Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11

Edit count for MrKIA11
User:MrKIA11

run at Wed Jul 30 14:51:07 2008 GMT

Category talk:        27 Category:             12 Image:                151 Mainspace             3569 MediaWiki talk:       2 Portal talk:          2 Portal:               3 Talk:                 2404 Template talk:        106 Template:             149 User talk:            504 User:                 207 Wikipedia talk:       360 Wikipedia:            2106 avg edits per page    1.68 earliest              20:10, 21 September 2007 number of unique pages 5730 total                 9602

2007/9 2   2007/10 128   2007/11 546   2007/12 446   2008/1  1502   2008/2  692   2008/3  873   2008/4  1266   2008/5  1275   2008/6  1262   2008/7  1610

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 218 [2]List of PlayStation Portable games 49 [3]Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) 48 [4]Assassin's Creed 21 [5]List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games 20 [6]Wentworth Cheswell 18 [7]Prince William County Public Schools 15 [8]Leila Sbitani 13 [9]List of PlayStation 3 games 8  [10]List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games 8  [11]Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing 7  [12]Pinball Hall of Fame (videogame) 6  [13]PlayStation Portable launch 6  [14]Race Driver 2006 4  [15]NBA 08 4  [16]Monster Madness: Grave Danger

Talk: 38 [17]List of PlayStation Portable games 17 [18]List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games 9 [19]Assassin's Creed 7 [20]List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games 6 [21]Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) 5 [22]List of PlayStation 3 games 5 [23]Pinball Hall of Fame (videogame) 4 [24]Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars 4 [25]Death Jr.   4  [26]Feminism 4 [27]Ape Escape: On the Loose 4 [28]Activision Hits: Remixed 4 [29]Death Jr. II: Root of Evil 4 [30]NBA 07 4 [31]Banana/Archive 2

Category: 5 [32]PlayStation articles by quality 3 [33]Articles with links needing disambiguation 2 [34]Video game articles requesting identifying art 2 [35]Calculator games

Image: 11 [36]Wikipedia Cleaner - Full Analysis en.png 8 [37]Wikipedia Cleaner - Options menu en.png 6 [38]Ferrari Challenge Cover.png 5 [39]Wikipedia Cleaner - Contextual menu en.png 5 [40]Wikipedia Cleaner - Tools menu en.PNG 3 [41]Quarterback Attack Cover.png 2 [42]X-Men Reign of Apocalypse Cover.png 2 [43]Enchanted Once Upon Andalasia Cover.png 2 [44]Ephemeral Fantasia Cover.png 2 [45]Fate of Hellas Cover.png 2 [46]All-Star Baseball 2005 Cover.png 2 [47]Yu-Gi-Oh! The Falsebound Kingdom Cover.png 2 [48]Activision Hits Remixed Cover.png 2 [49]Yakuza 3 Cover.png 2 [50]All Star Pro-Wrestling II Cover.png

MediaWiki talk: 2 [51]Monobook.css

Template: 21 [52]Archive box 15 [53]Playstationp 11 [54]Archives 9 [55]Grading scheme 6 [56]Vgratings 6 [57]WPCVG Sidebar 6 [58]Archive list/sandbox 6 [59]VGDeletionday 5 [60]Archive box collapsible 5 [61]WikiProject Video games/doc 4 [62]Mfd2 4 [63]Prince William County Public Schools 4 [64]Afdl 3 [65]Archives/doc 3 [66]Priorxfd

Template talk: 20 [67]WikiProject Video games 13 [68]Archive list 12 [69]Archive box 8 [70]Infobox VG   8  [71]Vgrelease 7 [72]WikiProjectBannerShell 5 [73]Grading scheme 3 [74]Userlinks 3 [75]Archives 3 [76]Imdb 3 [77]Archive box collapsible 2 [78]Infobox Airport/doc 2 [79]Infobox School

User: 101 [80]MrKIA11/Archive Box 20 [81]NicoV/Wikipedia Cleaner/Documentation 18 [82]MrKIA11/Archive Box/doc 13 [83]AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult 12 [84]MrKIA11 9  [85]Nifboy/list 7  [86]MrKIA11/vgrelease 3  [87]AlexNewArtBot/Videogames 3  [88]MrKIA11/monobook.js   2   [89]MrKIA11/vgrelease/doc 2  [90]AlexNewArtBot 2  [91]Snowolf/Archives 2  [92]Monotonehell/Hot topics

User talk: 50 [93]MrKIA11 24 [94]MrKIA11/Archive 1 16 [95]NicoV 15 [96]MrKIA11/Archive Box 10 [97]MrKIA11/vgrelease 9 [98]Jacoplane 6 [99]Xaosflux 6 [100]Transce080 6 [101]Alex Bakharev 5 [102]JohnnyMrNinja 4 [103]Dorftrottel 4 [104]Ajl772 4 [105]Renesis 4 [106]Falcon9x5 4 [107]Dgies

Wikipedia: 474 [108]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements 367 [109]WikiProject Video games/Deletion 75 [110]WikiProject Video games/Deletion Archive 40 [111]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/April 2008 35 [112]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/March 2008 28 [113]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/June 2008 27 [114]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/May 2008 27 [115]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/January 2008 23 [116]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/February 2008 16 [117]WikiProject Video games/Deletion/August 2006 14 [118]WikiProject Video games/Deletion/July 2006 14 [119]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/Archivesbox 12 [120]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/August 2006 11 [121]Categories for discussion/Transclusion/CfDM 11 [122]WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/December 2007

Wikipedia talk: 85 [123]WikiProject Video games 17 [124]WikiProject Templates 17 [125]Miscellany for deletion 8 [126]WikiProject Disambiguation 7 [127]WikiProject PlayStation 4 [128]WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 1 4 [129]Categories for discussion/Transclusion 3 [130]Deletion process 3 [131]Criteria for speedy deletion 3 [132]WikiProject London Transport 3 [133]Categories for discussion 3 [134]WikiProject Chemistry/archive01 2 [135]WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 14 2 [136]WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 2 2 [137]WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 8

If there were any problems, please [138]email Interiot or post at  [139]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunate
It looks like another trustworthy, good-faith editor is being passed over here, simply for specializing in one area, and/or not participating in the namespace quite enough. This is rather unfortunate, in my view, as we need more good editors in these WikiNiches like the VG project. S. Dean Jameson 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you about the candidate's merits, I don't necessarily see any "bad faith" opposition. We all simply have our own criteria.  I happen to disagree with the opposers, but they, I'm sure, disagree with me as well.  Que sera.   Keeper    76  19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope I didn't come across as assuming bad faith. While I think the reasoning "oppose per too focused on VG" is not good reasoning, I don't doubt the pure intent of the person offering it. It's just discouraging to see good editors like this one passed over. S. Dean Jameson 19:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement then. A good editor that said WTHN when offered adminship.  I hope he is reading this talkpage too, because he is not the first, and definitely won't be the last, editor to be raked over "over-specialization".  RFA is never ever worth quiting Wikipedia over, because RFA is broken.  Again, the opposers have their reasons, so be it. nothing worth stressing over, for you, for me, or for the candidate.   Keeper    76  20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be a good idea to build general consensus whether "active in multiple areas" is a valid need to become admin and then closing crats could judge consensus based on that and weight such responses accordingly. But I doubt we can reach such consensus - RfA wouldn't be broken if we could agree on such things...  So # Why  20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RfA wouldn't be "broken" if we could agree on lots of things. Everytime someone tries to come up with "standards" for passing thru to adminship, it is shot down in a hurry.  All I'm simply stating here is that RfA is broken, everyone has there own criteria for supporting/opposing, and I, for one, am tired of attempting to combat the opposers where I'm in support, or vice versa.  RfA is what it is, for the moment.   Keeper    76  20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a mixed bag of subjective criteria. RfA will forever remain quarrelsome, seemingly cruel, gut wrenching, demoralizing and...yet...even helpful (with good old fashioned criticism). There will never be consensus on what is a legitimate reason to support or oppose.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At least, until RFA is reformed.  Could happen.  And unicorns are real.  I've seen them.  Really, I have.  And Bigfoot is my neighbor.  Lochness monster? Yeah, I told him to go to Loch Ness myself, because he would be better off there then in the suburbs.... Keeper    76  00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If RfA every reforms to an acceptable and agreeable community level, then I will personally bring you your very own unicorn : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Weber's POINT-y opposes
At some point, Weber's POINT-y, unconstructive questioning/opposing has to be dealt with, does it not? Most opposers here are doing so in good faith, albeit for reasons that seem a bit silly to me. Weber is different. He asks a loaded question, where the only "correct" answer (in his mind) is one that violates policy. He states outright that he doesn't have to follow any policies, and that they don't even matter, really. He plays his little games, does his little jigs, at every single RfA it seems, and this is just allowed. Why? It's clear he's just POINT-making, is it not? S. Dean Jameson 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I've heard, every time it goes to RFC or RfAr or whatever, his right to vote however he pleases is upheld. I'm sure someone has links for that. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It just seems that his would be the classic definition of WP:POINT, whether it's his point-making about self-noms after his own was roundly rejected, or his point-making regarding WP policy he doesn't like. I guess we just have to resign ourselves to this point-making every time (well, probably 95% of the time) a new RfA is transcluded. S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to try and argue against kurt a while back too, then i realized that his opposes really are just a drop in the ocean and sometimes even will encourage a few people to support the candidate just to offset his ridiculous opposes. furthermore, the fact that he opposes for such ridiculous reasons, rather than digging up some "real dirt", in the end, he probably doesn't hurt the candidate much and may even help them. ironically. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think xeno's got this one nailed perfectly. I'm not saying that anti-Kurt supports are not good-faith supports, but I'm certain there are supports that could have been neutrals or even weak opposes that are nudged in the other direction by this pointy behavior. Frank  |  talk  00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best to ignore it at all costs. Kurt lays down his oppose, numerous editors jump on him, it's invariably moved here and the complaining continues. Every ANI thread created, every RFC, every discussion had about Kurt's stance/s have resulted in the exact same conclusion. Stagnation. Some people agree, others do not. However, there is one thing that I'm fairly sure of. He is not trying to be disruptive. A contentious point of view is just that, contentious.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It seems to me that Weber's !votes are POINT-making and disruptive in the extreme. He seems like he enjoys the attention, and is "getting back" at RfA and all the current admin candidates for his own 0/12/0 RfA a couple of years back. Oh, and he's using this forum to preach about his views on block policy as well. The drama his auto-opposes cause (and the fact that he knows that they will do so) points very clearly to disruption, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SDJ, I agree with you that this is a quality candidate, but you have completely mischaracterized Kmweber. Something I've learned the hard way, I strongly believe that Kurt is not basing his !votes on anything to do with his prior (self-nom) RfA.  I firmly believe that he sincerely means only the best for Wikipedia and its future.  I've personally seen him support candidates that meet his criteria.  I've seen him go "neutral" when he is either undecided or uninterested.  Kurt (and please, Kurt, correct me if I'm wrong), wants Wikipedia to be better, stronger, and more comprehensive.  He does not want admins that are too "single purposed" or too "myspacey/power hungry". Again, correct me if I'm wrong Kurt, but I think I've (finally) figured you out!  :-)  Keeper    76  00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Kurt has controversial views on practically everything, from the Foundation to Jimbo to ArbCom to RfA. As far as I can tell, neither the Foundation, Jimbo, ArbCom, etc, has done something that would deserve "getting back". He is merely trying to make Wikipedia better, whether we agree with his methods or not. And as long as he is not making being intentionally disruptive, we cannot stop him from opposing RfA after RfA. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some of us could, but it would probably be viewed as a CDB - and where would that get us? ;-) Frank  |  talk  00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, he's all for CDB's... but I'd better shut up per WP:BEANS. :) Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 04:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)