Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 25 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (24x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MrKIA11[edit]

Final (51/4/3); Closed by Rlevse at 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

MrKIA11 (talk · contribs) – MrKIA11 has been in the project since September 2007, and has over 27,000 edits. He is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games where he organizes its articles deletion debates, among other tough work in one of the projects least appreciated subjects [1] [2]. The main concern from, his last RFA over a year ago was because of lack of experience, but it’s no longer a problem, closing AFDs other administrators forget to close [3] [4] [5] . He has a good understand of our fairuse policy, unlike most other editors dealing with his subject [6] [7]. While he’s more of a wikigrome when it comes to article creation, it’s clear he still has experience in that area. I think MrKIA11 would make an excellent administrator. Secret account 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination MrKIA11 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will be using the tools for cleaning up pages, such as deleting pages that fall under CSD or have come to a consensus for deletion in a XfD. I will also use the tools to deal with problematic editors that I come across. Although I admittedly do not currently visit WP:AIV, WP:UAA, or WP:RPP very often, I will try to become more involved in those fields in the future.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are in the video game department, specifically the deletion and new article pages, which I constantly update and always look to improve if possible (e.g., the new class status icon for every page). I also tag every new page with the project's template, quickly check what information I can add to the infobox, especially boxart, and clean it up to conform with article guidelines. I look at every entry on the AfD page, and fix any minor problems that I notice (i.e., malformed headers, incomplete nominations, deleted articles whose AfD have not been closed). I also work to keep the info on the various pages of the WikiProject (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in sync.
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: The only conflict I have had was regarding edits in Userspace, but that was over a year ago. No conflicts since then. I believe that every conflict can be resolved with discussion.
Additional questions from Smithers (Talk)
4. When are Cool Down Blocks acceptable?
A: My understanding of this was an issue in my last RfA. I now know that cool down blocks are only acceptable if the editor in question is creating disruptive edits, and need the block to prevent further harm to the project. Although in that situation, it might not really be considered a cool down. They are not acceptable if the editor has only voiced themselves in a discussion, no matter how angry they may be. This is also a general guideline, and each situation must be analyzed individually.
5. In your own words, describe the G1 Criteria for Speedy Deletion.
A. G1 refers to unsalvageable content that simply can not be edited in any way to make it understandable. The subject can not be identified, and often the words are just gibberish. Almost anything that has a complete sentence does not fall under G1.
6. What have you done since your previous RfA to improve?
A. I now use an edit summary for every edit, which was a concern for some before. I have also contributed much more in cleaning AfDs, both related and unrelated to video games.
Additional optional questions from A Stop at Willoughby
7. Are there restrictions on the kinds of Wikipedia-related essays that users may write in the project namespace? Are there any grounds on which you would delete such an essay? Are there any grounds on which you would userfy such an essay?
A: Although essays are one of the most freely written pages on the project, there are some limitations. Pages that violate specific defined policies (i.e., personal attacks, copyright violations, spam) or fall under what Wikipedia is not could be considered for deletion. If the view of the essay contradicts the widespread consensus or is rarely referred to can be userfied. Essays should also be userfied if the editor does not wish others to edit it, but generally the editor can take care of that themselves.
Additional optional questions from Triplestop
8. How would you close these deletion discussions, in the state linked to? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination)
A: Wow, what a question.
  1. It should be kept in mind that merged pages can always be branched out again in the future if more information warrants it's own article.
    The result was Merge to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. He does not establish notability outside of the incident. The winery section is about the winery, not him. His polo career and legal problems are not unlike that of thousands of other people. Any little information left about him can be included in the incident's page.
  2. Although this is how I would close the discussion today, I would not attempt such a close without more experience first. And for those that are more experienced, could this article be userfied until it thoroughly cleaned, and then reintroduced to the main space?
    The result was Keep. It has the potential to be a good list. Once it has actually been thoroughly sourced and cleaned to remove all BLP violations, maintenance should not be a problem. The page receives a significant number of views.
  3. This seems to be an easy keep. I assume you picked because of the extreme SPA involvement?
    The result was Keep. Even when all the SPA votes are removed, there are still good points for inclusion, although it could use some better sourcing.
Question by Sandstein
9. Have you reached the age of majority in your jurisdiction?  Sandstein  18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, by 2 years; I'm 20.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. Again, I think closing a discussion such as that would require much more experience, but from reading the policy, I would think that it would be better to err on the side of deleting it, and if another editor is able to support the burden of proof that the information is within the guidelines, they can take it to WP:DRV.
11. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I think it seems quite thorough, and since I have not had much experience in dealing with it, I can't say I disagree with any of it. I do have a single person's page that I watch because of my relationship with them in real life, but I keep my edits to reverting vandalism, to avoid a unintentional case of WP:COI.
Question by Bradjamesbrown
12: In this AfD you elected to perform a non-admin closure, despite the last comment made before your closure being "I asked the admin to undelete the article so the AFD can run and I can work on the article. presumably if I'd had time to unblank the article it wouldn't have met a CSD anyway, so I don't think DRV should be needed here."
Can you clarify why you decided a non-admin closure was warranted here? (Full disclosure. I'm aware the statement I reference and your closure are only 7 minutes apart. I also know policy allows a non-admin closure in cases where the nominated article has been deleted.)
A: Chances are that that comment was not posted when I saw the AfD. It could have been 7 minutes from the time that I saw the translusion on the AfD page to time I actually clicked to edit it. I do glance at the entire AfD before I non-admin close it, because I have come across situations where there is a second page being nominated that hasn't been dealt with, or some other reason for the AfD not to be closed yet. I don't remember the situation exactly, but I'm guessing that's what happened.
Conflict resolution
13: Do you have experience with conflict resolution? — Sebastian 09:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I can't say I remember resolving any large conflicts, but of course I've answered the minor questions that have come up due to edits I made. These can been seen in my talk page archives (1 & 2), if you so feel inclined.
Speaking of conflict, we apparently had an edit conflict, as I voted just the minute you replied here. But what I meant by my question was whether you helped resolve any conflicts between others. — Sebastian 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't say I remember any.
Additional optional questions from Addihockey10
14. What's the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is a formal way of saying that they are not allowed to edit, either temporarily or permanently; whether it be to a specific page, group of pages, or the entire project. Although a banned user is still technically able to edit a page, doing so may result in their account being blocked. A block actually prevents them technically from being able to edit, and can also be temporary or permanent, but always applies to the entire project. Blocks are one way of enforcing a ban, when they are project wide, but are normally used to deal with vandalism.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on this RfA yet, but the last one stands as an embarrassment to the community in my opinion. MrKIA11 deserved better than the treatment he got there. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Sandstein has a valid reason for ask question 9 (one I partly agree with), but surely something personal like that is not required for Wikipedia. Regardless of his answer, I think MrKIA11 has shown a mature personality that the question doesn't warrant an answer. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support, does excellent work in delsorting and AfD, with a few extra tools the candidate would be able to aid the project even further. --Taelus (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Weak Support Concerns I had from previous RFA no longer exist. So go for it. Vodello (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak support per answer to Q4. Cool down blocks are never acceptable, period. Vodello (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom, and history.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - The user already solved all of the concerns from the last RfA, and his history is great. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - MrKIA11 is a cool guy, eh sorts AfDs and doesn't afraid of anything. Nifboy (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I nominated him last year, and he's been really amazing in his consistant and quality maintenance work for WP:VG throughout the year. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-3 12:49
  7. I see no alarms. GedUK  13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Like last time, I believe MrKIA11 having an extra set of tools will only help Wikipedia. He took the last nomination in stride and has only improved since. My interactions with him have given me a lot of faith in his ability to use the tools properly. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  9. I supported last time and support again. Excellent editor. Acalamari 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — diligent and hardworking editor with a demonstrable need for the tools. –xenotalk 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Great work thus far, excellent answers to additional questions, and I trust the candidate to use the tools responsibly. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looking forward to seeing your work at AfD. Aditya Ex Machina 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Haven't personally interacted or recall seeing him around, but I trust he'll do just fine. Grsz11 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – I was thinking about nominating myself. Does very good "behind the scenes" work that people readily won't notice. We would benefit with him having the admin tools. MuZemike 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – I have no concerns about this editor. -- Atama頭 19:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent user Triplestop x3 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support The response to question 8 in particular was encouraging. WFCforLife (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - hahnchen 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support-can someone realy tell why not!?--Gilisa (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Good answers to my question. What I wanted! Good luck with your RfA. Smithers (Talk) 07:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- balance of evidence suggests will be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support MrKIA11 seems like a trustworthy, conscientious editor who would use the mop wisely. His work at WikiProject Video Games may be "gnoming," but it's important nonetheless and a job that doesn't get enough appreciation. The candidate also did an excellent job of answering the questions and fixed the issues raised at the last RfA. Thanks for your hard work, MrKIA11, and good luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. @Kate (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. MrKIA11 has a good understanding of the policies and has experience in the relevant areas. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Taking your word that you will help vandal fighters such as me on wp:rpp, wp:aiv and wp:uaa when you get the tools down. A8UDI 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Thought this guy was a bot for the longest time... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Was said above, might be somewhat gnomeish? I'd make a case that can be good for admin to mostly keep to him/herself and remain a relative unknown. End result is less biases and a substantial distance kept from the larger chunks of drama. I'd like to look at this as allowing the nominee to swoop in and respond when the Bat signal is projected somewhere over the encyclopedia. ...Sounds a bit more heroic that way, at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I like what I see in the edits the candidate has made, and with the answers given. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Despite not having many interactions with this user in the past, I'm going to have to support this. I'm extremely impressed by the well reasoned answers, especially number 8. Looking over the contributions, I'm convinced that this user will use the tools wisely. (X! · talk)  · @220  ·  04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - no problems here, seems to have provided suitable answers. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Great candidate; nothing tells me that I can't trust this user with the tools! Airplaneman talk 06:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Andrea105 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good answerers to the questions... RP459 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support of course! — JoJo • Talk • 02:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Is now ready. A net positive - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No problems here. Razorflame 08:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support This is a tough one for me. I see no reason to oppose, but I also had trouble supporting. I wish the candidate had more experience in other areas of the Wiki. The problem is that Wikipedia is a volunteer community and if the user has no interest in other areas of the 'pedia, how can we ask them to participate elsewhere? We need admins everywhere and this candidate seems quite focused. However, the candidate has expressed that they would try to participate elsewhere and if they do so voluntarily, than I suppose I can support them. I am also concerned about the very limited conflicts because conflict resolution is an important part of being an admin. Someone mentioned Q5 as not being completely correct but I'd like to empasize that the user did say "almost any complete sentance" which is a valid answer. And if the strongest oppose for this candidate is slightly weak answers, low conflict resolution, and a small perceived inaccuracy in his response to G1, well adminship is no big deal and so I support.--v/r - TP 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support as now ready to have the mop. Plenty of edits, good answers above, and resolved issues. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support this strangely low traffic request for the bits. Nod to the opposers but a net positive with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support While this user hasn't produced any large amount of audited content, I have seen firsthand how many grinding, gnomish edits he makes and what a benefit they are to WP:VG. All my interactions with him have been positive, so I see no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt and support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Seems capable and ready...Modernist (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Per answer to Q10. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I guess --Zink Dawg -- 02:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I've seen this user's work and remember being impressed with his forbearance and diligence. Plus, good answers. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I see no problems here. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 'Support logs and contributions show the skills are there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Good luck as sysop! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I don't support one focus administrators. I saw this where an editor was granted adminship for being able to unblock his bots, then used his tools to unblock his bot that had been blocked with community consensus. If you're doing multiple things with your tools and you make a mistake by abusing the community's faith in granting you those tools, it's maybe not so bad a thing this one time, this one area, but the risk, imo, when you have only one community function for those tools is simply too great. If you need the tools only to do one task that you're involved in, you need someone else to be the administrator for that task, im my experience and opinion. Administrator on wikipedia isn't a one function job. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see several "ifs" and "this one guy did something" but nothing relevant to this candidate. Vodello (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose his closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrington Plaza created unnecessary confusion and honestly I didn't get the impression he'd read the text of the AFD first, especially as he didn't respond to comment about it on his talk page. At any rate if an admin is going to close an AFD early despite a good faith request for it to run its normal course so the article can be saved... I really think the admin should make some explanation. Note that the article was saved once I had time to actually work on it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, the initial comment I left on his talk page was snarky and that might very well be why he ignored it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was part of the reason. And since you quickly followed your first comment with "nevermind", I didn't feel it would be rude to not answer. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Candidate seems very weak on content contributions and dispute resolution experience. Those are critical areas for admins and I think more well-rounded experience is needed. I don't recall seeing you helping at ANI or really in any other area of the 'Pedia. If tools could be split up for gnomic work that would be okay, but interpersonal skills and experience are needed when they can be used and abused to make improper blocks of content contributors. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a concern I take seriously. Do you have any evidence you can show for this? — Sebastian 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the very issue is the lack of evidence to the contrary. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I asked Q13. I did not expect not to get at least an attempt of an answer in over 24 hours. Well, I guess the candidate is so sure to win that he doesn't care. Well, I have to vote my conscience. — Sebastian 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually do care, I'm just not always on my computer on the weekends. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I believe you that you care, since you replied the same minute that I posted the above. However, your reply here seems to be tweaking the facts a bit. The relevant link is [8], which shows that you have been online for an hour before replying here, during which time you did 14 other edits. I also don't think that a wording that wrongly gives the impression that the user your replying to hadn't been doing their homework (in this case checking your contributions before writing the above) indicates good conflict resolution skills. — Sebastian 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking part, since I realized that the candidate replied to my clumsy wording of the previous post. There is indeed no requirement to check RfA at least once in 24 hours. — Sebastian 18:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose – answer to Q3 is so vague that I half wonder if it intended to convey no information whatsoever. Q1 doesn't inspire me with huge confidence either, unfortunately. (I'll watch this page, and am quite prepared to change my position if so persuaded!) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TreasuryTag, I think the conflict MrKIA11 is referring to is the one at User talk:MrKIA11/Archive 1#Archive box changes (and the three subsequent threads). That was in January 2008, almost two years ago. The candidate has certainly gained a lot of experience since then. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for pointing that out! I'll have a read through a little later... However, my concerns regarding Q3 were specifically about the answer given, and whether MrKIA genuinely thought that it was clear and open. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I've looked through your last 600 or so edits to Wikipedia namespace. I saw lots and lots of edits to AfD's. However, I didn't see one that actually expressed an opinion or discussed policy. Every one I saw was either tagging as a video game related discussion, fixing headers, or doing non-admin closures after speedy deletions. Yeah, you've got over 8,000 edits to Wikipedia namespace, but I was easily back in September. I make one of the following conclusions: 1) You really haven't been thinking about and discussing the issues presented, or 2) You've hidden such edits under more "gnomish" edit summaries. AfD can make anyone look like an idiot. Occasionally you miss the obvious, or get proven dead wrong; but that's the experience I was looking for from someone who expressed an interest in XfD. You're very enthusiastic, but I just don't see the policy experience yet.
(If someone can show diffs that prove me wrong, I will happily retract this entire vote.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Leaning towards support, but am waiting for more detailed answers. Move to support. A8UDI 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Learning toward support however, like A8UDI, I would like to see more detailed answers; especially question 1. Does the user only intend to use the tools for deleting? Also, I would like to see more diversity in the users focus; although I would never encourage someone to work an area they had no interest in.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Moved to support--v/r - TP 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - Not sure yet. Editors that show an interest in CSD should have a healthy page patrol contribution, which shows they've seen a fair share of articles and understand how pages start out, both good and bad. This user has almost 900 [9] which is more than most, but for over 29,000 edits it's not huge percentage. Answer to 5A isn't completely correct, for instance an article that just said "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" wouldn't qualify, but "Colorless orange ideas sleep furiously" would (I wouldn't oppose on that). Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Per Q4. Cool down blocks only have the opposite effect. Would oppose, but otherwise the candidate seems fine. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I originally opposed because of the lack of conflict resolution experience per Q13. (See also my reply to Amory above.) But I do appreciate his work with CSD; in the last 2000 edits I could not find a single wrong tag. Also, working with CSD can often get emotional, so it's a good sign that the candidate hasn't been involved in any conflicts in that time. — Sebastian 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MrKIA11_2&oldid=1146517665"