the smooth running of the project. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 What do you think is the biggest challenge that Wikipedia faces over the next few years?
A: That's a really interesting and thought-provoking question, thank you Dennis! Ignoring outside legislation such as SOPA, which we can't do much about, I think the biggest problem is new editors' motivation. By that, I mean that most new editors seem to come here to write one specific article (usually about themselves, their company, their band etc.), rather than coming here to write an encyclopedia. I suspect (I sincerely hope!) that my perspective on this is skewed by the areas that I tend to work in, but certainly in my experience the lifecycle of a typical new editor seems to be: register account, create promotional article for self/company/band, complain when article is deleted, disappear. New editors who genuinely want to make the encyclopedia better are rarer than hen's teeth; that's why I try to go out of my way to help them when they turn up.
As long as the motive behind editing Wikipedia is "get my article into the world's largest encyclopedia", we will continue to be plagued by this phenomenon. The challenge, then, is to preserve the open-access editing policy of Wikipedia without becoming a huge directory of spam. How we go about achieving that in the long term, I have no idea (but fortunately you only asked me to identify a problem, not solve it!). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Electriccatfish2
8. An editor has just reverted for the 6th time in 24 hours on the article Derek Jeter, and you are the first administrator to notice it. What do you do?
A: That depends rather heavily on what he's reverting. BLPs are not subject to 3RR in certain circumstances (I learned this the embarrassing way...), so if the editor in question is removing unsourced, contentious material, or vandalism, then good for him. If, on the other hand, he's reverting sourced or uncontentious content, I'd give him a final talkpage warning for 3RR (assuming none had been previously given) and issue a 24hr block if he persists after that. Derek's not an FA yet, so the usual leeway offered to editors maintaining an FA doesn't apply (assuming that his reverts maintain the status quo). Yunshui 雲‍水 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Monty845
9. If, as an admin, you came across Fluffyowled tagged G3, how would you analyze the situation and what would you end up doing?
A: I'd probably do pretty much the same thing as I did when I tagged it as such - it looks to me like a hoax, so I'd run a quick Google search (just in case I'd missed a major memetic shift in bowdlerism - to save you the trouble: I hadn't), and briefly check the creator's contributions (2 edits, this page and the also-up-for-deletion Fluffy owls, nothing to suggest they have any intention on contributing anything else). After that, I'd delete it. It's borderline - invented words aren't always hoaxes - and so I'd be willing to undelete at the creator's request, or anyone else's for that matter.
Having said that, I have no problem with WilyD's removal of the G3 tag, especially since I used ((db-vandalism)) instead of ((db-hoax)) (ticked the wrong box on Twinkle, I suspect). If he'd prefer to err on the side of caution and send it down the PROD route, that's fine with me. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Crisco 1492
10. What is your understanding of copyright issues, and how would you address these issues should you come across them?
A: Wikipedia's content is free to reuse and redistribute. That means any non-original Wikipedia content must also be free to reuse and redistribute. Basically, with the exceptions of content that is clearly public domain or released under an appropriate free licence (CC-BY-SA or GFDL for text, all kinds of stuff for media), Wikipedia can't reproduce (or closely paraphrase) something that has already been published or copyrighted somewhere else.
Because copyright is a legal issue, violations need to be dealt with on sight. Unambiguous copyright infringement should be immediately removed, either by redacting it from the article, or (if the entire article is a copyvio) G12 deletion. Less obvious violations should be discussed - a good recent example in which I was involved can be found here. Copyright owners who want to insert their text should be directed to DCM. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Have you ever dealt with copyright issues in the past? How?
A: A few times. There's the recent Ram Kishore Shukla issue mentioned in my previous response, a ton of G12 deletions in my CSD log, and a few relevant threads where I've discussed them (see, for example, this, this and this). I try to explain the problem to the user in question where I can, and point them at DCM if they seem to hold the copyright themselves, but ultimately, if it's in breach of copyright, it doesn't get to stay on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find Yellow Mountain Imports copied that from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around (note the date stamps - the diff you posted is from 2009, but they claim their page copyright from 2010). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that you included a link to the YMI imports website in the above-linked article version, which suggests the article may have been there already but had yet to be archived by archive.org. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a rather rushed response; I got called away from my computer halfway through. I originally included a link to the YMI page here; a sales page (which I'm now only too aware was not appropriate, but I was still a newbie then). The rules page is a more recent addition. This customised Google search (adjusted to search between the month the Wikipedia page was created and August of the following year) shows that the page was not cached by Google during this time - it first appears in the search results in September 2010. The Luzhanqi article was a far from perfect creation - one of my earliest, before I had much idea about how Wikipedia worked - but it certainly wasn't a copyright violation. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, the text of the Ancient Chess page, which you can't view, is quite different to both YMI and Wikipedia - other editors are welcome to check and confirm.) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Yellow Mountains pages look a lot like Wikimirrors to me, and the fact that Yellow Mountain's Doushouqi tutorial has some identical wordings to our March 2007 article on Jungle (board game) (and further then appears to converge *toward* the Yellow mountains page, rather than away from it, across 2007 and 2008 and probably later), well, I think that's strong evidence that Yellow Mountain is copying from Wikipedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jorgath
12. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Regarding accountability, every editor is effectively accountable for their actions on-wiki. Admins, however, have the potential to do considerable damage, both technically and to the community, and so are held to a higher standard. They are expected to justify their tool use when queried, and failure to do so can and should result in sanctions from the communuity.
Wheel warring is the use of the tools to redo an admin action which was undone by another admin. With the exception of the specific exceptions set out at WP:WHEEL, that's a giant no-no, and a fast-track route to ArbCom.
I think both these policies reveal the need for administrators to use their toolset sparingly, if at all, in any area where they feel strongly about the matter in hand (WP:INVOLVED is another aspect of the admin policy which encourages this). Admin actions need to be taken dispassionately or not at all. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jeffwang
13. When your rights are gained, what will you do? Will you celebrate? Will you send thankspam? Will you help other people?
A: Ooh, last minute questions... My first admin action will be to work through New admin school - I may also eat a celebratory croissant whilst doing so. As for thankspam, not really my style, although expect to see a thank you message on my userpage later today. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jeffwang
14. What is your stance on the Ram Kishore Shukla brawl? Do you believe Ballisticizer should be banned for COI?
A: I've previously opined that Ballisticizer is overdue for a competence ban; the fact that he appears to be re-inserting the disputed material under his known sockpuppet Alcides86 (for which he's already been warned) today suggests my concerns were warranted. I shall shortly have one more go at sorting this out on his userpage(s); after that, a swift trip to ANI may well be the only solution. (Since I've been fairy involved in this affair, I'm not planning onblocking him myself.) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jeffwang
15. Here is a scenario. An IP, which happens to be owned by a megacorporation, blanks out the Criticism part of its page on Wikipedia. A rollbacker reverts it, and after an edit war ensues, it goes to ANI/3RR. You respond by blocking the IP (right? I hope you do!) for edit warring. The IP sends you a cease and desist letter and threatens to sue you if you do not unblock it. What do you do?
A: My first response would be to laught at the ridiculousness of it... but then I'd promptly forward the message to legal@wikimedia.org. I'm just a guy who edits Wikipedia, not a lawyer, so I'd follow their advice. (That said, I'm assuming the section in question is correctly-sourced and neutrally phrased; if not, I might well remove it myself and start a talkpage discussion over its inclusion.)
Sorry for the brevity of my answers to these questions, but there's only about half-an-hour before this RfA finishes... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support - One of the best editors I have seen around. An editor who fights vandalism, makes accurate CSD tagging, loves content creation, helps newcomers by giving feedback, gives the right advise and is always ready to help along is nothing but a "perfect candidate" to me. I just opened this and quickly gave out my !vote. No doubt whatsoever in his ability. — TheSpecialUser ≪TSU≫ 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Excellent nominator. I can't say much more than I did in the nomination, I've had my eye on Yunshui as a candidate for a while, and I hope he's what people are looking for. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support TSU has said what I want to said. I'm about to nominate Yunshui but he has been done now--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Yunshui is a wonderful editor who's helped out numerous people. I have no doubts that he'd be a wonderful, effective administrator. --ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØDΤλłκ 08:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support As co-nominator. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Excellent nominator. Grand editor, no issues. ⇒TAP 10:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems, and keep up the good work at Wikiproject Japan! Minima© (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support We've only interacted once, but he dealt with the case like an admin would and he can be trusted with the mop. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 10:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - level-headed editor, seems focused & committed, and will use the tools well. GiantSnowman 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The strengths of the nom is obvious, but I was glad to see a practical and relaxed attitude in answering my questions, which had no right or wrong answers, but did give me some insight as to his attitude. "Rules" can be learned, but either you have the right demeanor or you don't, and it appears he does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 13:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This user has a 96% in CSD tagging. I trust the nomination of Worm and see no problems with this candidate. I'm sure they will be an excellent admin.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good answers to the questions, which is important as RfA questions have been getting tougher lately. ☮Soap☮ 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I personally haven't seen this user around, but my general impression of Yunshui from looking through recent contributions and the awesome answer to question 7 move me to support. Best of luck! -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I have worked with this editor at the CVUA and my experiences with him have been nothing but positive. I sincerely doubt that this user would abuse the admin tools. Electric Catfish 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems like a good guy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support; clearly a great editor, and we need more NPP admins. I can't ever remember having to decline one of his tags.　　アドミンのラウンジに、一杯パイントゑびすと一杯瓶山崎を分けるをお待ちにおります。The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Google translate is funny sometimes[1]. Even my lips were out of sync reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why you can never trust machines; it basically means "I look forward to having a pint of Ebisu and splitting a bottle of Yamazaki with you in the admin lounge." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Risker (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Great editor. Seen it for a while but never talked. Seems to be trusted so the tools could lay well on their hands. —Hahc21 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I am certain that Yunshui would make a great admin. His contributions and fantastic answers to questions thus far shows a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I trust him to act appropriately. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support A very friendly and hard-working editor.Can be surely trusted with the mob mop. TheStrikeΣagle 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now THAT'S a hilarious Freudian Slip if I've ever seen one... Carrite (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen a similar kind of statement in past ;) — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    haha...thanks for the notice guys...I was quite blind! TheStrikeΣagle 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  23. I wasn't familiar with your work before seeing this RfA ... which is a good reason to watch RfAs! I'm impressed by the answers to the questions, and I really like the fact that you like to write up your understanding of policy and teach it to others. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support. An excellent candidate, whom I've come across doing good work more than once. bd2412 T 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support When a trusted editor asks for the mop (or is nominated for it), he/she should get it. This sounds like such a case, especially since Yunshui appears to have plenty of experience in admin areas. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Adminship is no big deal. Editor is unlikely to vandalise the main page. Egg Centric 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support based on what I've seen of him (or her...). Usually being politely helpful to someone who who hasn't even read the plot yet, or tagging things correctly. First time I came across Yunshui advising someone, the advice was given so well I just assumed they had a mop. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support new blood. Pundit|utter 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Sufficient tenure; a tad shy in the raw count of mainspace edits at just over 5K. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Mildly deletionist at AfD but usually with consensus. Bonus points for the withdrawal and goodnatured self-criticism of a bad AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Nozik. Needs the tools as a vandal fighter. There ya go. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good stuff at AfD and CSD. —HueSatLum 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support mostly red CSD log. --Rschen7754 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Competent, great tenure, accurate CSD tagging. Anything he would tag could just as well be deleted be him and just reduce any backlog they would be created. Mysterytrey talk 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Everything checks out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Trusted wikipedian. --Hu12 (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - hmmm, can't believe I've never come across this editor before....all looks in order and likely to be a net positive with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has clue. Steven Walling • talk 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I can't stand to see 4 RfAs and all them at 100%.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 00:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote (#12) indented. Maxim(talk) 01:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Stephen 05:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Lots of good work in admin-related areas, good answers to questions, obviously strong knowledge of policy, and an excellent temperament. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Support is joseki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per the answer to my question and my previous contact with Yunshui. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Always have a lot of respect whenever I see 'Yunshui' username at board game articles. Civil, thoughtful, knowlegable, community-minded. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - For some reason I can open the page now and agree that it's possible Yellow Mountain copied us... The AncientChess source is quite different and, as the probable source, I think it is okay. Yunshui could get dinged on Close paraphrasing for the structure/layout, but such a thing can happen on accident to even the most experienced editors. My other spotchecks (I checked four articles at random, both early and recent) show no concerns. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support To be honest I didn't look this over as well as some others in the past; mainly because I've know Worm for a long time - and I know he doesn't take this lightly. If he's nom'ed you, then there's good reason for it. Chedzilla (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with this editor and (despite the fact that s/he passes my criteria) I will be supporting based on trust and personal relations, as well. Achowat (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support yes please Arcandam (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes. Willing and helpful. In my look though I saw lots of positives and only two minor quibbles: Yunshui has a Grand Tutnam award for 21⁄2 years of service, though actual months of contributing add up to little more than one year; and there's an unwillingness in this GA review to fully address concerns with the WP:Lead. I found nothing else. Good candidate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support From my experience with this editor, Yunshui had been a good vandal fighter and lends a helping hand to editors. The answers above, also confirm my support. I hope he will make a good admin--DBigXray 13:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Still not sure I agree with the G3, but the response to the question was totally reasonable, so no reason not to support. Monty845 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support From my own small interactions with the editor he appears to make good calls. I am also surprised the speed delete was denied in question 9. It's clear that "Fluffyowled" is a term that some editor invented and thought would be funny to throw on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support after review of contributions, etc. There were one or two places where I felt an AfD nomination might have been hasty, but overall contributions are excellent, CSD work looks very good, and the editor graciously withdrew when a good keep argument is made. I've no concerns. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Selected one of the few atheist userboxes that is not nasty and confrontational. Keepscases (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. No distrust of this candidate getting tools. Exceeds basic qualifications and seems level headed. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Good nom's, good answers, no problems here. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 00:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support...I see no evidence they will abuse tools or position.--MONGO 01:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support dare I be the first to congratulate a new admin? Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  61. Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Absolutely. This user has been active and constructive for quite some time. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Seems quite constructive and helpful. Warden (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. - filelakeshoe 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I've had a few good interactions with this editor, and they've always seemed to me to be able to keep the level-headedness they mentioned in answering my question. Answers to other questions are good, too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Seem's very trustworthy, great contributions. Webclient101 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Candidate seems qualified based on contribs, helpfulness and responses.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A good candidate, with no concerns that I could see. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seems like a solid, experienced editor. Michael (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Yunshui has been on my secret list of possible potential admins, and Worm - whose work on RfA issues is exemplary - has beaten me to it. Vandal-fighting is essential and I hope that as an admin Yunshui will continue to serve (perhaps even more so) at CVU and its associated projects, especially in order to keep them on a mature track. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Wifione Message 03:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Should help clear C:CSD instead of just filling it. —Kusma (t·c) 08:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Don't know this editor well, but his answers are good, and the nomination from Worm gives me great confidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Our interactions at WikiProject Japan have always been pleasant, and I don't see any causes for concern. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I share interest with this user in developing content related to India and Japan so I am especially happy to support this user. In any case, Yunshui is a community player and a benefit wherever he is active. He participates in the new user adoption program. He uses the Igloo tool to fight vandalism. He is an active participant on the talk page of WikiProject Japan. He has developed articles to good peer-reviewed status. His talk page is extremely friendly to all users, including new users, and he participates broadly in many areas of Wikipedia. This user would be a model admin. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Yes. GedUK  12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support gladly, and happy to see the nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support He's the kind of user who is willing to serve Wikipedia for as long as he's an admin. Good luck. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, have seen Yunshui around and about and I'm sure he will make a great admin--Jac16888 Talk 15:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Good Q1-Q3. Woodleigh is the sort of exposure/experience I want to see. Use a little more restraint even when the other side is foolish/wrong. Glrx (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Lots of good experience in administrative areas. Can be trusted with the mop. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Yunshui appears to be a reliable editor who can competently remove vandalism and could use admin tools well. Michael Anon (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Seems like a great editor, and I trust Worm's judgement. support. Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Not enough admins currently. Candidate seems fine, and as above, Worm's judgement is good. Ceoil (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Good editor and can be trusted fully with the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Seems nice and I like the answers given. -— Isarra ༆ 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support A good, solid, reliable editor willing to do administrative work should be granted the administrator's toolkit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Shame on me for never having seen this editor before! Wow, what an intelligent and clueful person! Candidate behaved admirably in those AfDs linked in Q3. Excellent answer to Q4. Impressive work with new users. I have every reason to trust this candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Sure.Érico Wouters msg 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Nice guy, has a clue, dedicated to the project, unanimous community support as of this posting, so let's hand him a mop. Thanks for being willing to serve! Jusdafax 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support — Why not? Always respectful. --J (t) 01:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I'm always happy to support potential candidates. Yunshui has given good answers to most of the questions above and has knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough and has the required experience. Yunshui is also a long time trusted editor and member of the Wikipedia community. Most other users have already said all the positive points so there isn't anything much left to say now. All the best Yunshui! TheGeneralUser (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
#Oppose for now. Worried about the copyright issue pointed out above (a more thorough look through the contributor's earlier edits may be necessary). For what it's worth I did a spotcheck on Chikaraishi before posting this oppose, which was clean, so I believe the editor probably does not have problems with this at the moment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of any relevance, part of my spot checks before nominating a candidate is on copyright violations. It was only a number of spot checks, but I was happy their contributions were good. I understand your concern, and I encourage you to check further. WormTT(talk) 09:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support (above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose based on initial impression, though I might be willing to change to neutral. My oppose doesn't really have that much to do with Yunshui per se, it's just that we already have A TON of admins experienced in "vandal patrol" and we've pretty much hit the point of diminishing returns as far as that goes. So it's not that there's something wrong Yunshui's edits, it's just that in purely practical terms it's the wrong tool set at this stage of project development. It replicates the vast multitude of already existing admins. I was actually going to just skip this nom and not comment, but then I also read the response to Dennis Brown's question 6 and I have some beef with that. If you actually look through article archives a lot of articles where written by "just here to write one article" accounts, for whatever reason. The response sort of displays an unfamiliarity with how the project actually functions in practice. So probably not a big minus, but also not enough of a plus.VolunteerMarek 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't think of any admins who did exactly what they thought they would before RfA; I never thought I'd be working at AE or closing RfDs. That happens to everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike the oppose because 1) thanks to the comments above, I'm really more Neutral now 2) it doesn't really matter and 3) apparantly a unanimous RfA feels very special, and I'd hate to be the one to take that away from someone.
I will reiterate though my general opinion that we actually have enough vandal-fighting admins (though whether that will continue to be true in the future is a separate question) and state that, per some comments above, I do hope Yunshui branches out into non-admin content work.VolunteerMarek 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A magnanimous decision. Though I don't entirely agree with your concern that we have enough vandal-fighting admins ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category