Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11

MrKIA11

Voice your opinion (talk page) (50/41/9); Scheduled to end 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

MrKIA11 (talk · contribs) - MrKIA11 is a fantastic Wikipedian. He has been performing lots of janitorial duties within Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, and I feel that he could be a greater asset to our community if he were given the admin bit. The work he has done on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements is nothing short of incredible. This is a user who understands our policies, is able to take criticism, and I feel would be a great admin. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 23:07

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly house keeping tasks, specifically deleting XfDs, or articles that have been tagged as speedy. Being able to see previous versions of pages would greatly help this, especially for G4.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The deletion and new article pages of the Video games WikiProject. I maintain the pages daily, and attempt to to keep them as accurate and up-to-date as possible, especially the new articles, which I use 3 different sources to check for new pages. All of the pages I add to the list, I also tag with the project's template, and clean-up the page to conform with the project's guidelines. I also periodically clean up the new article archives by a using a tool to check for deleted pages, once again to keep the information as accurate as possible. I'm also working on revamping the deletion archive from it's current state, to a new version, which is the same as the new article archives, and looks much more civilized. I am also almost done redoing the List of PSP games page with accurate information from multiple sources, and once that is done, hope to also keep that page up-to-date.

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: My largest conflict was concerning my attempt at condensing the number of simililar templates into one template. My main mistake, which I now ackowledge, is that I was editing user pages. Since I was making no change in appearance, just coding, I did not realize that this would be a problem (and even received one compliment), but I now know not to do that. One user reported me, but I made my case in the discussion, and they threw it out. The best thing for all disagreements is talking it over, which almost always leads to one person seeing the point of the other.

Optional question from Skomorokh

4. : Your edit summary usage is quite low for an administrative candidate. Is there any particular reason for this?

A: The majority of the edits I have made in the past are minor edits, which I did not think warranted an edit summary, but now that I realize how important they are, even for minor edits, I will try to put an edit summary for every edit. I once in a while forget when doing my normal archiving tasks, or adding a WP template.

Optional question from PeaceNT

5. Since you specify that you'd like to help with deletion tasks as an admin, could you please expand on your experience/involvement with XfD and CSD areas? (Relevant and reflective diffs are welcomed)

A: I have been maintaining the VG deletion page for over 3 months now, and I often see pages that have come to an obvious delete consensus, but have not been deleted yet. I also see some pages when updating the VG new article announcements that warrant a CSD, but the most I can do is tag them.

Optional question from Keepscases:

6. If you are granted adminship status, who in real life will you tell about this?

A: Uh, most likely no one...

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Although I would have some doubt in my mind that the person would have changed suddenly, there is a possibility, so I would unblock the account, watch all of the users contributions for at least the next week, (although it seems like a couple hours would be long enough for this person to vandalize again), and permanently ban them for another offense. As the scenario points out, rollbacks are quick and easy.

8. Will you add yourself to CAT:AOR or make yourself available to recall in some other way?

A. Sure, I have no problem with that. If I don't deserve to be an admin, then I don't deserve it. That's fair.

9. Please define notability in your own words

A. For a page to be notable, it must have multiple reputable sources, and/or a large number of ghits. If not, the notability should be questioned to the creator, who may have a source not mentioned.

Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber

10. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

A: Depending on the severity of the user's contributions, I do think they can be acceptable. The user from the scenario deserved it.

Obviously I would need to learn more before doing anything along these lines, and now I know that cool-down blocks are unacceptable.

Optional question from xenocidic

11. Since you say you want to participate in deleting articles, can you link us to some XfD discussions that you've participated in?

A: I haven't. But I see discussions that have come to a consensus, and yet the article has not been deleted. I would not be doing this often, but once in a while.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo DS game card, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneor Goat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston george tannis

Question from User:Randomran

12. To be an administrator, you need solid contributions across many areas. I've noticed your high involvement with the WP:VG project. What other involvement (e.g.: how you conduct yourself in RFCs, AFDs, discussions on policy pages, user spaces...) do you have that shows the breadth of experience required for for a a good administrator? Randomran (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A: There is my talk page archive, which probably shows the best example of the range of topics that I have dealt with that were not just minor. I have some more posts for WikiProject Templates that I was helping out: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). I am helping JohnnyMrNinja to change the way CfDs are handled, as seen here. I made a previous attempt myself, seen here and here, but it failed due to lack of interest. I have also created a template, which I hope to get implemented when I get a chance, and I have had the current similar templates modified slightly (1, 2). Although it is related to video games, I have also posted in every section on Talk:List of PlayStation Portable games.

Question from Ultraexactzz, because he's curious and wants to know

13. If you are granted adminship through this request, how would you prepare yourself to properly use the tools? For example, would you seek advice from a trusted admin such as your nominator, below? Or, do you plan to participate in the exercises of Wikipedia:New admin school? As an aside, best of luck in your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A: I have never seen NAS, but it looks like a great resource for learning what I would need to still learn. As I said before, I'm not going to just start clicking buttons to find out what happens, but rather I will read-up as much as possible, and ask questions if need be.

Question from User:oren0

14. You say in Q9 above that you define notability in terms of "ghits." Are you aware of WP:GOOGLE? What are your thoughts on it? Is it possible for an item with a large number of Google hits to be non-notable? Vice versa?

A: What I said above is that "it must have multiple reputable sources, and/or a large number of ghits," meaning that either it has to already have sources, and ghits would show how popular or well-known it is, or if sources are not given, a test should be performed to see if reliable sources can be quickly seen, even though they were not included in the article. If neither of these situations apply, then notibilty must be questioned. I think it is possible for an item with a large number of ghits to be non-notable, as what is really important is the qulaity of the hits, not the quantity. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from Hellboy2hell (talk · contribs)

15. There have been an increase in administrators being desysopped usually either for losing their cool in a pressure situation or abusing their power. After a couple of months, many of these former-admins subsequently seek the position again. Given that there are now over 1000 administrators on the English wikipedia- the vast majority of whom serve the community well, should someone who has shown they cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of an administrator ever be allowed to seek the position again ? Would you be willing to take a pledge saying that if, hypothetically, you were ever desysopped that you would NEVER seek the position again?

A: This comes down once again to the situation. I do think that they should be able to seek the position again, because if they were indeed unsuitable to have the privileges, the RfA would confirm this. Being desysopped would probably also make them realize that they had pushed their power to the limit, and they would most likely take it easy if they got the privileges back. However, if they are desysopped a second time, that should be permanent. Although I think a pledge to never reapply might be a bit extreme, I would be willing if it was the common thing to do, somewhere along the lines of CAT:AOR.

Question from Natl1

16. I see you mainly contribute to Video Game-related articles, so I would like to know your opinion on us attempting to be a well-rounded encyclopedia and the effect your heavy Video Game contributions will have on your adminship. Also, will you use your powers outside the video game area?

A: I'm not sure that I understand you. What kind of an effect on my adminship could come from what I edit? I believe it is important that this be a well-rounded encyclopedia, and that there are also many editors like me that concentrate on certain areas, which would offset my many contributions to video games. I would use my powers outside of VGs, but only if I happened to come across a situation. I would most likely not go searching for things to do outside of VGs at this time. As time progresses however, I might branch out to outher topics that interest me.

General comments

• See MrKIA11's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for MrKIA11: MrKIA11 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MrKIA11 before commenting.

• If it matters to anyone, I am only planning on using the tools for articles, not for users/ips. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have also put edit summaries for my last 400+ edits, and took the recommendation of one user to set the reminder in my preferences, so I won't miss another one. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I realize that this is not normal, but would it be better if I read over some material, and re-answer all of the questions? Since I was not planning on using the tools for certain types of tasks, I did not think that the responses concerning those tasks would be that crucial, but since I'm obviously mistaken, I'm willing to take the time to read over the literature and become more acquainted with those areas, even though I won't be involved in them. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just a note: You should never ever permanently ban an IP. Other than that, good answer to Q7. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • One cannot "ban" an IP. Bans can only be delivered by Jimbo, the Foundation ArbCom, or community consensus. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, now I look like an idiot. Nuke headdesks. One should never ever permanently block an IP. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT: While I am opposing MrKIA11 at this time, I find many of the opposes to be on the weak side. "Not enough edit summaries" that is a flaw many of us share. "Too silo'd"---while this is often the basis for an oppose, I don't think it is a valid one.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just a comment - I would just like to politely ask users in the support section to please cease from using essentially a "per kurt" rationale in their !vote. There is nothing to offset. It really really doesn't help. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  If Kurt can oppose for whatever reason he likes, then I suppose people can support for whatever reason they like as well. S. Dean Jameson 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  Fundamental difference. Kurt doesn't oppose to spite anybody. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  Some people would disagree with your views on Kurt's opposes. He does seem (to me at least) to oppose simply for spite at times. S. Dean Jameson 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Perhaps it seems that way. However, if anybody in the oppose section (including Kurt) were to write "oppose - per the support section" or "oppose - per user x", I'd comment on them as well. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  From watching your contribs at RfA the last while, I believe you would. I just grow tired sometimes of people defending Kurt's auto-opposes, and I hope I didn't come across as snarky or rude above, as that was not intended. S. Dean Jameson 05:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  Of course not, you're just stating your opinion/mind. I can respect that. There was nothing rude about your comments, mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  Althought Kurt wasn't the sole reason I supported, he was part of it. I was convinced. It's only fair to cite him. Enigma ^message 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Something I find very odd with some of the oppose votes. Several stated that they oppose because of lack of experience, but would support after a few months on a second nomination. I assume that they believe MrKIA11 to be an editor with the right mindset, disposition, and/or personality for adminship, but just lacking some working experience and/or administrative knowledge. Isn't this what Wikipedia:New admin school is for? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

  As I see it, New Admin School is more to do with how to use the tools rather than when to use them. There are legitimate concerns about MrKIA11's interpretations of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Blocking policy and his lack of experience at XfD, despite stating that he intends to close nominations. These issues aren't really covered by New Admin School and many of us would feel more comfortable if they were addressed prior to gaining the tools. Generally speaking, and I am making no judgement on MrKia11 here, if a candidate has not demonstrated that they have read or understood our policies prior to an RfA, there is no reason to believe that they will do it afterwards. Asking a candidate to take a couple of months in order to address the issues highlighted in their RfA is perfectly reasonable. Rje (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  Isn't the first section of the blocking lesson "When to block"? It includes links to the relavent policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The dealing with disputes lesson also gives a section on how to assess the situation and involved parties. While it may not be a perfect guide, I'd say it's a good guideline for new admins to learn from. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

  It is, but that information isn't exactly secret, nor is it actually explained in any detail at New Admin School. The fact remains that Wikipedia's blocking policy is widely disseminated and yet the candidate remains unclear at to its proper application. My point was that I don't believe it is New Admin School's function to teach policy to new admins, rather it is a place to clear up any uncertainties that a new admin may have about using the tools (the intro at Wikipedia:New admin school implies that a person using the page would already understand policy, just not know how to use the tools in practice). I would also say that New Admin School is not compulsory, nor can a successful candidate be compelled to read it. I do agree, though, that it is a very good tool for new admins to learn from, I just don't think it's existence is enough to justify supporting a candidate who does not appear to be ready yet. Rje (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think I understand its purpose better now. However, while it may not be solely for the purpose of educating about policy, it does cover it. My main point for bringing it up was less to switch oppose votes to support but more to examine a common thread within some of the opposition that didn't make much sense to me. Whatever the outcome of the RfA, I'm certain he will use whatever resources are available to learn more about the various policies and guidelines associated with being an admin. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Support

1. Support. In looking through your contribs, I see that you are very active and collaborative in the video games project. Specialists welcome! I'm glad you found somewhere to edit that you find rewarding. You do great work there! You've presented a case here for what you'd use the tools for. I see that you don't "participate" often in XfDs and CSDs, but do a lot of del-sorting, which is terrific gnome work. I would advise that you work very slowly with the tools in the deletion areas if the tools are granted. I believe you will be a net positive to the project with +sysop. Clean blocklog, communicative when you need to be, but not chatty and myspacey, bonus. Oh, and please use edit summaries from now on, for every edit (you can force a reminder on your preference tab). Minor issue really, and easily fixed, happy to support. Keeper ǀ 76 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Keeper76 has provided a good rationale to support MrKIA11, who looks like an experienced editor. He hasn't been blocked, is communicative, hard-working, and knowledgeable. It's unfortunate that trivial issues such as lack of edit summaries are being used to oppose this user, and the fact this editor primarily contributes to video games (what's wrong with that? Don't we normally edit what interests us?). I see no compelling reason to oppose this user, and instead, see reasons to support instead. Acalamari 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I took a cursory look through your contribution history and was impressed. I notice that you are heavily involved in the Video Games WikiProject, which is fantastic -- Wikiprojects are a great way to organize collaboration. As well, I noticed the edit summary usage was not particularly high, but that's not a supreme issue for me. I would counsel that you set your preferences to remind you when you make an edit (that's what I do). Anyway, I think you would make a fine admin and that you have sufficient experience. (edit conflict) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Perfect candidate. Um, hello? Hard working, active, communicative, etc. And a complete lack of drahma involvement. naerii 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Changed from oppose, per answers to questions. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Yup, the guy doesn't use edit summaries all the time - no big deal really given that the majority of admins don't use them at all. MrKIA11 would certainly benefit from having the tools - he's tagged many pages for deletion due to housekeeping in the video Games Wikiproject when he could easily have done it himself if he had the tools. Whilst he may not have participated in that many XfD's, after looking through his contribs, I think he's got a firm grasp about how we work here and I trust him to close them where the true consensus lies. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Yeah. Dude. You're the pefect combination of innocuous and bold. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support, as the fact that he specializes in video games is a ... umm ... "unique" reason to oppose, and I can't find any real reason not to do so. Also (even though I dabble about in it) namespace contributions as a reason to oppose this type of candidate (looking to use the tools mainly for cleanup) seems a bit weak as well. (And even though he fell into Kurt's trap, I still think he will not abuse the tools. You should know, though, that "cool-down" blocks aren't acceptable. Blocks are preventative in nature.) S. Dean Jameson 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Support, on the basis of the candidate's strong involvement with Wikiproject:Video Games. I think generally that the candidate is hard-working, dedicated, and reasonable, but I am a little concerned by some of the answers to the questions. As noted, we don't do cool-down blocks 'round here. That said, I think the candidate would be a good, solid, drama-less admin provided that we experienced admins provide guidance where necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Weak Support (changed from weak oppose). Based on the questions I guess he will use edit summaries from now on and I think he will be able to learn all the things needed to be an admin. And as mentioned before, I think WikiProject-specific admins are nothing bad. I think WP:VG has more than enough work to occupy multiple admins. So#Why 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Moral Support — You do great clerical work at WP:VG, but I think this nomination was a little rushed, as I hinted at on your talk page before it was transcluded. Should this request be unsuccessful, consider participating (not just clerking) in adminly areas more often. See also User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA. –xeno (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Changing to plain support per barneca's eloquent reasoning. I was pretty much a n00b when I started, heck, still am. =) –xeno (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

12. Very Strong Support, MrKIA11 is awesome. because of him we never miss any new articles created under WP:VG. He makes sure we always find new articles. He is an awesome help. Also: GO WP:VG!! King Rock (Gears of War) 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Though I would suggest reading up on policy some more (as mentioned by some other users here, IPs are not usually to be blocked indef, nor are "cool down" block permitted), I think that the sysop bit would be a net positive here. However, I'd suggest taking it slowly, and staying out of areas you feel shaky in. That being said, good luck CCG _(T-C) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support: I definitely think MrKIA11 would make a great administrator. He has shown a strong grasp of policy in editing discussions and AFDs, and has always been civil, even encouraging of civility in others. There might be a few blips on his record, but if we WP:AGF we can attribute these very minor issues to the learning process. How is someone supposed to become a good administrator if we expect them to know every nuance of administration before they take the job? MrKIA has already demonstrated enough policy knowledge and a strong willingness and aptitude for learning. If this doesn't work out, I might suggest going to your preferences and asking Wikipedia to prompt you for edit summaries. A few users commented that they did not like this about me, and I had a lot of trouble fixing it until I let the technology help me. Randomran (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
15. I don't see any significant reason to oppose this candidate, from what I see. Edit summary usage could use improvement, but otherwise, I see a trusworthy contributor worthy of the tools. Valtoras (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support per correct close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), for having received two barnstars as seen at User:MrKIA11, and for having never been blocked. I would recommend being more consistent about using edit summaries, however. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Looks like a diligent, reasonable, and competent editor. He obviously cares about areas that he does not fully unerstand, and is willing to learn as he goes. I seriously doubt any meaningful percentage of admins understand how to do all things on day 1. I've had the mop since last fall, and only figured out how to do a range block this week. I knew what they were, but did not apply one until I figured it out. I suspect MrKIA11 will behave in a similar fashion (though not so similar, since he already said blocking isn't his thing). Best of luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
18. The longer I'm here, the more convinced I become that “problem admins” don't become problems because they don’t know everything on day one; they become problems because of their belief in their own infallibility, their willingness to get in over their heads without knowing they’re in over their heads, and a belief that now that they’re an admin, they don’t have to be nice anymore. From a review of his talk page and archive, and a representative sample of his contributions, I have no reason to think any of these things will happen with MrKIA11. In a perfect world, he’d be more familiar with blocking policy, and know how to answer the ubiquitous cool down block question BTW, will I be desysoped if I say I can at least imagine a situation where a cool down block might work?, but based on what I’ve seen, I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll go slow and be careful. MrKIA11, whether this passes or not, please increase your edit summary usage (it helps your fellow editors a lot), go slow in areas you’re not familiar with (i.e. don’t block anyone for a while), and don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know how to do that; I’ll help you find someone who does.” --barneca (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - with a "thank you" to Barneca for explaining my reasoning for me.  Frank  |  talk  21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - Per Barneca. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Moral Support - you seem like a good and responsible user generally, but like some others above, I feel this RFA may have been a bit premature. I don't have a problem with your low use of edit summaries, or your editing being concentrated on one topic; but I am concerned about your lack of experience in certain areas, such as participation in Articles for Deletion. I'm supporting anyway on the basis you'd learn and improve as an admin, but if this fails, I would advise seeking experience in more areas of the project before trying again. Terraxos (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - trustworthy editor. If this attempt doesn't work out, then I suggest you re-apply in 6-8 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - honoes! He got tripped up on the dreaded cool-down blocks question. Does the candidate mention anywhere that he intends to do a lot of work in areas that pertain to blocking? No. Puh-leaze. No candidate has got the answers to all of the policy related questions up their sleeves - I've had a mop for a while now, and I still learn new things. It'd be one thing if the candidate said they planned to do a lot of work at WP:AIV or the like, in which case a strong familiarity with the blocking policy would be in order, but is it really worth getting worked up over a mistake like this - particularly when the candidate has demonstrated a willingness to better familiarize themselves with policy as the need arises? Really? Nothing in this candidate's contribution history raises red flags, and I have no reason not to trust them. I will support. Shereth 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support per WP:DGAF RMHED (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Moral Support per User:Terraxos --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Moral Support - Based on two things: this RfA won't pass and I feel bad for the candidate over Kurt's question and the fact that Kurt's questions are just the dumbest pieces of propaganda crap I've ever read. I'm completely sick of him being an asshole trying to fight for what he thinks is "right". :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Moral support because failing because of the CDB question is stupid. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Per barneca's persuasive arguement.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Editor clearly shows that he would treat the tools with respect. I have a great deal of admiration for editors who work silently in project pages and template space. These are very important parts of the project and they help all of us collaborate more efficiently, but they are less 'fun' to work in than AfD and less visible than article space. As far as edit summary usage, I treat that like commenting code--if explanation is needed, provide it, otherwise if the diff is self explanatory, I don't think we should hold back the tools for failing to provide the summary. The answers to the questions provided were honest and clear. Hope this passes. Protonk (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Moral support - extensive Wikiproject participation, despite not being an admin-area, does indicate some definate knowledge of the way the whole process works. I think there is something there, and am willing to give this user a chance. But, practise long and hard in the admin school and you will do a lot of good be reading all of this. And use the edit summary! If you do not pass this time round, there's a lot of useful things left down for you by people who have both supported and opposed, that you can get round to addressing. Lradrama 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I hope this vote is not in vain and that this user does not get denied the ability to help this project at least within the area of his own expertise. I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with him as an editor nor that there might be any problems with him as an administator. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
32. I would not support on the available evidence, but there are several petty opposes that I would like to cancel out. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support: I had no idea this had already begun. :-p Anyway, I feel MRKIA11 would make a very good administrator. Though most of his efforts are localized around video games, he has branched out beyond his specialty and done so in a helpful manner. He is knowledgeable of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has exercised good judgment in his overall editing.
    While he may not know everything—who can honestly know all policies and guidelines inside and out—he knows enough to be an effective administrator that will be an asset to not just the Video games Project, but other areas of Wikipedia as well. There are no perfect editors and thus no perfect administrators. I believe his willingness to learn and correct his mistakes more than makes up for any shortcomings he may have. Just like I'm sure he's already learned new ways to improve himself as a Wikipedian from this RfA.
    I see MrKIA11 getting an extra set of tools as something that will only help Wikipedia operate more smoothly; I don't foresee him using them poorly. And in the end, adminship is no big deal. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
34. I didn't use an edit summary for this support vote, nor did I simultaneously vote in an AfD. Thanks the Gods I'm not an admin. The candidate has a brain, that's all he needs, right? —Giggy 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. “Problem admins” don't become problems because they don’t know everything on day one; they become problems because of their belief in their own infallibility, their willingness to get in over their heads without knowing they’re in over their heads, and a belief that now that they’re an admin, they don’t have to be nice anymore. I have no reason to think any of these things will happen with MrKIA11. Yep, that's a straight quote from Barneca (#18) above. I couldn't have put it better myself.  Channel ®   01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support to spite the opposition. I dare you to remove this vote. --harej 02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support per messedrocker and Kurt. Enigma ^message 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and in protest against Kurt's oppose below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC).
39. Support per lankiveil. --Cameron* 10:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support per Keeper, although I should point out that the answer to Q4 kinda rubs me the wrong way. It sounds like a case of saying-what-you-think-people-want-to-hear. Although it's certainly nice when someone who adds a comma has an "adding a comma" edit summary, by no means is it necessary. If you mark an edit as minor, there's no reason for us not to WP:AGF and assume that it is, in fact, minor. Actually, this requires the same sort of AGF-ing that would be required if you did leave edit summaries for minor edits, because in that case we'd AGF by assuming that A) the edits are minor, and B) the edit summaries are honest. But when B is true (regarding a minor edit), it implies that A is true, so it's arguably a bit redundant to leave edit summaries for minor edits. The practice is also defensible, but my point is that, if you don't like to leave edit summaries for minor edits, it can come across as somewhat dishonest to emphasize their "importance" simply because a question pertaining to them arises in an RfA. I realize I'm saying a lot about an issue that doesn't even affect my support--but hey, nothing wrong with some free advice, right? :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Moral Support: If for no other reason than to (only partially) offset Kurt's blatant exhortation for admin candidates to violate policy.  RGTraynor  03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. I would like to see some participation in broader subject areas (other than video games), but I don't see how that would affect your mop-weilding abilities.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 07:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - This is a competent and reasonable editor who actually cares about the work he does and the state of Wikipedia. He is logical and considerate, as I have seen when working with him on Template:WikiProject Video games and the above mentioned CfD project. There is absolutely zero potential for abuse of privileges. The idea of not passing this RfA based on the fact that his attentions have hovered around WP:VG is absurd. In all fairness, a person who cleans one room exceptionally can probably do the same in any other room. I feel completely comfortable that he will lend his services and attentions wherever they are needed, and if a good portion of that is at WP:VG, I know 1,031 people that will appreciate it. As far as XfD's, he was the one that nominated some categories I made. I have since forgiven him. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Moral support. I would vote neutral, as I don't think he has quite enough experience, but several of the opposes are based entirely off of the rationale that "he doesn't know this random admin thing, so he must be a vandal". This RFA probably won't succeed. Apart from the ridiculous cut-and-paste opposes, though, many of the opposes are pretty weak. Try again in a few months, if you fail this one. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support, I see no reason not to support. Many excellent editors and admins edit only articles related to one or a few topics. In addition, I don't believe in the necessity of admins knowing the ins and outs of adminship before gaining it - good intentions and a willingness to learn is by far more important than anything else. From the candidate's answers and contributions, I see no indication that they do not meet those requirements. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Ok, you mixed up the term between block and ban, but in reality it's 2 things that are really similar and shares the same blocking interface once granted the tools. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Per Acalamari and Giggy. It would be a pity not to have someone of this calibre as an admin.--Poetlister 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Good answer to question 16. Even if this user only contributes in the Video Game Section other users will have more time to contribute outside of them. Lack of tool need is not a reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Support I trust the user with the admin tools. --Patrick (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - MrKIA11 is one of those gnoming editors who does a lot of strong work, but often gets unnoticed in the wider context. In terms of knowedge, MrKIA11 is active in the new page patrol area. Although it is in a limited sphere (video games), he is quick to stub-sort, categorise and rate new articles. He also CSDs, prods and ultimately AfDs articles that are not suitable for inclusion. This isn't just limited to the mainspace - he's also proficient at tracking new aditions to the template and category mainspaces, working tirelessly to keep clutter down. My interactions with this editor have been superb, and I have no doubt about his dedication to the project. yes, he has flaws as much as we all do, but I am sure these can be easily overcome. Gazimoff 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Switched Weak Support from Neutral per WP:WTHN amd I know I wouldn't wan't this to happen to me. 98.111.74.114 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would like to see more work in the Wikipedia name space that is not part of the Video Games portal. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose As above, I'd like to see a more diversified amount of work on the project. It's not necessarily a deal breaker, but some work on XfD's and better use of Edit summaries wouldn't hurt. That said, your work at the VG portal seems decent, and the pending answers to the question may sway my decision. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to Support Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose; look somewhere other than video games! And I can't really find any experience with admin related tasks; if I search for AfD's or CSD's in your last 500 edits, for example, I find lots and lots of AfD contributions, wonderful! Until you realise that rather than debating, arguing delete or keep or in any way gaining experience in deletion discussions you've just added the articles to the list of video game related deletions in small letters at the bottom. Wonderful video game edits, yes, but that isn't something you need admin tools for, and I find no evidence of any contributions to the sort of tasks you say you're looking to do. Ironholds 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose I like people who have special skills, I think every WikiProject needs an admin dedicated to do all the mob-work that is related to it's articles. So that is no reason to oppose it. I am more concerned by the fact that you rarely use edit summaries (21% for minor edits is really low) and that, as pointed out in the previous opposes, you seem not to be discussing in those AfDs you mentioned, just posting them. I have no seen a single discussion entry in those random contribs I looked at. I will oppose for now, pending the answers to the questions. So#Why 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (changed to weak support)

3. Oppose I do greatly appreciate your work on WP:VG, but I must oppose at this time as I do not enough have enough trust to support. SashaNein (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per SashaNein. I would also suggest using edit summaries more often. Sorrfy. America69 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose You're a dedicated and hard-working user, no doubt. But I have concerns about the your experience with deletion areas, which you intend to focus on. There is almost no XfD participation or CSD tagging that I can see. And answers leave much to be desired. (Why would you intend to "permanently ban" an IP?) Please familiarize yourself more with some admin task-related policies. Hope to support soon in the future. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (Oppose withdrawn. Will think twice about this. 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

   Oppose - "Permanent ban" of an IP (question by NuclearWarfare) shows too much a lack of knowledge to support. Rudget 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Abstain. Rudget 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   This is just my opinion, but it appears that MrKIA was simply confusing the issue, and not violating the "don't-indef-IPs" proviso. His use of the word "account" in his response is what makes me think this. Would you care to clarify, MrKIA? This is definitely a concern, if you legitimately thought it was okay to "permaban" an IP. S. Dean Jameson 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   I just need to read up on the rules. I wouldn't make any hasty action before that. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Indefinite blocks and bans are not the same. Rudget 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   For certain. However, in the context of his perhaps being a bit confused about the underlying scenario (Account vs IP), do you disagree that the mistaken language ("ban" vs. "block") is mitigated, at least a bit? S. Dean Jameson 16:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Exactly the problem. If this user was near to being an administrator, he'd have gained an intuition (one from experience) that there's a difference between blocks and bans. Rudget 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   From this editor's statement, and answers to questions, it appears that blocking isn't even something he's interested in using the tools to do. Why then is his misstep in that answer oppose-worthy? S. Dean Jameson 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I admit that I'm not that knowledgeable in the rules of bans and blocks, but before I was to do anything, I would read up on it first. I was just trying to answer the question to the best of my knowledge. As S. Dean said, I would not be doing this often, if at all. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think that MrKIA11 has shown that he can tell the difference between the two. This is a user who is extremely adaptable and open to positive criticism, perhaps you should give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to stake my reputation on this user. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-30 16:59

5. Weak Oppose Cool-down blocks are completely against block policy and an IP address cannot be blocked indefinitely. Lack of knowledge concerning block policy and the tools does it for me.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   He's made it clear that the block button isn't why he desires to have the tools. Does this not change the basis for your oppose even a bit? S. Dean Jameson 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   An IP address can be blocked indefinitely, but normally it shouldn't be. Nick (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Comment S. Dean Jameson: Even though he has stated he has no desire to use the block button, he still needs to be trusted with it. His opinion could change all of a sudden. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose (switched from neutral. In what I see as an otherwise decent candidate, I have some maturity concerns and see the answers to many of the questions botched and leads me to question understanding. Answer to Q1 might just be worded poorly, but answer to Q7 is very concerning as a "permanent ban" would be a poor way of handling the situation. Answer to Q9 oversimplifies things to the point of being almost wrong, but again I'm not sure if this is just poor wording. Answer to Q 10 seems to indicate that candidate isn't certain as to what a "cool down block" means, although I am willing to let that one go for the most part. With this in mind, I'm not sure the candidate is prepared to fully analyze consensus in XFD discussions, and almost seems to be suggesting that he'll only close when he sees a very strong consensus to delete. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   ... and candidate's recent answer to Q 11 is sort of the kicker for me. I couldn't find a single contribution to discussing an XfD, but for the moment assumed I wasn't looking hard enough. If the candidate is going to use the tools to delete pages, he really needs to have shown some participation in XfDs prior to running an RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes I would most likely only being closing strong delete consensuses. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   I wanted to clarify something about my oppose. I really don't think you should change anything about your editing habits, you do well here and are helpful. There isn't much holding you back from being an admin. I could support if I saw more understanding of policy. My oppose is because I actually believe that you will involve yourself in closing XfDs, but you haven't really shown anything demonstrating that you know what you are doing in that arena. If you want to close em as keep or delete, I would need to see some bare level of discussion in that arena, but otherwise, keep doing what you're doing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Per answer to Question 10. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose I understand that everyone has specialties, but every editor still needs to be widely experienced in order to become a sysop. Try getting some experience elsewhere than video games. --Meldshal [Chat] 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose I waffled a little on this one... great edits... but needs more experience in developing consensus. Great concern when he indicates an area where he wants to work but doesn't participate in the discussions. Discussions is where you show your understanding and have it shaped by others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose its a tired only line but this user needs more experience in admin related areas. By his own admission has never participated in the discussion at an XfD[1] and as far as I can tell has never once edited WP:RPP or WP:AIV. - Icewedge (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    As he doesn't anticipate working in those two areas (RPP and AIV), why does lack of particpation there matter? S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    True, but an admin should at least know he way around. Even though he has stated no desire to use them he would get the ability to block and protect along with the ability to delete. My expectations are not high (one or two valid AIV reports and a similar number of RPP requests would be fine) but he should at least demonstrate that he knows when to protect and when to block because at some point every one is in a situation where a block is needed or protection warranted. - Icewedge (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose for now. I think you will make a good admin in the future, but I think you need more experience. Your answers to questions 9 and 11 in particular have made me draw this conclusion. I will be happy to support you next time around if you contribute at xfd and get a feel for Wikipedia's policies in action. Rje (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose - your answers to some of the optional questions troubles me. Especially question 7 - permanent blocks for IPs are generally not required/recommended - according to WP:BLOCK, "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely", and this doesn't strike me as an exception. Also your response to the CDB question is unsatisfactory. I feel that these questions reveal some lack of policy knowledge in some pretty important administrative areas. I'm sure that your heart is in the right place, I just think you need to learn the policies and guidelines much better, and I'd certainly have no problems considering afresh another RfA in a while. - Toon⁰⁵ 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Reluctant Oppose While the candidate's sincerity is obvious, the weak answers and spotty experience suggests a premature RfA. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose not enough experience outside of video game related article, no experience in XfD, an area he wants to work in, weak answers to questions suggest a weak RfA. Also per answer to Q7, you cannot indef block an IP, and bans (which he obviously does not know how to distinguish from a block) can only be delivered by Jimbo, ArbCom, or community consensus. More policy experience needed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Please review WP:N and the related pages. Notability does not depend on Google hits, or even in lots of media coverage. Quality can be more important that quantity. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    expanded rationale-- Just needs more time and experience, and more thorough reading of pertinent policies and guidelines. I would recommend taking part in as many different areas as possible, to build a well rounded knowledge base. Especially the XFD's. Despite what some people think, consensus is the guiding principal. Sometimes determining consensus is nuanced and one must think carefully about the arguments presented and whether they have a basis in policy, guidelines, or common practice. While WP:IAR is a key policy, misapplying it can have pretty bad consequences. One should think long and hard before countervening policy, or at least discuss with others. Article building is important. I'm largely a wikignome myself, but having the building experience can help you make decisions as an admin and certainly builds credibility/confidence with the community. Best of luck, and hope to see you try again. Dlohcierekim 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose — Per answer to Q10. Cool-down blocks are in fact perfectly acceptable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    What? Did I miss something?? Especially as the candidate got opposed for saying cool downs were OK and responded by changing to never??? May I suggest that this oppose be clarified or struck???? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    (ec)Kurt while I support and defend your right to oppose people for reasons that I find objectionable, I do not think this is the forum for advancing something that is counter to Official Wikipedia Policy. I encourage you to find another dead horse to beat with your oppose. This is an oppose I would support striking, because it is based upon the notion that following official policy is reason to oppose!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    (ec re to Mike D (dloh...)Sigh. What a predicament. MrKIA answered in a way, at first, that I presume that Kurt would've found acceptable. Before Kurt could add his "support", several editors piled into the oppose section to oppose because of the very question asked. MrKIA then changed his reply (and rightfully, as is the community norm regardless of Kurt's opinion), to be against CDB's, and now that Kurt has revisited, he is opposed as well. MrKIA seems to have gotten the brunt of opposition because of this question, a victim of bad timing, and bad questioning. Keeper ǀ 76 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    The best one can hope for with an unsuccessful or strongly contested RFA is to learn from others. The candidate has responded positively and constructively to feedback. Having an oppose like this, aside form being confusing, is not making the experience any easier for the candidate. It does a disservice to the candidate and to the project. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Since so-called "official policy" is totally meaningless and non-prescriptive, saying one would "follow it" in any situation, even if the particular situation called for it, is a very good reason to oppose, for two reasons: first, it indicates that the candidate puts these so-called "official policies" above judgment of what's best in a given situation, and second, it indicates that his understanding of the fundamental nature of these so-called "official policies" is way off-base, because he incorrectly views them as prescriptive, normative rules that must be followed, rather than what they really are, which is just a description of what has typically happened in the past that is totally non-binding us on deciding what to do in any current or future situation.

    I don't have too much of a problem with someone who thinks cool-down blocks are never acceptable, but can give sound reasoning for it on his own, although I disagree with him. I have a major problem who thinks cool-down blocks are never acceptable "because the rules say so." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    I know many of us like to go back and forth over Kurt as to whether he's being a shithead or really saying some helpful stuff. I have to completely agree with him here. The candidate gave an honest answer as to how he perceived policy. I faulted the candidate because I don't believe he fully read into Xeno's scenario, where the block wouldn't be a "cool down block". However, it does appear that in his judgement their would be certain situations where cool down blocks would be helpful, even if such situations were rare. A few people said he would be opposed over that, so the candidate decided to strike out his answer and change it as to not garner further opposition. While I certainly sympathize with a candidate over such a point, it was disappointing to see the candidate so quickly strike his answer (over his own judgement). Of all the reasons to disagree with Kurt, this isn't a good one. The candidate quite clearly changed his response because it was damaging to the RfA. Catch 22? Maybe, but I think confidence in one's own judgment is much more important than altering answers to pass an RfA. If in the current climate that makes passing an RfA tough, then so be it, but I'm not going to fault Kurt for opposing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Catch 22 is right. Had the candidate not struck and rephrased his answer, Kurt would of (presumedly) supported. Before Kurt could comment, several "voters" said "oppose, cool down blocks are evil", or some such. Instead of seeing this as "faltering in judgement", I've decided to see this as changing his viewpoint to fit community norms and precedence. It's all how you view it. Again, I saw this coming, and it is entirely unfortunate to this otherwise excellent candidate for adminship. Keeper ǀ 76 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    I assumed that from the overwhelming opposition that cool down blocks were actually forbidden, not just discouraged. As I have said, I do not plan to use the tools for user/ip bans/blocks, but if the rare chance came that I had to, I would make sure I was knowledgeable in the rules and regulations. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    I beg to differ. Kurt is not the issue here -- and for that matter, he is never the issue in any of these firing squads. In this case, the issue is a candidate who (1) appears to have been unfamiliar with the concept of cool-down blocks prior to this discussion, (2) didn't bother preparing to answer questions that clearly did not come out the proverbial left field, and (3) is flipping his responses in a vain attempt to appease as many people as possible. Based on this, I am changing my original "reluctant oppose" to a regular oppose. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose Not enough edit summary usage, and browsing on the past contributions for about a month seem to be nothing but minor edits. tabor-^{drop me a line} 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose Too much portal and video games usage. No experience in admin areas of work. Meisfunny Gab 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Switched to Neutral per last couple of Q's. Meisfunny Gab 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but allow me to point out the flip-side to it: As long as we have no reason to suspect that the candidate would abuse the tools--and I see no evidence that this candidate would--a specialist is an an excellent position to use the tools to help maintain the integrity of the portal(s)/project(s) with which they're most familiar. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose - No more administrators who don't bother to work in admin-related tasks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    He's made it clear he wants to use the tools to work in his specialty area. Why is this wrong? Not everyone can be an ANI problem-solver, an AIV vandal-fighter, or an RPP defender-of-the-Wiki. The tools are meant for janitorial work as well, are the not, Wisdom? S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    That's another thing. He shouldn't use the tools in mainspace areas he focuses in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Seriously? He simply wants them for janitorial-type work in the area of VG particularly, not for controversial useage. There is absolutely, positively, nothing wrong with using the tools in such a way. S. Dean Jameson 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, seriously. I understand what he wants it for, and I appreciate his desire to help out janitorialy at the Wikiproject, but I view it as a conflict of interest. It would be akin to my wanting the tools for working at Wikiproject Biology, or Rush related articles. Regardless, this is a moot point because from what I can see from the candidate's special contributions, there's hardly any expertise in AfD or other areas in the project space, as others have pointed out above. It's an experience issue here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    I disagree. It is not a conflict of interest to use the tools in an area is one well versed in. Contrarily, the user would be more likely to recognize subtle vandalism and more likely to recognise notability in more arcane areas. It only would be a misuse if one used the tools simply to block or runoff those who held a different view or edit protect to give one side of an argument am advantage. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    I am dubious about an administrator that wishes to work predominately in deletion (and who doesn't really boast the experience required to boot) in a Wikiproject that they are heavily involved in. That is more or less the definition of conflict of interest. I do not trust that the candidate could be objective. They certainly would strive to be, but I think, ultimately, they would be partisan. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    I object most strongly to the idea that admins "shouldn't use the tools in mainspace areas (they) focus in", I do this all the time, since these pages are on my watchlist for a reason - I catch a lot of sneaky and obvious vandalism and block the perpetrators. This is not a valid interpretation of policy and verges on a serious assumption of bad faith. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    You may object to this line of thinking, and I respect that. However, please bear in mind that this isn't the reason for my opposition. It was merely an extension of my thoughts on the matter in response to S. Dean's comment. While we're still on the subject, I'll remind you that I am leery because of the lack of experience in AfD (the area the candidate states they wish to work) in areas they contribute. There is no doubt that being familiar with a subject and having the tools on hand has its benefits, per the protective value inherent to the spotting and effective removal of insidious vandalism, but I also conceive disadvantages as well. I hope you understand. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    I can certainly see the argument that you shouldn't use the protection function or block editors in edit disputes in areas where you have an interest, but I do still object to extending that to "all" admin actions. For instance I closed this AfD and knowing the area made merging the content very simple for me. So I suppose I only disagree with part of what you said! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

19. Weak oppose: User doesn't seem to have the required experience in admin areas. Wanting to clean up XfDs is great but without any previous XfD experience how can we judge, for example, your ability to weigh the merits of arguments to determine consensus? How can we judge your knowledge of the core policies. Sorry, but your experience doesn't demonstrate the knowledge required for the tools yet. Oren0 (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose, but would support in 3 months User needs to spend more time learning policy, such as in AfD, AN, AIV or just reading the policies. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Overall answers to questions are a bit concerning. Give it a few more months, get a bit more experience and give it another try. Best of luck, Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Weak Oppose I like the conciseness of your replies to the questions, but I feel you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. Perhaps you could hang out at the RfA / AfD areas, and slowly make your way through the policy documents, boring though they can be. --
    Carbon Rodney
    13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose Not enough experience over a broad area of the project for me to support at this time. --Winger84 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose, regretfully. While no doubts the user does a great jobs in videogames area, adminship requires experience and judgment in dealing with human wikipedian conflicts. I briefly looked thru last 2,000 contribs and didn't find enough evidence. `'Míkka>t 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose Insufficient experience in substantive matters. Wants to clean up XfDs, but hasn't participated in an XfD, is just the tip of it. Oren0's points above are all so to the point that the candidates seeming not to know that this would be a problem, is a problem. For example answering Q1 as he did despite having no AfD participation is an obvious red flag, worse for an admin candidate is not knowing how it would be perceived. That shows a poor sense of how Wikipedia functions in practice. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    Though he has not participated in many XfDs, he has assisted in their maintenance and informing the VG Project of video game related XfDs for some time now. I think it might be presumptuous to assume lack of participation in discussion equates to lack of knowledge of the process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

    I was perfectly aware that he has been populating Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, I did read material above before I made my comment. I stand by my view that populating the list is not really participating in AfD. I also think that it would be less work if Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion were made part of WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting, that way closed deletions could be removed by wubbot etc, less work for everyone I would have thought. I don't know why WikiProject Video games does it the way they do, maybe there is a good reason... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose- Not yet. I can see that you're a very good editor and have the makings of a responsible admin. But I'm concerned that you don't have a thorough enough understanding of policy at this point. In three months or so, if you've demonstrated that you've familiarized yourself with areas of Wikipedia outside your current focus, I think I'll probably be supporting you but not right now. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose. As OrenO said, there is too little direct evidence for us to make intelligent judgements on how well the candidate understands WP policies (in particular the deletion policy since the user intends to deal with closing XfDs and speedy deletion nominations), how well he is able to judge consensus and to justify his decisions (which would be necessary to do in the AfD closing summaries and in dealing with editors unhappy about AfD outcomes). Yes, some things can be learned on the job but a certain minimal initial level of proficiency is necessary before a user can become an admin. In this case, with so little direct participation in AfDs and in other admin-related areas, there is really no way to tell. The answers to the questions do not do much in helping to overcome these concerns. E.g. the answer to Q9 regarding notability is a bit problematic. The number of google-hits (especially for a plain google search) as such is not indicative of notability: you really do need to find coverage by reliable sources. Some specialized google searches, such as googlenews and googlebooks searches, are generally good at finding such reliable sources, but a plain google search is not. I have no problems with trustworthiness of this editor, and in about 3-4 months, provided a reasonable amount of direct XfD participation in the meantime, there will be no problems with passing an RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose - User's "it'll be alright on the night" views make me uneasy.  Asenine  00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I'll like to see more contributions to the Wikipedia namespace that are not related to wikiprojects (e.g. WP:AIV, WP:UAA). doña macy [talk] 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I'm concerned that MrKIA11 wants to close XFDs, but has not made many contributions yet. I'm also concerned by the about-turn on "cool-down blocks". This shows a lack of understanding of policy. [Incidentally, I have no problem with an administrator confining himself to one particular WikiProject.] Axl (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose You don't know policy. If given the tools now, you will mis-use them. I could care less how many "good standing" editors like barneca or Keeper support you, their reasoning is misleading to other voters and yourself. Review yourself, and think about what you need to improve on.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

    I wish I could get across that I won't misuse them. I was answering the questions to the best of my knowledge, because I thought that that would be better than leaving them blank, and I didn't think that was an option. Assuming this passes, and possibly even if it doesn't, I'm going to read over WP:ARL, and learn the details of how to do any administrative actions I take. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

    It's nice to know I'm "in good standing" with you Koji. Sorry to hear that you feel I'm somehow "misleading" others (?) by offering my support to a good editor. Your first two sentences in your oppose are rather presumptive and badfaith. How do you know MrKIA "doesn't know policy"? How are you so sure he "will mis-use" them? He might. He might not. I have in the past, so has every other human admin. Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose (changed from neutral) - per answer to Q10, more specifically the word 'deserve'. A block should only be used to protect the project from harm, not because someones deserves not to be able to edit the project. That is infact, our motto and core policy and per Jimbo it is the most sacred of all policies. ES usage is low which automatically turns me into an opposer, next time (and i hope their is a next time as you are a fantastic editor) read blocking policy and make sure your edit summary is above 95% for major edits, and 100% for minor. You should have no problems then. I've seen you saying that you wont misuse the tools, but without any proof of this (for example, some work with XfD's) I still have to oppose. You should be fine after a little more experience however. Best of luck, Metagraph comment 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Weak Oppose I initially wanted to support, as I love this user's contributions to his wikiproject. However, I just can't get over some of the choppy answers that seem to indicate a poor understanding of the blocking policy and some lack of experience. Though admins can learn on the job, which is perfectly normal, your answers questions 10 and 11 seem to show that too much learning is needed in a relatively short period. But you have a lot of potential — come back in a few months with some experience at XfD and possibly another admin-related area (maybe vandal fighting?), and you'll have no problem passing. Also, be sure to start using edit summaries consistently, as, among other things, it helps reviewers at RfA have a better understanding of your edit history. You're a good editor, and you'll make an excellent admin someday. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Demonstrates lack of policy proficiency. I believe that more time and experience, with some participation in process (particularly WP:AFD) would orientate him with some of our processes and policy knowledge here before he receives the mop and bucket. Please keep up your good content contributions though. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Weak Oppose I was very neutral but the quick and abrupt change of Q10 from one side of the spectrum to the other shows that maybe the user either doesn't know policy, or that their own personal view of policy can be swayed easily. - bigjake (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose. It's nigh on impossible for an administrator to know everything about being an administrator, but it's very important to take initiative to look up and learn about the things which she doesn't know (but is presumably being queried about). I am a little worried by the lack of this shown in the answers to the questions. MrKIA11 seems to have a good temperment for an administrator, however, so I'm sure that with some more experience and familiarization with the contents of the Administrator's reading list, he will make a great candidate. -- Natalya 21:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    You do realise you've called them a she and a he in that comment? Metagraph comment 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    Not as far as I'm aware - the "she" refers to "an administrator", who could be any administrator of any gender. Actually referring to MrKIA11 later on, "he" is used (assuming that his gender has been correctly referred to previously). -- Natalya 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

37. Weak Oppose. After you get a bit more experience in the project space I'd feel more comfortable with giving you the tools. I look forward to supporting in the near future. Useight (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose Sigh. Yet another VG-heavy candidate lacking the rest of it and jumping in anyway. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

    With all due respect, while you are entitled to you opinion, such a mean-spirited comment is hardly necessary. If I misinterpreted your statement I apologize, but I feel such discussions should avoid certain practices. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

    To those who cannot get their heads around the difference between brevity (and I'm addressing my TalkPage contributors here too) and "mean-spiritedness" (for I am quite at a loss to know what else can be the matter): WP:VG has been cited in this discussion already so there should be no doubt as to what it refers to. You could also see my (failed) Oppose for the just-closed Gazimoff application for a further example of my discomforture re admin candidates who have concentrated upon this area. I oppose here because I do not feel the candidate has anywhere near enough range of experience to become an admin. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

    I had no question to what you were referring to. But thank you for clarifying your opposition. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

39. Oppose Weak question answers, not enough different experience. — Jojo • Talk • 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose Unconvincing answers highlighted by the flip-flopping over q 10 to gain support / not garner opposes. Video games aside, lacks experience. Minkythecat (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Regretful oppose - horrible edit summary usage; otherwise, looks good. P.S. I have no problem with admins who work in a single WikiProject. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    As a note, my last 400+ edits have an edit summary, even for minor edits. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. In 3 months for sure. For now, read over WP:ARL and start contributing in other areas of the 'pedia. Malinaccier (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Why? If he was interested, he'd have done it by now, and based on his contribs in areas that he is interested, he'd have done it well. If he's not interested, I imagine he won't contribute well, or at least not as enthusiastically. Really, he'd probably just stir up a whole new batch of opposers based on "gaming the RFA system" or "too many errors at WP:(FILLINTHEBLANK)." Keep doing what you do well, MrK, and enjoy it, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Keeper ǀ 76 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was simply giving a way to up his knowledge of policy and get pre-experience in adminly areas. He's obviously "interested" in becoming an admin, and if he does these things I would be happy to support his request and fulfill this interest. Keeper's right in saying that you should pursue what you enjoy, but if you want to become an admin I believe you should get more experience in other areas of adminship. Malinaccier (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Lack of edit summaries (the nasty long red lines in editcount) and answers to Q10 (first one) and Q11 keep me away from support. MrKIA11, you have a plenty of potential, but you have to familiarize yourself better with the admin rights and chores. Also, it seems like 80% of his contributions in WP namespace is related to WP:VG. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral I really can't support after some of those question answers, but I can't oppose either. At this point all have to stay neutral. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I would like to support, however, the opposers have some very good arguments. I advise getting more experience in admin areas, rather than mostly working in WP:VG. Also, try to use edit summaries more. Run again in 3 months or so, and you'll definitely have my support. Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
   • I advise you to work wherever makes you happy, and if WP doesn't want good editors with a specialty area to have the tools, just resign yourself to that fact. Playing the RfA "do-things-just-to-satisfy-RfA" game is most definitely not advised. S. Dean Jameson 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly, work in whatever areas you want, but if you want to be an admin, you've got to have experience. Simply put, try to work more on XfD's, (I wasn't impressed with the answer to Q11), and other admin areas. Again, I will gladly support once you have more experience. LittleMountain5 02:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral He definitely looks like an editor with good intentions, but the edit summary usage sort of worries me - I recognise that he has pledged to use it more often, but I'd like some more demonstration. A little more work in admin areas would do fine - the Q11 answer was so-so, as LittleMountain pointed out above. If you were to obtain more experience in admin areas, I would most likely support. Cheers, IceUnshattered (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - It looks like this RFA is going to fail, which I think is probably a good thing. I just hope the candidate takes note of how weak many of the opposes were (I'm speaking here of "weak opposes", not of opposes using rationales that I consider weak) - there's definitely recognition from most of the people here that MrKIA11 is admin material, but that he needs to spend a little more time in admin-related areas and learning relevant policy before he gets the bit. Please don't let this RFA sour you on giving it another shot in a few months. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral with moral support - Lack of knowledge on cool down blocks indicates that all policies may not have been read to the fullest extent, regardless on how he has changed his answer. Good contributions though, so ill go neutral on this one. Sorry! Metagraph comment 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral I think you should come back after three months. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. Mixed feelings. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

   You've commented in two different sections now (support and neutral). What's next, an oppose for the hat trick? ;) S. Dean Jameson 04:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, why not? Just kidding, I made an mistake and thought I was in another RfA. Must have clicked the wrong tab... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Neutral The merits of this candidate are undeniable. Notwithstanding some weak points in the oppose section, some comments do stand out as concerning. Although I don't foresee any major problems - the candidate isn't going to on a blocking spree or majorly revamp {{!}} - I find lack of experience to be a concerning factor. It's true that an admin doesn't have to branch into everything between A and Z, and there are many good admins working in specialist areas, but MrKIA primarily wishes to work at CSD and AfD. Lack of experience in this area is a concerning factor. Any admin action can be undone if they are blatantly mistaken, but I believe it would be more helpful to the candidate if he developed more experience in admin related areas. There's no rush, so working for a few months in the areas of adminship that may be problematic would be beneficial, and "playing it safe" with adminship will only improve the candidate's already good qualities. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

   Switched to Just can't make up my mind from Oppose. It's almost as if the candidate got a clue midway through the questions. Some of the answers to the Q's... I really don't like, and his past... I really don't like. But in the last, oh, maybe three or four questions, he has shown flashes. If he gives another good answer, I might switch to weak support per WP:WTHN, and since I really hate it when people make such a big deal about admins, and how they have to be perfect editors. Meisfunny Gab 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

   Switched to Weak Support per WP:WTHN amd I know I wouldn't wan't this to happen to me. Meisfunny Gab 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)