Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Killervogel5

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (93/1/3); Ended 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killervogel5 (talk · contribs) – An excellent contributor to the project, KV5 has been the driving force behind WP:MLB's nearly completed Featured Topic. Worthy of the tools, IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by User:Secret. I present to you Killervogel5. He has been in the project since May 2005, creating the article of future All-Star Chase Utley. He been mostly active since January 2008, where he has contributed 16,000 edits since. Also known as KV5, he is a top content constributor, contributing to a mindboggling 32 featured lists, 34 did you know, four good articles and two featured topics, mostly to baseball related articles. He is experienced with new page patrol where he has over 500 deleted edits. He also has over 500 Wikipedia talk edits, where he leads the discussion to create consensus between large groups of editors in WP:BASEBALL, 1,500 user talk edits, where all of them are constructive, like warning editors and solving disputes, and 800 article talk page edits, where of course mostly handling disputes and forming consensus. While he doesn't have much contributions with either AFD or AIV, the few edits he has on those subjects show experience as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Barry Bonds, [1], [2]. He has a clear understanding of the dispute resolution where he tried to mediate disputes between our baseball community Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-12/Albert Pujols, using other alternatives if it doesn't work [3]. He is willing to learn, as this editor review shown. We need more expert editors for adminship, and Killervogel5 is one of the strongest candidates. Thanks Secret ^account 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Having now been approached four times about standing for adminship, I have decided that it is finally time to give it the old college try... Hopefully I'll end up more like Urban Meyer than Charlie Weis at the moment. As I've mentioned to others who have graciously volunteered to nominate or support my efforts, I'm not 100% confident in my ability to handle the tools. However, I feel that overconfidence in one's abilities can easily turn into arrogance and lead to even worse results. Thus, it is with merely a small amount of trepidation that I humbly accept the nomination of both Staxringold and Secret.

Additionally, I have been offered tutelage by Secret, who can direct me in learning the tools—should this RfA be successful—so that I can have a positive impact on the English Wikipedia. I ask your patience as I prepare my responses to the questions provided for myself as a candidate, and will do my best to alleviate any and all concerns raised by other editors. Thank you all for your time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: To be frank, I plan to continue editing Wikipedia as mainly a content editor. I rarely patrol new pages any longer, but do have experience in that area, and would be willing to re-visit both the new page and recent changes patrols. I understand that AfD can be a touchy area, but I would also be willing to undertake some additional responsibility there, as well as at AIV, where I sometimes see backlogs that I would like to help to alleviate. I believe that the best description of my view of myself as an administrator would be "administrator when needed". If there is a backlog that I see and can help using administrative tools, I will gladly do so. However, I don't plan on abandoning content work simply to undertake administrative duties. That being said, I will always make myself available when called upon to users who ask for help, or look as though they need help, and consider any situation which requires the tools with the utmost of care.

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

A: I won't be so bold as to speak to which of my contributions are the "best", but I am particularly proud of the featured lists on which I have spent a lot of working hours. As mentioned, the vast majority of my contributions are within baseball-related topics, and some of the longest (List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons and List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers) and most involved (the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove lists) and are ones that I have labored over and am thus enamored with. I am also very proud of my recent contributions that are not list-related, particularly the four good articles whose reviews I have worked through (Mets–Phillies rivalry and Paul Bako being the two most recent).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been involved in conflicts over editing, both as an active party (at Albert Pujols and Pretzel, to name just two that stick out in my head) and an third party (at Pete Rose). I readily admit that I have been warned for 3RR violations in the past, but have tried mightily to avoid any such conflicts in recent memory. I will also state for the record that I have come close to leaving the project several times over editing disputes. However, I've tried, and will continue to try, to adopt an attitude that it's really not a big deal. As a certified teacher (though I no longer work in education), I take the art of knowledge-building very seriously. I also take rules very seriously. These two views are what I am trying to balance as I improve myself as an editor. I realize that neither I nor any editor I encounter is perfect, and I accept that, like Wikipedia, I am, and always will be, a work in progress.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

4. 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. Not that I didn't expect some toughies here, but that diff's got some serious contentiousness behind it!... BLPs are, in my opinion, a tricky subject. I do agree with many elements of the current BLP policy (further explanation below). In particular, I agree with Jimbo's quote regarding pseudo-information on BLPs that "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". When editing BLPs, I always tend to err on the side of caution, which may lead me to delete as a safety valve only when no clear consensus can be determined. It's also necessary to consider the content of the article. If it's largely defamatory or largely composed of praise, it may need simply to be tagged for attention to temper the non-neutral language or reported to the BLP noticeboard.

That said, it's always most important to consider the validity of the arguments of both sides thoroughly and to determine whether people are truly representing the state of the article with any statements they make. For example, if User:Example makes a statement at an AfD to delete a BLP ("This article doesn't meet WP:N because of reasons A, B, and C"), then it's obviously the responsibility of any administrator reviewing the content of the discussion (especially the closing admin) to check the points that Example raised against the referenced policy and see if they actually don't meet the policy on notability. Obviously, the converse also applies for an argument to keep. Because of these complicated issues, this may be the most difficult question I will answer on here, because I know that BLPs are a huge part of what we do here, and that it's a difficulty which all admins must face.

5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I have a number of high-profile baseball BLPs on my watchlist, including All-Stars Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and CC Sabathia, as well as lower-profile players such as Paul Bako and Chris Coste. I understand the difficulties of working with both of those types of BLPs, in that higher-profile players may be subject to vandalism more often, but also that lower-profile players who have less watchers are more likely to have spurious information in their articles. I agree with the current BLP policy, especially, as mentioned above, being sure that "dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved". I believe that article talk pages are the most valuable things for BLPs; unfortunately, they are not used nearly often enough. I find that many times, when a discussion is begun on the talk page, it is ignored in favor of reversion or it stagnates until someone sees it 3 to 4 weeks or even months later and then resurrects an issue which doesn't really exist anymore and may have already been removed.

Additional optional questions from Triplestop

6. How would you close these deletion discussions, in the state linked to? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series Deletion Review

A: The first is the most difficult, IMO, as it's (potentially) a BLP. Over the time I took to read the issues presented, I still don't believe that I'm confident in stating one way or the other whether I would merge or keep the article. I know that I would not delete; it's more a matter of "Do the secondary sources that are not related to the gate-crash incident confer sufficient notability to pass WP:N?", and I still can't make the sole decision on that. I'll admit the difficulty of the decision and ask for help if I can't make it myself. If I absolutely had to take the bold final step, I would probably select merge, because if additional sources become available and the person later passes WP:N, it can always be re-created at a later date.

The second looked like a fairly easy decision to me. A lot of the concerns about BLP appeared to be more related to the inclusion of unsourced material from people looking to sully the reputation of public figures. This is more of a maintenance issue, and the article itself clearly passes the criteria for a stand-alone list. It's not redundant to a category per WP:CLN, as categories, lists, and navboxes are supposed to work in conjunction with one another, not as enemies or mutually exclusive entities.

The third, unfortunately, I cannot answer, because the provided diff only took me to WP:Deletion review without showing an actual discussion.

Additional optional questions from 88.110.35.12

7. Six weeks ago you were retiring from the project citing bureaucracy reasons and now you wish to become an administrator, how do you explain the sudden change of heart?

A: It's a simple matter with a complicated explanation which I'd rather not address in an open forum. In short, many RL issues caused me to become very stressed, and I was not editing in the best frame of mind. My frustrations in the real world spilled over into my work on Wikipedia. I became distressed and claimed I was essentially leaving in a huff. Since that time, I've reconsidered. I try to benefit Wikipedia (and behind that link, people told me I did), and it benefits me as well (not in any extrinsic way, but intrinsically in the form of peer reinforcement, which in turn helps me to self-motivate). I could never write a book or get my work published or recognized in the real world, but look! I've written articles and lists, featured topics (which can easily be turned into books), and have gotten myself back on track. I don't do this for the accolades, and I don't see administratorship as such. The mop isn't a big deal, but it's a way to help. I've always been a helper; why else would I have become an educator?

As to "wishing" to become an adminstrator, this isn't something that I specifically sought. When four different editors approached me about the possibility of becoming an administrator, I felt obligated to consider it, and as I mentioned above, I accepted the nomination because others thought that I was qualified. I don't see this as a goal to be achieved, or as a prize to be won; rather, I know that the provision of tools confers a responsibility to use them appropriately, and I'm always seeking new challenges and new ways to help. I feel that, for me, this is the next step in my development as a contributor.

• Links for Killervogel5: Killervogel5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Killervogel5 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Killervogel5 before commenting.

1. Support as one of the nominators. Secret ^account 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nom. I see nothing really concerning. The thing that should not be 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support like a jockstrap Keepscases (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not even going to ask...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support Been around, has a clue. Good nom statement, should be a good admin. Jusdafax 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support No reason to think he is unworthy. Grsz¹¹ 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support My review of KV5’s history on Wikipedia turned up no real concerns; rather, it made me think, “Wow! This guy is great!” His work on 32 featured lists, as well as numerous DYKs and several GAs and FTs is nothing short of impressive. His content work is certainly among the best I’ve seen. It’s also good to see solid experience with NPP and Mediation, even if he’s drifted away from the former recently (I can’t blame him…it’s rough). The only problematic edit I noticed was an incorrect closure at WP:PR, which is no big deal. His lack of XfD experience is a minor concern. That said, KV5 is trustworthy, and I think he’d be just as helpful as an admin as he has been (and hopefully will continue to be) as a content contributor. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Huh, though KV5 was already one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support Hard working, sensible editor and easily one of the finest non-admins around.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support A8UDI 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I particularly am impressed with his answers. I looked into his edit history and contributions to find numerous projects he has collaborated on. It's clear that this editor tries his best, and does a fine job, of staying calm and though there are a few examples of heated debate, he's only human and did a stand up job handling them. I don't see any reason why KV5 wouldn't be a strong addition to the Admin. Mkdw^talk 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Very sad to see Kurt allowed back here. I will make an attempt to cancel out all his absurd, agenda-driven votes. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, Impressed by his answers and his contributions. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support a sound nomination. Crafty (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Good content work and well-rounded, adequately trustworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Nothing concerning that I can see. Shereth 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Certainly seems more than capable. A definite +1 from me. GedUK  21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Looks good. Warrah (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, calm and capable. JamieS93 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Clean block log, very longterm contributor, and I couldn't see anything wrong in his contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per nom. Metts my standards :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Duh! iMatthew ^talk at 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - great contributions.  7  22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - I absolutely do not see any problems. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Seems like a good candidate to me! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I've always had a positive view of Killer... although I just wish he wouldn't kill those birds!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't kill birds... I am a killer bird! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I know... I just like my interpretation better...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And just think about it this way, at least nobody has demanded that you change your name like they did with Budgiekiller who is now a crat.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support. "Content editor". Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support his candidacy but Oppose his choice of baseball team to support. The Dodgers wouldn't have let the Yankees win... grumble grumble. But seriously, I think KV is qualified for the tools. I hope I didn't throw off SoxBot's tally with this. Valley2city^‽ 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. The candidate has solid contributions and is capable. Majoreditor (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Only real problem here is the user seems to be a Philadelphia Phillies fan. Good amount of article contributions, and appears to be a trustworthy user. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support: The candidate has solid contributions and takes Wikipedia rules and guidelines seriously. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - solid article writer and good answers Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose Phillies fan. But in all honestly, his content work is outstanding (providing templates for other FLs). I was considering going neutral over a lack of effective dispute resolution, but the great job done at Talk:Pete Rose clears up that concern. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you mean to oppose?? - 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    It was a joke. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, if his sense of humour catches on, RfAs could get confusing for us old guys. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Now for some Canadian Humour[reply]

35. Support Has clue, will do. Clearly focused on improving the encyclopedia, and has a good knowledge of Wiki policies and guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support (even though he's a Phillies fan). Content work is without question of high quality. His answers to the questions tell me that he will proceed cautiously with the tools and his comment that he will accept tutelage from an experienced admin (Soap) sealed the deal for me. Good luck J04n(talk page) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong Support. I've seen him around and worked with him before, I can attest that this is a great user! Wizardman 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Tan | 39 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Has been around for a while and has made good solid contributions. Gets my support. -- Marek.69 ^talk 05:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support No issues. Go Phillies! ThemFromSpace 09:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Nothing wrong here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, knows what he's doing, and I'd much rather see this degree of caution about admin tools than not — it shows he's aware of what can be done if he misuses them, so he's clearly going to be as careful as possible to use them properly. There's nothing wrong with an admin who doesn't use admin tools too often; after all, we don't have a limit on the number of admins. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, good balance between creating content and helping in the project space, clearly trustworthy. WFCforLife (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong support - Fantastic candidate, very well-rounded in experience as well as having exceptional contributions to article space. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. As to the question of how little or much he intends to use these tools, that's entirely up to him. Seems like a great candidate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Not much more to say. Great candidate and I trust his judgement to be able to use the tools well. Airplaneman ^talk 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Sole Soul (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support: non-dramatic, well-established, productive content editor; we can always use more admins like that. Jonathunder (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to the following Top Five Reasons to Support KillervogelI5's Candidacy: 1) no memorbale negative interactions between us; 2) User:Killervogel5/Promoted_content towers above even all of mine at User:A Nobody/awards; 3) User:Killervogel5/Awards is good to see; 4) according to User:Killervogel5/Userboxen, he "helps out newcomers"; and 5) has never been blocked. Thus, collectively we have someone who has dedicated considerable time to building content while working well with and assisting his colleagues. Put simply as far as I can tell, Killervogel5 is here to improve mainspace and therefore appreciates the work that goes into that, which is key when considering whether to destroy others' work by deletion and has yet to get into a conflict requiring a block, but rather has impressed his fellow editors enough to receive multiple barnstars. I do not have anything negative to say here. As far as suggestions, we can always use such talents at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. In any event, good work thus far on our project and good luck as an admin (yes, I know this discussion is not over yet, but it seems pretty clear where this election is headed). Finally, kudos to User:Staxringold and User:Secret for selecting what appears a sound candidate to nominate. Bravo! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong content work = net positive. I have no doubt, from seeing this user around, that they when they have reservations they will ask for foresight. ceranthor 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I meet your facial hair requirement too! *strokes beard* KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - His efforts at Talk:Pete Rose show that he has the right instincts to help resolve article disputes. He's obviously a good contributor of content. I have no doubt he would make proper use of admin tools. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Solid, level-headed, long-standing editor who deserves the mop. Even if he does support the wrong team.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Looks good. BejinhanTalk 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Strong Support - Excellent user, and meets all of my RfA standards. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Some of the answers were dodgy, which shows remarkably good judgment :-)
58. I like the candidate's honest and humble statements, and that he tried his hand at mediation. The oppose and neutral votes show no basis for their allegations. — Sebastian 09:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Killervogel5. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aut inveniam viam aut faciam... :-D KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support: Though scratching my head a little about adminship for what they admit would be mostly-AIV related with a large watchlist and use of "rules" since the only thing closet to calling such is IAR... editor seems ridiculously experienced in matters of articles and all things related related to articles in any imaginable way, and probably even more on top of that... Would have no problems with tools. With the self-admission of where they'd use tools, could this be an opening for looking at an RfA process for specalists in certain area. Good luck! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, awards, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support – Looks solid for me. I don't see any glaring problems here. MuZemike 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Seems to be a competent editor, pleasure to work with at WP:BASEBALL. GlassCobra 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Candidate is strong in many areas. The answer to Question 7 pushed me over the edge by ensuring me that, should stress levels rise (as they are likely to for any admin), he/she would make the right decision to step back and take a short break rather than abuse the tools at his/her disposal. Perhaps a little more dramatic than I would have liked, but we all have our off-days, and the overwhelming evidence from other competencies severely outweighs that. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support: Seems like a good sensible editor. South Bay (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Home run —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All I can still think of is Harry :-( ... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67. Support should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Can't seem to find any flaws, oppose and neutral are very weak, seems to fit the part, serious about the project while maintaining a sense of humor, which demonstrates great restraint and temper ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support per answer to question 4, and ability to communicate well and not get flustered. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. SupportGreat contributions to articles, and answers are refreshingly candid and show good judgment and attitude towards Wikipedia policies. Mrathel (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support for Killervogel5. Great article work, even though it's not very broad in scope. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Great contributor; no reason this user should not be trusted. --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - I don't see any big problems. Good luck! smithers - talk 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, no reason to believe user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
75. Support I am happy with this editor's contributions, and answers to the questions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Very good editor.--Yankees10 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Good luck! --Zink Dawg -- 18:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Civility FTW. Aditya Ex Machina 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Weak Support I'd like to see more contributions outside of baseball. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support A very sensible person to have at least on call as an admin when needed, and I hope his experiences will lead to his greater involvement. I didn't expect to use mine much either, but there were so many things that I kept seeing that needed a speedy-delete. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Here we have a very well-rounded contributor. Not only do they have many content contributions, which is always a plus, but there is abundant evidence that this person has contributed positively to the admin areas of Wikipedia. They have tons of clue, and they're one of the most civil editors out there. This is an obvious support. (X! · talk)  · @217  ·  04:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. I've worked with KV on several pages, and have always found him to have the temperament and patience to make an excellent admin. Would've supported earlier except I just noticed the nom now. --Coemgenus 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Looks good! Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support--KANESUE 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support of course! — JoJo • Talk • 02:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Clueful enough for my standards. In regards to your answer to question 7, I do hope that becoming an administrator will further strengthen your motivation to stay and continue contributing. Wikipedia always needs good content contributors that specialize in certain subjects, and thanks to you and others like you Wikipedia's coverage of baseball-related topics is something to be proud of. (Now all we need is a jack-of-all-trades polymath to bring everything else up to par :) Good luck! -- œ^™ 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - No problems here. Razorflame 08:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - No reason not to, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The opposer's concern, while less blatantly absurd than usual, is unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support per editor A Nobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support – I've seen this editor's work at FLC, both as a nominator and reviewer. He has always impressed me in both areas, and everything I've seen indicates that he would be a real asset for the admin corps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. I thought I saw the name before. Fine editor. Acalamari 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: claims to "take rules seriously," which is a major problem and indicates a total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. We don't have rules; we have our own judgment as to what is best in any given situation, possibly guided by precedent but ultimately deciding based on the situation at hand. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic comment(s) moved to talk page. Please make further off-topic comments there, further on-topic comments here.

   I certainly don't mean to be antagonistic, and haven't been around RfA enough to know exactly how the process works, but I fail to see how my penchant for taking rules seriously means that I misunderstand the purpose of this project. Policies and guidelines (otherwise known as WP:RULES) are meant to be followed, and, while subject to change and open for interpretation at times, are a valuable part of making sure that we have structure instead of anarchy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's just it--they're most certainly not meant to be followed. We have "best practices," but they're certainly not binding. I realize the terms "policies" and "guidelines" may be misleading, but those of us who have been around much longer than you have (not intended as an insult or condescension, just a statement of fact) realize that right from the get-go the so-called "policies" were merely a description of what has typically been done in certain situations in the past, without actually ever being binding on anyone in the present or future. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic comment(s) moved to talk page. Please make further off-topic comments there, further on-topic comments here.

   Focusing on the original concern: having interacted many times with KV5 at WP:FLC, I can tell you with certainty that he knows when to apply the rules and when to use common sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's just it--"knows when to apply the rules" implies that there are rules to be applied in the first place, which there most certainly aren't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I see now. You have a different philosophy about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I disagree (quite strongly in fact), but will respect your opinion and move on. Hopefully everyone else can do the same; after all, this is just one oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic comment(s) moved to talk page. Please make further off-topic comments there, further on-topic comments here.

   • (outdent) You say there are no rules? Go replace George W. Bush or Barack Obama with "is a big poopy face." And see what happens. Or if you nominate a list at FLC (as Dabomb mentioned) that doesn't meet the criteria and see if it passes. You may take issue with calling them rules as opposed to policies or whatever, but that's a pretty thin cause for an oppose in my opinion. Do you doubt KV5 would properly apply the [Whatever you want to call them]? Because if you don't then your issue is one of semantics, not adminship. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic comment(s) moved to talk page. Please make further off-topic comments there, further on-topic comments here.

   • • You don't perform such actions because they're against the rules (since there are no rules) but because they're bad for the encyclopedia. And if you are sanctioned in any way, it's not because you broke the rules (since there are no rules) but because it was decided that that is what is best for the encyclopedia based on the situation. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps we could all refer to them as "written summaries of current consensus", agree that consensus on what is best for the encyclopedia should be followed (unless there's a very good reason not to), and realize that we're not all as horribly far apart on this as we think? As a practical matter, I suspect KV5 and KMW would react to most admin-ish things the same way about 90% of the time. I think we can handle a disagreement about the other 10%. Hell, IRL, I disagree with my sister about child-rearing 50% of the time, and I've somehow managed not to call her a troll, and she's somehow managed not to say she thinks my kids shouldn't listen to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • How exactly is bringing a list to FLC that doesn't meet FL criteria bad for the encyclopedia? But it will fail because it does not meet those criteria. Again, you can call them criteria or policy or rule, but the effect is the same. And while WP:IAR exists the very first sentence read on the page is "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy". And the one sentence of that policy? "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. Although I would feel comfortable with this user as an admin, the answer the Question #1 leads me to believe that said user may not use the admin tools much.  IShadowed  ✰  23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I fail to see how that is a problem. I'd personally support people who, in my view, would use the admin tools wisely. How many times they may use them is irrelevant, unless you believe prolificacy is a requirement of adminship. Just my view on things.--Atlan (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't wish that admins used the admin tools an X number of times, however, I do hope they will use them frequently and I have concerns over that here.  IShadowed  ✰  23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec)If they use the tools productively even once, then is it not a net benefit to the community?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You bring up a great point there. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, not trying to antagonize at all, but WP:NONEED actually says that exactly ("If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose."), and WP:ADMIN says that administrators "are never required to use their tools". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:NONEED is an essay, not policy, while the WP:ADMIN quote has been taken out of context. Aditya Ex Machina 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I never said that NONEED was policy, I was just pointing it out. Additionally, I don't understand how you consider that quote to be "out of context". It's directly copied from the lead of that policy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe that line implies that no administrator is obligated to act in a dispute, or can be forced to use the tools to do something. That's different from having no need for the tools. Aditya Ex Machina 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I see and understand your point of view, though I interpret it differently. Thanks for clarifying :-). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral While I believe this editor would probably not abuse his tools and most of my interactions have leaned towards the positive side, there have been cases where I have been concerned about a bent towards ownership issues of articles. This leads me to wonder if the editor might try and use the "perceived power" admins have to exert more sway over certain articles. While not nearly enough for me to oppose, it is enough for me to not support. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Diffs? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral This editor looks good, however I am always uncertain whether or not he will abuse the powers.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a pretty vague rationale. Do you have any reason to believe the editor will "abuse the powers" given to him? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well since he's neutral, I assume he's withholding support pending concrete incidents proving that the candidate won't abuse the tools. He doesn't really have to AGF here. It's a perfectly valid reason to be neutral. Aditya Ex Machina 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   #Neutral pending an answer to question 7. This candidate looks strong on the outside, but I want to see that question answered for a fuller view. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree that this statement needs explaining. I'm puzzled by the switch from a statement of intent to leave the project to an Rfa. Jusdafax 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hopefully I've managed to dispel your concerns. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to support. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:46, 3 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.