Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ymblanter - Wikipedia


Article Images

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (115/2/0); Scheduled to end 07:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Ymblanter (talk · contribs) – When looking at one for adminship, not just back in the day but now, I look at two things first and foremost. Does the candidate have the experience, and does the candidate have the demeanor to withstand adminship? Ymblanter has both in spades.

Ymblanter's forte is article writing, particularly on Russian oblasts, which accounts for most of his edits. He does a good deal of new page patrol as well, and that's a skill that can easily translate into tackling the XfD process, another place he has worked at lately. No, he doesn't have 10 FAs to his name or a process-running bot, so his edits may be low-key. However, those edits are productive, helpful, and contribute to this encyclopedia on an area that not too many work on.

As for how he will handle adminship, his talk page says it all. He's courteous and willing to help out users that need it. Even those that come off as disruptive he works with and tries to work with them to get them on track rather than just casting them aside. He also does great work at the village pump to go along with his ability to help out.

Suffice to say, he's a user who would be able to use the tools with a clear head, and there's absolutely no harm in allowing him to have adminship. Wizardman 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I am delighted to join in co-nominating Ymblanter for adminship. Yaroslav is an experienced editor who came to us two years ago from the Russian Wikipedia, where he had been an active contributor for four previous years. His and mine editing interests largely intersect, so I had an ample opportunity to observe him work. In the time I've known Yaroslav I never ceased to be impressed with his knowledge, his willingness and ability to learn new things, his courteousness, persistence, ability to focus on a task, and meticulous attention to detail. He is a prolific content creator with a good grasp of our policies and procedures, and this is exactly the kind of admin Wikipedia sorely needs. Nor does he shy the broom when the situation calls for it—I've seen him tackle some of the abandoned backlogs on many an occasion. Personality-wise, Yaroslav comes off as level-headed, calm, and willing to work on resolving conflicts when involved. Based on his performance and behavior so far, I can't recommend him highly enough. I can't come up with a single reason why he shouldn't have access to admin tools.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2013; 17:10 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I feel really very honored by the nomination and the co-nomination, and I am happy to accept. Some remarks will be in order here. I started contributing to Wikipedia as User:Yaroslav Blanter in June 2007 and made about 100K global contributions from that account. Most of those contributions were in Russian Wikipedia, where I was administrator between early 2008 and May 2011, was twice elected arbitrator (I believe I still keep the 2nd and the 3rd place in terms of the number of votes cast in arbcom elections), and finally retied in May 2011 (in an uncontroversial situation) and started using my current account. What I am doing here, I guess, is clear from my contributions and from my answers. I would be happy to answer additional questions. I am currently an administrator on Wikidata and Russian Wikivoyage, but my estimate is that I have enough time to administrate the English Wikipedia as well. If someone wants to know what I am doing in real life (which has very little relation to what I am doing here), there is a Wikipedia article about me, which is a bit outdated (I never touched it due to the obvious COI), but is in general fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I will start with AfD and will expand very slowly, since I do not have a habit of using tools without understanding how they work. My previous experience tells me that, on one hand, it is relatively easy to push me into performing various administrator activities by indicating that there are huge backlogs - I am a responsible person, and if there are backlogs somewhere, and I am qualified enough, I try to help with backlogs. On the other hand, the same experience shows that eventually I may find myself doing more and more backlogs, and this would leave me less time for articles. This is something I will try to avoid. At this point, I am not interested in using the blocking tool of the admin interface.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My main activities are listed on my user page. Basically, I mainly improve and create articles related to Russian human and physical geography, as well as to adjacent topics. Smth like Shimsky District or Lyubytino would be a typical article I raised from a two-line stub to a start-class, and I worked on several hundreds of those. I only went through five federal subjects (oblasts) of Russia so far out of 83, which means it will be probably enough of this work till the rest of my life. Sometimes I get bored, and then I can create an article on a national park in Germany or on a NRHP listing, or on something else I am interested in. I have six or seven DYKs, but I do not have GAs and FAs. I guess it is clear even from this RfA that English is not my mothertongue, and whereas what I write is ok for a start-class or even a C-class article, it is certainly not ok for a FA and requires serious copyediting. Therefore I have chosen a niche where I can comfortably work with stubs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2013 (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 think it is pretty difficult to be an active contributor for two years and avoid conflicts. I had many of those, but none of them so serious I would for instance think of retiring. Sometimes I handled them better, sometimes worse, sometimes, like in the case with User:Sue Rangell, the result in the end was unsatisfactory, but I did not see what I could have done better. A very recent example: Just yesterday I found this edit, and I was not sure what I should do, then left this response. We will see whether it is going to work. Obviously, I was much more exposed to stress in Russian Wikipedia, and I see sometimes that some users whom I blocked and whom I did not block even now, after two years, write that I am a representative of Pure Evil and Dark Forces. Some of them may show up here and oppose my nomination. Well, this is life, it is pretty much normal that an active admin get their share of stress, and there is nothing we can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Stfg
4. When an editor comes to your talk page writing in Russian, on one occasion you asked them to use English, and you replied in English. In other cases, you have replied in Russian. How do you decide whether to reply in Russian or in English?
A: As a rule of thumb, I use English, and this preference is also stated in WP:SPEAKENGLISH. I use Russian (and I believe on one occasion I even used Dutch) in very rare cases when somebody starts speaking to me in Russian (Dutch), and the discussion is of no general interest (like minor technical details, where to find a policy etc). Usually these are users I know for a long time from elsewhere. I try to limit these interactions, and in all cases I would be happy to provide translation or to give an idea what interaction is about if needed. Concerning the two particular situations you are asking about. The first one (User talk:Ymblanter#Ukraine), a new user with a limited command of English hit a sensitive issue (Ukrainian vs Russian names of Ukrainian localities) which has already been beaten up to death, many times before I registered my account and many times since, and he was bringing about arguments which have already been under discussion. I thought, since there was a chance that the discussion could be brought to a broader circle of users, that it was beneficial to have it in English, at least from my side. Another case (User talk:Ymblanter#Talk:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion#Sentence in the lede re. nuclear-fueled interstellar flight) is about a Russian-speaking user who has a limited command of English, and also some communication problems (he was banned from Russian Wikipedia for some time, and now is currently placed under mentorship there). At some point I volunteered to translate his responses, since the communication between him and other users was going nowhere. He knows that and occasionally talks Russian to me, and this is probably the optimal operation mode for the time being. Again, if anybody is interested, I can provide translations. The last thread on my talk page was that he asked me to look at a certain discussion, and I promised him to have a look later today. I can not recollect speaking Russian outside my talk page (it could have occurred on one or two instances, but I definitely do not remember this).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough answer. I asked because, assuming you become an admin, you're likely to get people coming to your talk page to challenge things you do, or even to ask you to act against other editors. In those situations, transparency would matter. From your answer, I think you have it covered. --Stfg (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Razionale
5 Would you have run for adminship without having been nominated? Did getting nominated for adminship surprise you?--Razionale (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Actually, I was first suggested to run for adminship by Ezhiki almost a year ago, long before I was willing to consider it, so that when I came to the idea that I may run sometime I knew I would have somebody to nominate me. When this list was compiled, I knew someone will approach me at some point, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was Wizardman, whom I highly respect, and that I was one of the first potential candidates approached in this drive. If I were not approached now, I would probably still run later this year or early next year, but the Wizardman's suggestion indeed accelerated things a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
6. At the top of your user page, you have a quote from another user that associates the decline of the community "since 2007" with excessive tagging of articles with template messages. Do you agree with this assessment? What are your overall impressions at this time regarding the use of template messages to tag articles for improvements?
A: Thank you for the question, this is a very complex issue. Yes, I agree with the general sentiment (though there are details I know little about - for instance, I would not know whether the year of 2007 is of any significance, or should it be 2008 or 2005 or whatever). I have an experience of working on small Wikimedia projects - as I mentioned, I am a Russian Wikivoyage administrator, and I am also involved in six minor language Wikipedias. For example, on the Russian Wikivoyage it would be unusual to template articles: If I see an edit which is good-faith but not exactly appropriate (like addition of a large amount of unstructured info), I would fix it myself, or, if I have no time, someone else would fix it, and I find it a healthy attitude. For a much bigger project, like English Wikipedia, templating is obviously unavoidable, but to me it still has a bit of the meaning "I tell you what to do, and you do it". I would find it healthier, if it were "I tried to fix and failed, please help me". Again, different users are understanding it differently, but the shift of the latter meaning to the former for me is synonymous with the community decline, whatever this means. My personal experience with the maintenance templates in English Wikipedia was not really fantastic: When I raise articles from stubs, it is not uncommon for me to find templates dating from 2006 or 2007, which nobody acted upon (I would typically fix the problem). If for example I am doing NPP and see an article which has no sources I first search for sources, and only if I can not find them I do smth else (typically template or AfD). My impression is that in 99% cases maintenance templates would stay in the articles forever. It might be wrong of course, but this is what I get from my experience. And many of them can really be fixed very easily and in very little time. (For the record, I am doing it myself, but I never ever asked somebody else to do it unless explicitly required by policies such as sources in BLP articles). The statement we are discussing just states a simple thing: It is definitely easier to template that to fix, and this is why many users choose to template. Interesting questions are (i) whether something should be done about this; (ii) whether something can be done about this. I do not have straightforward answers except for spending a fraction of my own time for fixing issues (templated or not).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from It Is Me Here
7. Could you expand on the story regarding your first account, Yaroslav Blanter (talk · contribs)? Why did you decide to stop using that account? Why is it currently Globally Locked, etc.?
A: The account is globally locked at my request. At some point in 2011 I discovered that the search engines, if my name is entered, give in the first hundred or so hits Wikipedia-related entries, which was absolutely unacceptable, since my professional homepage should have appeared first. Thus is why I created this new account. Conveniently, slightly later I also decided to retire from Russian Wikipedia, and, as global renaming of SUL was (and still is) not available at the time, I decided that the most convenient option would be just to shift to the new account and to stop contributing from the old one. It probably could have been done better, like to go to every local project, detach a local account from SUL, rename it, and then globally make a new SUL, but that would cost me considerable amount of time, and, apart from Russian Wikipedia, the only project where I had a sizable contribution was Commons, so I decided to leave these contributions behind.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from IP
8. Could you please explain why when you left Russian Wikipedia, for the third time that is, you requested to be globally blocked, and your user pages to be deleted?
What kind of conflict were you having with user Zoe at that time?
What was the reason for blocking user Psychiatrick,and what controversy that block created? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.98.246 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I guess we have indeed a situation which I described in Q3. I do not mind discussing why I retired from Russian Wikipedia (not for the third time, as incorrectly stated, but for the first and the only time), but I would really prefer these questions to be asked by a logged-in user with a non-zero previous contribution, and to be formulated in a neutral mode. I also doubt that the details whom I blocked and when (I guess I made at least several hundred blocks over there, if not more) are really interesting for this audience, but fine, if they are, I can explain them.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not a candidate, you are. It absolutely does not matter how many contributions I have. It only matters how many contributions, and what kind of contributions you have.
Now let's get back to my questions please. When I said you were trying to leave Russian Wikipedia three times, I meant this one for example, and also the episode that happened on October 24, 2008.
When I asked what was the reason for blocking user Psychiatrick, I asked it because it is my understanding that this block was the reason you actually did leave Russian Wikipedia on the third attempt. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.211.109.17 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Serebr

Those questions might seem not connected with administratorship in English Wikipedia, but I principally insist on answering, because it might help to see better candidate's personal qualities, which are very important when one nominates himself on a serious technical post.

9. Why did you left Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 contest? What were the reasons?
A: Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 was a world-wide contest devoted to uploading pictures of officially recognized cultural heritage monuments and adding them to articles. I did participate in the 2011 edition (and even won a prize from Wikimedia Nederland), as well as in the 2012 edition, and I am looking forward to participation in the 2013 edition. In particular, in 2012 I uploaded photos of monuments located in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Serbia, and Russia, and spent a lot of my time on Commons and on the English Wikipedia categorizing images and adding them to the lists of monuments, for the United States (I am an active participant of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places), Belgium, Switzerland, and India, as well as written several articles on NRHP listings. Thus, the information that I left WLM2012 is incorrect, I did actively participate, and I am still helping with the cleanup. Since you were banned from the Russian Wikipedia many years ago, I assume that you are specifically interested why I did not participate in the organization of the Russian part of the 2012 contest. In a nutshell, all participating countries (over 30) employed the same scheme: The lists of monuments were compiled by participants, populated with existing photos, and then during the contest ErfgoedBot was placing the uploaded photos to the pages like this one, and the users then would take the photos and populate the lists. To prepare the lists takes a lot of time, but it is a highly rewarding activity, since lists accomodate photos taken during the contest. The local organizers for every country were appointed by local chapters. In November 2011 I approached the Russian organizer, telling her that I volunteer to create the lists. She encouraged me to do so, and until March, 2012 I was spending much of my free time creating the lists, without any support. In March, interested users started to arrive to Wikimedia Commons, and at some point I started the discussion of the possible organization of WLM12 Russia. Within a week, the Russian organizer wrote on Commons that the organization was progressing already for a long time, I was not a part of it, they do not need my service, and they were not going to use the same scheme all other countries did, in particular, they did not need the lists at all. Then I obviously stopped compiling lists. The Russian organizers proceeded to make everything completely untransparent, and were subsequently critisized by international organizers for the lack of transparency and communication, and this was my impression as well, but since the transparency is still not there, I have no idea what were the processes behind the scenes. The idea of the contest itself is very good, but I was grossly disappointed with its particular realization in Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. What are your thoughts on Wikimedia RU Foundation? How good is your attitude with its director? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serebr (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Since I am not a Russian resident, I was never interested in participation in the Russian chapter, and I am merely a bystander. I still interfered with their activities on a number of occasions, for example, as I detailed in Q9 above, and every time I was striken by complete untransparency, inefficiency, incompetence, and inability to accept their mistakes and to learn from them. On the other hand, as a bystander, I may be unfamiliar with the whole situation, and can readily believe that they do something useful which I am just for whatever reason not aware of. I have no idea about the role of the director (I assume they only had one director from the moment the chapter was founded), but he should be somehow familiar with the situation in the chapter which only has about ten members. I must add that I personally fail to see the connection between my thoughts on the Russian chapter and my ability to be administrator of the English Wikipedia, but I still answered this question for the benefit of those who may see the connection.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Glad to be your first support Ymblanter, I have no doubts that you will use the tools to the betterment of this community. Good luck Russavia (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A fine contributor, wise and thoughtful. Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom, and based on my interactions with Ymblanter. Legoktm (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Trusted user. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Globally trusted and familiar with enwiki norms. --Rschen7754 10:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, easily passes the trust / clue / experience test, and my previous observations of his comments have always been favorable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support looking at logs and deleted content shows there has been plenty of patrolling and reviewing feedback. I see no image uploading, but there have been edits to file pages. I am happy to see efforts to preserve articles by adding sources too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm glad you've changed your mind in the last year, even if it is on en-wiki instead. --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Like a lot of recent candidates, someone I've seen around a bit and always been impressed by. Easy decision to support. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support One of the most intelligent and valuable wikipedians I have ever had the pleasure of collaborating with. Azylber (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good editor and should get the admin rights.--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I'm glad to see another candidate who has done substantial new article creation work, as well as a calm demeanor and solid knowledge of our policies. - MrX 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support As per Wizardman and good track .See no concerns. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Trusted contributor, net positive. TBrandley (review) 13:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Thought he was one already, and was satisfied his his performance, so I guess I'll support :) Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ymblanter will meet your best expectations, but only when he’ll perform tasks he is good with, such as dealing with PoV pushers, puppeteers, as well as miscellaneous job in the article space. Please, do not encourage him to meddle into conflicts between established users. For example, I was unhappy about this Ymblanter’s comment despite his apparent intention to help me. If somebody insists, I can explain my concerns on the talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I've seen Yaroslav around the place plenty, and I can easily support his nomination - I'm pretty sure he won't destroy the world for the honest people :-) (see Q3). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; happy with this candidate and confident he has the community's trust. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I have had several positive interactions with this candidate and have no concerns about this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. As nom Wizardman 14:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as co-nom. :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2013; 15:36 (UTC)
  26. Support strong candidate; I see no issues. --Stfg (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. No concerns (really like the answer to Q4, btw). — sparklism hey! 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Substantial contributions in a specialized topic area, interesting background and proper perspective. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Helpful and trusted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Did a quick spot check and was impressed, also trust the judgement of several of the supporters above. PaleAqua (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Keep up the good work. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: I particularly appreciate the strong work in article creation.--Mark91it's my world 18:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Seems level-headed. Guðsþegn (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Mature, experienced editor. INeverCry 18:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks fine to me. Seen him around and not seen any problems. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Impressed by the overwhelming support for the candidate above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Trustworthy candidate, plenty of clue. Miniapolis 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good candidate and good command of English.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support because I see no reasons not to. Widr (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. May he bring enlightenment! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - If Wizardman, Rschen, Dennis, Gerda, Mark, Boing, Reaper, WSC, and Kiefer all agree on something, chances are it can't be that bad. Go Phightins! 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, clearly herre to help. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, nothing but positive impressions from previous interactions with this editor. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support T4B (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support — Tomcat (7) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Wizardman nomination, article writer, no major red flags that I can see, and an entirely unconvincing oppose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Thought he was an admin already. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - yeah, I'd probably like to see some more substantive commentary at AFD because it would help others to understand why Ymblanter holds the views he does (which helps to establish consensus). But he seems willing to improve as he goes (response to Q#1) and I liked his response to Q#4. I think he'll make a fine admin. Stalwart111 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Молодец! Carrite (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yay. Deryck C. 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support likely net positive Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Love the distribution. Answers are focused; sometimes letting the other guy get the last word is an appropriate response. AfD main diagonal is good. Glrx (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I know I've seen Ymblanter's name before, but I can't quite put my finger on where it was that I initially encountered him. He mostly edits articles pertaining to Russia, so I may or may not have bumped into him during my occasional forays into that particular topic; he's also active in Wikipedia space. All in all, a very strong candidate who will do good as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strongly. We need more scholarly experts as administrators, and his resume is just wow. If we can get more editors like him and RockMagnestist to contribute to the project, the future is extremely bright for the project. Secret account 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support a tireless and trusted editor. Mediran (t • c) 03:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: Ymblanter is a strong editor who will greatly benefit the project as an administrator. Best of luck, Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 04:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support As a Russophile, I've come across many samples of YmB's work here; his answers haven't given me any cause for concern (quite the contrary) and generally its a pleasure to recommend this outstandingly knowledgeable - and hard-working - candidate. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I cannot find anything negative about the user.--Razionale (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Rzuwig► 17:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Will make a terrific admin. TCN7JM 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Thought I supported this ages ago. Of course. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - a strong candidate, no concerns. GiantSnowman 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, definitely a strong candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - A trustworthy and competent editor, and I appreciated the detailed and candid answer to my question #6 above. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. OK. Kilopi (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. No concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I am impressed on how you interact with others. TempName1 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I actually do share many of the concerns Nathan Johnson has below. A lot of Ymblanter's AfD comments sound like the arguments given at WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is not a desirable trait to have in an admin who is going to be closing AfD discussions. However, after looking at the big picture of his AfD contributions I could find plenty of counterexamples that demonstrate that he does know what is required by the notability guidelines. (For example, [1][2][3].) I am more concerned by this, which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, and I hope that the candidate will wait until he has more experience with speedy deletion before working in this area in an admin capacity. Having said all of this, on the whole I find Ymblanter to be a thoughtful, considerate, and productive editor, and I think making him an admin would be a benefit to the project. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per Newyorkbrad. It Is Me Here t / c 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good contributions, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Sure, fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per everyone. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Responsible, knows what he's doing; should make a good admin. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Trusted Inka888 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Definitely a plus for the project. -- Ϫ 04:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support —stay (sic)! 08:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Everything looks good to me! Inks.LWC (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support good luck.--Soul Train (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Yes; thoughtful, has clue...I see no real problems. The opposes do not convince me. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support on the basis of the well-considered, measured, and clearly-expressed answers. Kablammo (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support — Laura Scudder | talk 15:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Appears to be a responsible editor who will use the mop wisely. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Have had good impressions. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: Will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support: Excellent candidate. Marauder40 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Good candidate, will use the tools well. SpencerT♦C 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support He's a smart fellow. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I was convinced by the time I got through the end of the acceptance statement. Questions 1-3 confirmed it for me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Studying the diffs in Oppose 1 and some random contributions resulted in my wholehearted support. More than enough clue. Jschnur (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Prolific, long-term content contributor with no red flags. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Clueful, dedicated user. I'm impressed by your answers to questions, particularly #6; I admire your philosophy, and I would be glad to see more administrators with a similar mindset. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Damn. If I can't be 100, then at least I can be Wayne Gretzky. Solid clue, admin-y type work, trust of the community...appears to have the temperament (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Chrishonduras (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. A very strong candidate, with a well-rounded set of experiences. I was very impressed by the thoughtful and careful answers to questions. I don't see the issues surrounding AfDs as disqualifying, just a matter of taking things slowly at first, and I trust the candidate to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Reliable editor for years. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  103. Oppose Support Nominee seems to have handled my criticism with a pleasant lack of drama. I'm not a regular in AfD (especially in the past few years) so I may have been idealistically hasty and demanding. Incidentally, I do very much agree the view on templates. In general, the nominee seems like a good and hardworking volunteer, and I originally thought I'd go neutral even with the following. If it was close I'd probably do neutral. But I'm sorry, to send the right message I have to oppose. I was disappointed with his vote the other day at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum_Foundation (still open). If the ruler of Dubai announces at the World Economic Forum that he'll put $10b into a foundation (making it the 6th largest in the world), then you need to do a little research before !voting delete to show that you really understand the situation. The AfD nominator did not appear to be much work, and Ymblanter's simply said "agree per nominator". It took me 5 minutes or so to find multiple sources such as partnerships with the UN, books for Gaza children, scholarships, etc. I'm not sure if that's typical for his AfD research. I hope not, and a cursory review seems to show some evidence of more due diligence. But I'm sorry, I cannot agree with the underlying judgement. Meanwhile !votes for keep for a borderline Estonian band. I realize AfD is tiresome work and so I'm sorry to be harsh. II | (t - c) 02:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing someone who doesn't agree with your opinion in an AFD? Those sources you linked to are press releases twitter, and the organization own website. They are not reliable sources that are needed to pass WP:GNG for the organization. All this personal bs politics is getting ridiculous. Secret account 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, which is clearly met; these are third-party press releases and the scope is clearly international. The question is less about differences in opinion and more about independent research and thought; the opinion was based entirely on the nom's presentation with no independent analysis despite clear indications that this deserved more digging. There is no personal relationship except that I happen to study the philanthropic world. I was going to respond with an equally rude comment, but I restrained myself. Good evening and remember to assume good faith. II | (t - c) 04:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but also assume the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. "He didn't agree with me, so I !vote no". Just ... wow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Good contributions, including AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Can't see a problem with issuing a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 13:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I share some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Stradivarius and others about AFD judgement, so I'm trusting the candidate to be careful in these matters and consider avoiding closing AFDs that are questionable. Otherwise no issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Very solid candidate. Good catch by the noms. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. This RfA can't be closed without my vote. Good luck, Ymblanter. — ΛΧΣ21 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I thought he was one... Keegan (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. He has a great admin expericence in different wiki-projects. And just because he is a good person :) --Brateevsky (talk to me) 19:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. - Thanks for being willing to help out with admin duties. Good luck! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - No concerns. I see an editor with great contributions and a good demeanor. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. You've got a lot going for you. I've read the nominations, your answers to the questions, and perused your talk page archives doing back to late last year. You come across as friendly and willing to collaborate, which is an absolute must. One thing that particularly impressed me was your ability to settle into a niche upon recognizing your limitations (i.e. sticking with building up stubs due to being a non-native English speaker). It's extremely important that an administrator knows his or her limitations and works accordingly, and it seems to me you're able to do that. Not to mention my inherent respect for anyone with an understanding of any variant of Cyrillic script. :) I'm more than happy to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose concerns with English language proficiency. Wishes to work at AfD, but contributions to AfD are poor, for example:
    Most of the deletion comments I saw were of the type detailed at the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So silly quibbles. “Indeed not notable; merge into Guan Yu” (offering a concrete solution) is more than “just not notable”, and “obviously notable as a Eurovision participant” (an argumented assertion of notability) is more than “just notable”. These are normal samples of AfD contributions of a user who is not only trained in some policies and guidelines, but also uses his/her cortex. There is a number of click-and-push sysops which have far inferior skills to substantiate their thoughts, and that is really poor. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You are complaining because the candidate is sometimes more thorough than is absolutely necessary? Please tell me there is more to it than that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first four bulleted items and then stopped as I saw nothing wrong with any of them. In each the concise vote made sense and ended up being the consensus as well. BTW, I see no problems with YB's English language skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan Johnson has indicated that he will not be responding, at least to me. I'm not sure that this jives with his bullet point above accusing the candidate of avoiding discussion. To be blunt, Johnson's vote is flat-out wrong. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His opinion might be right or wrong - but he's entitled to hold it. The 'crat will decide. I don't think NJ is likely to change if badgered, so can I suggest leaving the dead horse alone and just chilling? Peridon (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop telling people to be sensible Peridon. This is an RfA, there's no place for that kind of thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Past conflict with multiple users is never a good sign. Bensdream (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
    Conflicts with multiple users are an integral part of Wikipedia culture. If a prolific editor avoided any conflict with other users, then s/he can be a good editor. It is a good admin who s/he cannot be, because this rôle implies participating in conflicts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least when he has a conflict, he doesn't call people an idiot like some (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral