Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GamerPro64 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

GamerPro64
Final (14/15/4); ended 03:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC) - withdrawn —cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 03:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like this nomination to be withdrawn. This was a mistake and an overall spur of the moment. Good day. GamerPro64 03:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination
– GamerPro64 is a long time Wikipedian with just over seven years of experience. As well as being the current featured topic director, GamerPro64 has written a featured article and six good articles as well as nominating four featured pictures. A prolific member of Wikiproject Videogames, and a major contributor to their newsletter he has contributed significantly to a variety of articles on Wikipedia as well as FARs and GARs. Outside of content creation GamerPro64 has worked in the evaluation of G13 eligible drafts. In my interactions with him I have found him to have good judgement and civility. Coming off a previous RfA that was closed as no consensus in October of last year with many oppose !voters expressing the opinion that he should try again in several months. Now sitting at 15,000 edits, GamerPro64 has since acquired the necessary experience for adminship and I am pleased to nominate him today. Winner 42 Talk to me!  03:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. GamerPro64  03:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to take part in the work in the Speedy Deletion process. Having nominated over a hundred expired drafts after my last RfA, I've noticed how easy a backlog can come into fruition. Another area I would help out would be closing articles or any misc. work nominated for deletion. Basically offering to help out with the overall deletion process on Wikipedia. GamerPro64  03:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Anachronox is currently the only Featured Article I have under my belt, which I find to be my biggest contribution to the site, content wise. Helping out with the Video games Project overall is a fine example of some of my other work here. Working in areas of the project to see what needs updating or clean-up has been part of my forte on the site. There is also my work at Featured Topics, where I and another editor close nominations and go through steps to process an entire topic, which the amount of articles in a topic varies. But it's all worth it once everything is in order. GamerPro64  03:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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: After my last nomination, nothing major has sprung up that caused me much stress here. But if and when I do get stressed out here, I do attempt to step away or try to get back to the issue to see how the handle it correctly. GamerPro64  03:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Samwalton9
 * 4. What do you think were the main arguments given by oppose voters in your last RfA, and do you think they still apply?
 * A: There were a lot of arguments made, from not having a user page (which I've since made one that redirects to my talk page) to even one person that opposed me because I didn't support their Featured Picture nomination. But the main arguments that I believe were given out were my lack of contribution on articlespace, maturity, and experience in terms of AfDs and such. On the lack of contributions, which was pointed out that I had less than 15% for articlespace, yeah that still applies. But that's mainly because I don't do much editing on articlespace. I prefer doing other works on the site like maintaining Featured Topics and having talk page discussions.


 * For maturity, I found that to be because I didn't have a user page and my username is the color red. User pages don't interest me. And I like that my username is red. Its personal preference that rubbed some people the wrong way, in my opinion.


 * And for experience, I do accept that criticism. It's important to understand the process of deleting if that's what an potential admin is planning on doing with the tools. But I believe I've learned more about the deletion process. I've started doing speedy nominations and, to a less extent, PRODs. I also have done some more AfDs but I'm just overall trying to find ones that would fit the criteria. That criticism I found to be the most constructive. GamerPro64  18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Esquivalience
 * 5. How would you close/relist the following AfDs (they're a bit tricky):


 * Articles for deletion/Patrick Macdonald-King
 * Articles for deletion/Andre The Hilarious Hypnotist
 * Articles for deletion/United Patriots Front
 * A: For the first AfD, I would relist the nomination again. Currently it has one vote for Keep and Three for Delete. I believe that a consensus is reached when at least three votes for a motion. Unless there's another vote for delete soon it should be kept up.


 * For the second AfD I would close the nomination with motion to delete the page. The nomination has two keeps to five delete votes. And while one voted mainly on the belief that one of the editor's who voted for Keep was the subject, which I can understand since the user goes by Hypn1969 and the article is on Andre The Hilarious Hypnotist who was born in 1969, I still believe there is enough grounds to delete the article per its failure of WP:GNG.


 * The last AfD I would close the nomination and have the article be deleted and userfied. Its possible that an article on the United Patriots Front could become more notable in the future. But in its current state it might be better to send it to userspace for the time being. GamerPro64  20:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for GamerPro64:
 * Edit summary usage for GamerPro64 can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator. Winner 42 Talk to me!  04:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * #Support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Why not? Armbrust The Homunculus 04:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; honestly, what's not to like here? Has content experience, has a need for the tools, appears to have good interactions with others, and most of all knows what WP is about, which is producing high-quality content. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per last time. Jianhui67T ★ C 06:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; he's taken feedback to heart and done the work. We need more like him.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Yes, we need an admin like him. If he has written plenty of featured articles then we should have them as admin :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: He hasn't written any Featured Articles. The one he has listed on his user page was written by another editor. This would be easier to show if the X! Tools were working, but as usual lately they aren't. But if you scroll through the edit history, you'll see that article was written by Zeality. The other stars on his page are photographs he nominated but neither took nor uploaded. And he was neither the creator nor the main contributor to the GAs he has listed at the top of his page (again, this would be easier if the X! Tools worked, but you can scroll though and see that.) Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the FA comment. See Featured article candidates/Anachronox/archive1. He helped get the article to a featured status and helped put in the required work to get the article to that level. Look at the history of that article to see the work that he did to it, especially from December 2013-February 2014, and he also helped fix some problems that the reviewers had. He's worthy of the FA credit that he has. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He may have tweaked it to help get it to FA level, but he did not write it. Softlavender (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to create something to help write it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He neither created it nor wrote it. Zeality did both of those. To repeat, he tweaked it to help get it to FA level, but he did not write it. EurovisionNim's claim was that he wrote it (and also erroneously other, non-existent, FAs), which he did not. Not going to discuss this further. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need anymore discussing. You are belittling the work that he did to help get that article to FA status. I am simply disagreeing with your analysis. It doesn't matter who did what, the fact of the matter is that he has an FA credit under his belt. More than one person can work on an article to get it to FA status and he helped make that happen. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Many gnomes have helped me get FAs, and I'd be a bit angry if they didn't take partial credit for getting them there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: I'd only be concerned about his level of experience if I thought he might do damage. And I don't.Deb (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Stranger195 (talk) (guestbook (on Wikia) ) 10:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, good administrative work, competent, wants to do even more work. We need more admins, and we need more admins like that. Another plus: apparently does what he does best to improve Wikipedia instead of listening to RfA regulars in order to "improve" his CV. As Featured Topic director he has enough experience with consensus that any claims of "inexperience" based on AfD participation seem wrong. I have seen no serious concerns expressed in any of the opposes. —Kusma (t·c) 11:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. GamerPro64 appears to be an experienced and sensible editor who would use admin tools with care. He/she has indicated an intention to work on the consistently large backlog (about 2500 right now) of db-g13-eligible drafts; admin tools are useful in this area not only for deleting drafts as appropriate, but also for viewing and/or restoring deleted material on request, completing history merges, and in some cases moving accepted articles over redirects.  I also don't see any problem with a concentration on video game articles; if a topic is covered factually by reliable sources, it should be in the encyclopedia, and it's good to have an experienced editor working with the overly enthusiastic newcomers.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. He has the experience, and I don't see anything too problematic with his AfD noms and CSD log. There were a few incorrect nominations here and there, but we must remember that nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible. He also has some recognized content, which shows that he has the ability to do that, although not on my preferred subjects. ;) He may not check all the arbitrary paper boxes, but I ultimately have the gut feeling that Gamer will be a careful and cool-headed admin who is willing to learn. -- Biblio worm   16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I'm really surprised by some of these nikpicky opposes, especially the "he doesn't need the tools" opposes. Just this month, there was an 8 day backlog at CAT:PROD and I've seen CAT:CSD get a backlog of a couple days too. We need help in that area, and GamerPro64 is willing to do that. I don't see any major red flags. There have been a couple of "incorrect" tags, but no one is perfect and we shouldn't hold people to a perfect standard. There are plenty of current admins who get a CSD wrong every so often. It's one of the reasons we have WP:DRV. I'm also surprised by the opposes based on "namespace percentages." Just because an editor prefers to work in a certain namespace doesn't mean they aren't knowledgeable about the other namespaces. From what I can tell, it looks like GamerPro64 has good experience in a wide number of areas and I don't see any evidence that would cause me to doubt his maturity or level of clue. Nitpicky opposes like the ones I've seen here are part of the reason this place has a bad reputation. Being an admin is WP:NOBIGDEAL and one doesn't have to be perfect to obtain the mop. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aw man, I say all those nice things about you and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot with the answer to Q5. Since this isn't going to pass, you can consider this a moral support. Take to heart the criticism that you get here and be sure to improve from that. If you do that, then I'll be sure to support your next RFA. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Sampling a good portion of your recent contributions, there's much to like. Lot's of collaborative comments where you state your view clearly and concisely while not being too forceful. I like that you have a nice balance between recognising / assisting the work of others, and executing your own. Plenty of interest in FA / GAs. While you generally seem to prefer helping with the review process to doing the heavy lifting of quality content creation,  your dozens of edits helping Anachronox achieve FA status show you do have what it takes.  You'd need more experience before you'd be good at moderating any rows between our most heavy weight content builders, but you seem to have more content credentials than several successful candidates I can think of.  Not that I think it's essential for new admins to have a strong content background, but it's a big bonus when they do. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I don't see any reason not to. This person seems to have quite some experience. He has even written a featured article. I do feel the need for more people helping out with the Speedy Deletion process, and I think in general that he makes a great candidate. I think his experience is a little shaky, but he does claim that he has learned much more about the deletion process. So I am showing full support for this candidate. User:Apoorv Chauhan 01:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being redundant, he has not written a Featured Article. He has tweaked one article to help get it to FA status. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He has a good amount of experience and it doesn't seem like he'll abuse this privilege. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose
PAGE''' ]]) 21:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Inadequate rationale for wanting the mop; tools not needed for their preferred activities (e.g. nominations for Speedy and PROD). There is no pressing backlog of stale Drafts (deletion-nominated or otherwise), and Drafts are harmless because they are not indexed by Google. Likewise, article-space Speedies are being deleted apace. Deficiencies noted in failed RfA nine months ago (which had a very low percentage of support !votes) have not been remedied in my view. E.g.: In nine months, participation in AfD has only included 5 !votes, most all in his specialty of video games (plus 11 nominations, again in his specialty). Worrisome that candidate's only named admin-activity desired (after deleting Speedies) is closing AfDs or MfDs. No evidence that I can see offhand of closing contentious discussions, etc., or other admin-like activities. I do not see candidate's overwhelming specialization in video games as a plus (quite the opposite); call me old-fashioned, but the overwhelming proliferation of video-game coverage on Wikipedia in extremely stark contrast to quality coverage of items and subjects most important to any reputable paper encyclopedia or curated online encyclopedia is nothing but highly regrettable. If candidate wants to improve and keep out cruft in that area, he does not need the mop to do that. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that we should collectively expend more effort in areas currently under-represented in Wikipedia, I don't feel that insinuating that any one editor's area of choice is the issue is particularly helpful, especially in the context of their suitability for adminship. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I must concur with but on his previous RfA I voted neutral in a detailed rationale in which I did say that I would wholeheartedly support another RfA. The advice was not taken and therefore I must most regrettably vote Oppose this time. Recent discussions at WT:RfA and other places remind that edit count goes both ways: too little contribution to content leads the community to doubt sufficuent knowledge for policing new pages, while an overwhelming respectable  record of FA, GA, DYK, and whatnot have not left time for familiarisation with essential meta tasks.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - While I am open to supporting the user in a future RFA, I cannot support the candidate at this time. The main administrative area that the user wants to work in is the "overall deletion process", but the user's track record in the deletion realm is quite limited and less than impressive.  Racking up successful G13 speedy deletion nominations is not a good enough indication that the user is sufficiently versed in the speedy deletion criteria, in my opinion.  As one of the few criteria with a time component, it is one of the most objective criteria we have, and I would like to see more successful use of subjective criteria (e.g., A1, A7, A9) for someone whose primary intended admin task is to help out in speedy deletion.  Furthermore, the AFD record for the past year is very limited; I have issues with both the quantity and quality for a user who wants to do admin work in deletion.  The percentages are decent (the not-matching results are a bit high for my liking but not by a huge amount), but what is more concerning is that where Gamer's !vote did not match the result, in two ( and ) (and arguably a third) of the AFDs, the outcome was not all that close.  I would like to see more participation in AFDs and more subjective criteria speedy deletion nominations, and I may consider supporting in the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I honestly did want to support and mulled it over for a few hours this morning, but ultimately I have to come down largely per DGG and Carrite at the previous RfA. Sorry, but if you want to use the tools for deletion, I need to see far more experience than what is documented so far. Inks.LWC has already documented the problem with AfDs; personally I think your performance is borderline okay, except that you haven't participated in enough deletion activities, and that in two cases (Articles for deletion/Jory Prum and Articles for deletion/Mario Ramírez Reyes "El Comodín") you either nominated the article for speedy or were considering it, and on your talk page just a few days ago somebody told you they were contesting a speedy. Especially this is a particularly weak rationale for wanting to delete something. Perhaps these are all just one-off mistakes, which we all make, and I might be a little harsh in bringing them up, except they're not counterbalanced by enough positive results the other side. Wanting to delete G13 expired drafts is a red flag for me when some (particularly DGG and Anne Delong) work flat out to save them. In short - not enough experience in the relevant areas - there is too high a risk you'll speedy something unnecessarily. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts now that Anne Delong has chimed in with a "support"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: their CSD log shows some promise; there are 40 noms listed there that aren't G13, and there's nothing wrong most of the 188 noms that are. More experience would be better, though. But their AfD contributions aren't particularly fabulous and I'm not sure they have enough deletion experience to be given buttons that can instantly vaporize hard work by newbies, or drafts with potential that just happen to be a little bit old. I'm also not sure how much they want/need the tools. Their work in non-adminy areas seems wonderful, though, and they seem like a brilliant contributor, even if they're not one that I think needs the mop. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant Oppose as i supported last time; for that reason, i think the candidate deserves a little explanation for the change. It is axiomatic that the position is a position of trust; i tend to interpret that to mean, Do i trust the candidate to do the right thing, to follow the community's desires (consensus), to use the tools wisely and correctly (neither misusing by mistake nor abusing on purpose), and to learn as they go that which they did not know or that which changes?  I did, last time.  This time, i'm afraid i do not.  The candidate is interested in helping with deletions and deletion backlogs, yet shows strikingly little evidence of good activity in that area, as several users show above (and my research also backs up). In addition, having gone back and reread the previous RfA, especially the opposes, i do not see signs that the candidate has really understood what was being said last time and engaged with it. That being the case, i cannot fully see the purpose to granting this request currently.  I am open to changing my view, particularly if Question Four is answered with some strong self-knowledge and -criticism. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose- The distribution of the candidate's edits, which favors non-mainspace contributions (especially Wikipedia space) over content edits, does not indicate that as an admin they would understand the needs and problems of content editors. BMK (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you need to look deeper than just edit count proportions. He has 6 good articles, a featured article, is the head honcho of featured topics assesment, and has done multiple good article reviews. Such a person seems very well placed to understand the needs of content editors. Bosstopher (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am flabbergasted at this. The candidate has significant quality mainspace contributions, yet you feel he's out of touch with content creation? And when a candidate does not have a FA and three GAs then they're not technical enough... this is why RFA sucks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FRF: Is there really a need to bring this down to a personal level? My evaluation is my evaluation, not yours, or anyone else's.  Simply because I register a !vote based on different criteria than you would use, that means that "RfA sucks"?  Do you mean that if we all followed a party line of some sort, RfA would be better?  It's true that RfA is far from ideal, but its failures have little to do with each editor using their own experience and judgment to determine whether they think a candidate would make a good admin or not -- that, it seems to me, is actually an ideal situation, not something to be avoided. Clearly, your criteria for adminship differs from mine, and therefore our !votes also differ.  I see nothing wrong with that, it's the way it should be.  One thing, however, that does make "RfA suck" is denigrating the opinions of fellow editors simply because you disagree with them, and I would suggest that you rethink doing so. Personally, I think "Why not?"-type supports are pretty objectionable, but I don't go around insulting the edtiors who made them. BMK (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thing: you cite FAs and GAs - are you aware of Softlavender's statement about them in a comment up in the "Support" section? BMK (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I regret doing this because he's a nice guy who is here to build the encyclopedia, and a couple of the oppose rationales above seem absurd to me. ("... the overwhelming proliferation of video-game coverage on Wikipedia in extremely stark contrast to quality coverage of items and subjects most important to any reputable paper or curated online encyclopedia is nothing but highly regrettable" is just plain WP:Not in my encyclopedia. And "The distribution of the candidate's edits, which favors non-mainspace contributions (especially Wikipedia space) over content edits, does not indicate that as an admin they would understand the needs and problems of content editors", ignoring an FA and 6 GAs, is editcountitis gone mad.) But unfortunately, having had the very brief and clear rules about WP:G13 explained to him on his talk page in April, just two days ago he makes the same mistake as before. Especially as he wants to work in deletion, I can't support this. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Little seems to have changed since the last RfA in October 2014, when I !voted oppose on the grounds of lack of exposure to admin areas. Since then, GamerPro64 has !voted on a further 23 AfDs bringing his grand total to 36, most of which are in the video gaming area. That is nowhere near enough in my book. I haven't checked the CSD work, but I see no effort to focus more on article creation/improvement of which it is vital to have wide experience before wielding a mop.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I'm afraid I must concur with Stfg. I have no problem with the candidate's demeanor or willingness to help the site, but they don't demonstrate enough knowledge and experience with the stated areas of involvement where I would trust them with the delete button. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I was tempted to vote support here to counteract some of the lousy rationales for other oppose !votes (as documented by FreeRangeFrog and Stfg), but the answers to question 5 give me serious doubts about supporting this candidate who states that they intend to close deletion discussions. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * 1) Oppose - I opposed in his last RFA due to him being inexperienced .... Well If I'm being totally honest not much has changed, He hasn't contributed much in AFD work and the CSD log seems small compared to others, And rather amazingly his article-space edits have gone down by only 1% since the last RFA, Anyway overall like above I'm not seeing any need for the tools at this time, Anyway Good luck with the RFA. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Opppose This statement, "I believe that a consensus is reached when at least three votes for a motion" shows they do not have a firm understanding of WP:CONSENSUS or WP:CLOSEAFD and would not be able to properly close deletion discussions. " Consensus is not based on a tally of votes ". Mkdw talk 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you've misinterpreted the "three votes" sentence. My read was that at least three people needed to support a side before he'd consider it to be an adequate level of participation to assess consensus. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The CSD log is okay, but I honestly don't think that they have enough experience. IMHO, I am quite disturbed by the nominator's answer to question 5—consensus is not determined by numerical votes. They say they want to work in deletion areas and seem to not understand WP:CONSENSUS. I have no doubt that the user's intentions are good, especially in non-admin areas, but they are not qualified for adminship right now. I recommend that you get a lot more AfD experience if you want to renominate. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to the absolutely atrocious answer to Q5, which shows that the candidate's knowledge of the AfD process needs some more work. The number of votes should never be the primary criterion in determining consensus; rather, the strengths of the various arguments are much more important. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * #Neutral till the X! Tools are working again and I can check edit count and so on. Alternatively candidate could postpone this RfA till the X! Tools are working again. Also, I would like to see AfD stats -- could someone post those (I don't know how to find that tool offhand)? I would also like to review other matters, such as the candidate's first RfA nine months ago, which I haven't had time to thoroughly digest, and which was a very low percent of support !votes. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * XTools isn't the only edit counter: Supercount, DEep WiKi INspector, and Quick edit counter are all alternatives that will provide you varying levels of analysis (and speed). (Note: These are all linked to on my User page – AfD stats, the other tool you asked about, is linked to on my User page as well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about xTools, that was a minor oversight on my part. Try using the edit counter now.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-11ex;color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Offline 06:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral Im here in the neutral camp. Again. I am compelled to say there's a lot I like about this editor, but they really should have taken the advice provided in their last RFA to gain some solid experience in deletion. Optically, it looks like they've done the absolute bare minimum and arguably haven't received any major experience with contentious deletion. Their deletion participation is in a very acute way, and therefore wouldn't fulfill, in my opinion, enough experience. I normally wouldn't hold this against the editor except for the fact they've expressed - twice - this is the area they want to work. The first time after they had no experience, and the second time having experience in very mechanical tagging of non-contentious material. I would have wanted to see more applications of A7, G11, G12, participation in contentious AFD situations that required a detailed understanding of policy, and some non-admin closures. Mkdw talk 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)  Moved to oppose.  Mkdw talk 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Looks like you just need more experience with AfDs before justifying your need for the tools. Put in more time there and return in a few months. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  19:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'm going to stick myself here. I have the belief that an admin hopeful has to wait at least a year after a failed or "no consensus" RFA to run again in order to allow themselves time to get past or correct whatever led to their failed nomination. (The nominee last had an RFA that started in October 2014.) This belief isn't enough for me to be swayed either way, but it sticks me here without any chance of changing my opinion. Steel1943  (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I was really hoping to support this RfA, but the answer the Q5 shows a misunderstanding of consensus. I admittedly had the same misconception when I was a newbie, but consensus is defined by the weight of the arguments and not pure vote-counting. A user of his experience level really should know that. He also said: " I believe that a consensus is reached when at least three votes for a motion." Your AfD closures should be based upon policy, not what you believe. I don't feel that a mistaken answer to one question is enough to justify an oppose, but I'm no longer comfortable supporting. -- Biblio worm   01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral over the CSD concerns. GamerPro is IMHO a fantastic editor, but working in deletion as an admin requires a (reasonably) accurate nose for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.