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

Yannismarou[edit]

Final (112/1/0); Ended Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:22:27 UTC

Yannismarou (talk · contribs) – Yannismarou is IMO one of the very best quality contributors we have in wikipedia. His work with Greece-related topics is particularly impressive; through his efforts he has brought to featured status five articles, Pericles, Aspasia, Alcibiades, Demosthenes and El Greco, and is also the founding member of Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece. Not less important has been Yannismarou's constant activity in writing peer reviews, and in participating to WP:FAR and WP:FAC. I believe I should also note his extraordinary friendliness and politeness, even when critisized. For all these reasons, I am certain that there is absolutely no risk of him abusing the tools.Aldux 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.--Yannismarou 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Although sysop tools are not a prerequisite in order to fight against vandalism and sockpuppetry, they do help; and as an editor with a number of frequently vandalized articles in my watchlist I can realize their usefulness! As an administrator I will keep a close eye on WP:AIV and WP:SSP. I’m also willing to help with page protection in WP:RFPP, and I will check incidents that require the intervention of administrators in WP:ANI. I have participated as a reviewer in WP:AFD, and I think I can help more as an administrator in CAT:SPEEDY, and especially in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, where there is a backlog. Frankly, I cannot promise that I will be always conducting systematic sysop work or that I’ll devote myself in a specific area, but I can promise that I’ll be always ready to assist with my admin tools, which I’ll use prudently. I want to stress that sysop tools are useful and of huge importance, but above all we are editors here (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; and encyclopaedias with active sysops but inactive editors are destined to perish!) and thus I intend not to neglect my editing work. I believe I can achieve the right balance between editing and sysop work!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased for all my FA contributions. If I have to chose, I would say that, although El Greco is probably my most flawless article, Pericles is the article which in particular stands out. Maybe because it was my first major contribution to Wikipedia or maybe because of the second adventurous FAC, I am sentimentally attached to it. In any case, I do believe that despite its flaws, the article of Pericles is livelier than my other FAs, thoroughly researched, and with a prose of high quality, almost poetic in some parts of it. And I am grateful to Robth who copy-edited the article and rewrote some parts of it in a marvelous way, and to Konstable and Druworos who regenerated my interest in the article after a failed FAC and GAC. The story of El Greco and Pericles indicates IMO that, while time passes and we keep editing, we may be able to write "flawless" articles, but we lose our initial "flame", "spark", and "inspiration", when we were "new" and "inexperienced" here; I don’t know what we can do about it, and if this is something inevitable in Wikipedia.
On a different note, I’m also pleased and proud of the History of Greece project that I initiated with the encouragement of Argos'Dad. The project is not perfect, neither works ideally, but it already has 31 members, and I think that its goal, the better Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the history of Greece, has been to a certain extent (we can get much much better) reached.
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 participated in a few heated discussions in Wikipedia (two of my recent ones are here and here). I think this is sometimes inevitable. The most important thing for me is to keep a decent behaviour and to avoid personal attacks. Therefore, even when criticized, I try to implement NPOV, not to be offensive and not to hurt other users’ feelings. Of course, I am not infallible and I often defend my beliefs in a strong way, but I think I have the ability to admit my mistakes and to apologize for them as I have done, for instance, here.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Calm, dependable, competent, trustworthy. And it's good to see a candidate with real academic qualification and an unfaltering commitment to article quality. As the old Greek saying goes: Arthro pou dhen éxi Yánni, prokopí poté dhen káni. ("an article without a Yannis will never get featured.") Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom.--Aldux 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unbelievably Strong support, was actually going to nom him myself.--Wizardman 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SUPPORT, and yes, this nom is definitely an exception to don't shout! NikoSilver 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support-Good user and very nice answers. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
  6. Support. I have always found him to be diligent and considerate, and have no doubt that he'll make an excellent admin. Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, exemplary contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, valuable contributor and surprised that he is not an administrator already. Hectorian 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Has the experience and skills to use the tools. Great answers, great user, great admin. candidate. Ganfon 21:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No-cliches-Here Support --tennisman sign here! 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - per nom --T-rex 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Hectorian. Noticed him around on several occasions and he has left a good impression each time. Oldelpaso 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. Yannis approaches all his work with an unsurpassed dedication to doing the job thoroughly and correctly, which is exactly the sort of approach we need from administrators. --RobthTalk 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, a user that can definetely be trusted with the admin tools. — Tutmosis 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above. :) Cbrown1023 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no problems; contributions spread across each of the main spaces. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Appears to need the tools, trustworthy, and to know his stuff. Agent 86 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support If we could clone him, Wiki would be a better place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. —S.D. ¿п? 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Sounds solid, with good article writing background. Crum375 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. STRONGLY Support Probably the second most helpful editor I've ever met on here!--Mike Searson 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A good user, definitely is capable of handling the admin tools. Nishkid64 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support- Good user--SUIT42 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support excellent contributions and an excellent attitude toward adminship. Also, what Sandy said. Opabinia regalis 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support looks quite good. Dar-Ape 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I'm happy to see more admins who are editors. Good spread of contributions and some helpful tips on his userpage doesnt hurt. Mkdwtalk 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per above. Yuser31415 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support An amazing editor! Gzkn 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support It's a pleasure to support an editor with such a solid background in researching and writing articles. —Celithemis 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per nom − Twas Now 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 04:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Hemmingsen 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Joe I 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--smart guy, committed Wikipedian. Chick Bowen 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - every experience with this editor has been positive, and nice answers to question -seems to understand Wikipedia policy well. Trebor 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - a good, well-balanced editor. The Rambling Man 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Great editor with a high level of activity in recent months. No real reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Why not? yandman 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, good editor. Terence Ong 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. STRONGEST SUPPRT POSSIBLE! Great Wikipedian and always willing to help and will do well as an admin! Kyriakos 12:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support This user is outstanding. Great FA participation, great answers, and a huge effort in peer reviewing articles. He is also a very helpful user and a civil discusser. Definitely worth having the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Radiant and I approve this message too! - 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support It will be nice to have a great content writer as an admin. Beit Or 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support as fellow cabalist. Duja► 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support absolutely.-- danntm T C 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. He is a calm editor. If he has the patience, he has my vote. Politis 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Coemgenus 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. He has been a pleasure to work with! I'm sure you make a fine admin! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. per kind editor.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support: strong content contributor, good plans for the tools, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support - good candidate likely to make good use of the tools. Badbilltucker 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Khoikhoi 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. So far it's unanimous. A very strong candidate. YechielMan 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Per ALL reasons above. A very good candidate.  INFORMATION CENTER©   Talk   Contribs  05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support sounds good, nothing out of order. James086Talk 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I've enjoyed his contributions, and I believe we need admins who are strong contributors. --Diomidis Spinellis 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, outstanding answers, no hesitation in supporting the candidate. Proto::► 13:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support xvvx 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --Kalogeropoulos 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. With pleasure. - Darwinek 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Jaranda wat's sup 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. If I had only one vote to cast for any of the present candidates, it would go to this one without hesistation as per all the above reasons.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, per nom. --Carioca 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Bwithh 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per several of the above. Just H 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. dvd rw 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support WJBscribe -WJB talk- 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  77. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I already thought you were an admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per above. AZ t 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support; a rare case of true neutral contributor. Miskin 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support per all. Terrific candidate for adminship.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support. Seems eminently qualified for the extra bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support An extremely helpful and good natured editor. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Unwavering support: A highly intelligent contributor. Calm, considerate, knowledgeable, and a Greek: has all the attributes of a great administrator. I only hope your article-writing doesn't suffer. Biruitorul 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Looks more than qualified. I think he will be a great admin. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Very good editor, whose contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia. Not only has s/he written several remarkable articles, but s/he also actively participates in reviewing other articles for both GA and FA, and offers excellent constructive criticism. Unfailingly calm and polite, even in stressful situations where others lose their cool. Yannismarou is someone I would trust with admin tools. Jeffpw 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Finally :-) --   Avg    12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support A good contributor, what wikipedia needs. Aristovoul0s 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per above Caglarkoca 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support -- I do not vote often, but I have never quite felt as confident with an editor as i do here. Danny 20:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Seems like a very trustworthy dependable user. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support looks good to me, I wish you all the best. Gryffindor 12:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support per nom. - Modernist 12:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per nomination statement. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Perfect. --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 21:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per all. He is an asset to WP. I too, sincerely hope, that your article-writing does not suffer. --No31328 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Strong Support who wants to be the user that puts this over the WP:100? :) Arjun 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, per nom. A very active peer reviewer. A user whose first commitment is to creating quality content, which is the ideal qualification for an administrator. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - I don't see why not. --WinHunter (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Good user that could use the tools to help the project greatly. Hello32020 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support One of our best. + Ceoil 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong Support - great contributor, excellent quality contributions and plenty of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support See nothing wrong here at all. IronDuke 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. You're serious, he wasn't an admin already? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong Support. He has proved himself to be a valuable contributor, and would make a great admin. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. PeaceNT 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Sure.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support per nomination. Excellent editor. —JavMilos 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. I support this brilliant editor. //Dirak 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - He has no doubt made valuable contributions. But I was utterly dissapointed by his support in the afd for a Kurdish genocide article. Although he retracted his vote (in the face of oppositon by third party admins) and suggested the current title of the article, it in my opinion showed a tendency to vote in line with Greek editors regardless of encyclopedic merit and subsequently I would question his objectivity as an admin. --A.Garnet 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you are talking about? --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --A.Garnet 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I wouldn't have agreed with everything Yannis said in that debate, but I note his involvement was overall quite constructive and certainly civil. In any case, even an admin has the right to have political opinions just like everybody else on Wikipedia. It's a misunderstanding to believe that admins have an obligation to be "neutral" about everything, or that they shouldn't take part in controversial debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through Yannis's participation in that AfD, and I agree with Fut.Perf - his conduct is overall civil and constructive. There is no rule that one must be personally neutral on all possible subjects, only that we write (or name) articles in an WP:NPOV manner based on WP:V sources, and of course collaborate and behave per WP:CIVIL. I think he would be a good admin. Crum375 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposing him because you didn't like his stance on one AfD? Looking at it, Yannismarou is certainly civil, does a good job explaining his point, and he apparently thought it was notable. If you don't find the article notable, that's fine, but it shouldn't count against him.--Wizardman 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont expect him nor any other admin to lack an opinion or be politically neutral all of the time, but i expect them to recognise and uphold encyclopedic standards at all times. He is obviously capable of this as seen by his FA contributions, but in the afd my impression was he abandoned these standards in favour of supporting what was an aggresive and non-notable view concerning Kurds in Turkey. Put simply, If i do not have confidence in approaching this person to resolve a dispute, then i cannot support him to become an admin. --A.Garnet 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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