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

GamerPro64[edit]

Final (68/38/12); ended 07:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC) - Consensus not reached. 28bytes (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination by Hahc21[edit]

I first came across GamerPro64 the first time I decided to go ahead and gather the strength to file my first good topic nomination. From there on, all my interactions with him have been so positive and pleasant that at start I thought he was an administrator already. He has been a Wikipedian since 2008, showing a high level of dedication to article content creation and well as content quality. As of now, he has managed to craft more than 12,000 edits, among which can be found one featured and several good articles. He has been serving as a delegate at Feature topic candidates for a long time, and has also done a bit of administrative work here and there (not much, but I'm fully convinced that he knows how things should be done). I know many of you might find yourselves asking what makes GamerPro a good candidate for adminship, and I think it's his good demeanor, openness and ease of communication. He is an experienced and seasoned user, always abiding by our standards on civility and fellowship. What else could we ask? → Call me Hahc21 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Crisco 1492[edit]

In the years that I've known him, GamerPro64 has been a helpful, busy bee. He's done consistent and excellent work as a coordinator at featured topics (an unsung area of the encyclopedia which nonetheless is home to some very good content), and always been prepared to answer questions regarding FTC on both his talk page and the FTC talk page: responsible, friendly, and approachable, just what we want in an admin and delagate. He is a strong content contributor, mostly to video game articles (as indicated by his user name), but he's also shown an interest in areas such as film and American history, and is knowledgeable in article content policy. Far as I can tell, his biggest flaw is his love for the Nintendo 64; the SNES was a bit better, even if it was 48 bits worse . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thanks guys. GamerPro64 20:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 have taken part in a few deletion process on the site a few times. I would probably help with decision making on pages that are tagged for deletion. Handling articles that are tagged for speedy deletion would also be something I would like to take part of. Another possible venture would be keeping an eye on articles that are protected under WP:Recent Changes. Keeping an eye on the Main Page is something I already do in terms of being part of some of the discussion on its talk page. Helping out with it all together would be another helpful thing as well. GamerPro64 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: In terms of article content, I believe that Anachronox would be a recent example of my work on the site. It's currently the only Featured Article I have under my belt and while I'm not that into sprucing up articles like other members of the Video Game WikiProject, this one I thought needed its due. I also keep the WPVG announcements template (previously known as the projects to-do list) maintained to show what articles are nominated in like FACs, GANs, FLCs and the like. It is the page I contribute the most and does help out the project. Then there is the fact that I am a delegate for Featured Topics, which I have closed nominations and processed new topics for the past three years. I find that to be the sector where I contribute the most to the site. GamerPro64 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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'm not sure if this does count as an example of a conflict, but I'll add it here anyway. During my early days here, I started up this thread on the Video Games Project, which is still one of the most replied threads on the project. Looking back at it, while it did do something with the importance ratings on some of the game consoles, I wasn't showing any civilly in the conversation. In fact, the thread looked even worse with stuff I posted on there that was removed before it finally was archived. I was at the age of 14 when I made the first posting and while I wouldn't use the excuse of being a teenager for my antics, I want to say that I have matured for the better and consider myself more productive on the site.

I can't honestly cannot think of any major conflicts during my time on the site. I did take a three month unannounced vacation from Wikipedia in 2012. It partially had to do with me going on my last boys scout trip. But also I realized that I, being on Wikipedia for four years, never took a break from the site. I thought it would be best if I just stepped away for a bit. GamerPro64 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from NickGibson3900

4. You say you would like to help out in deletion processes. However you have only commented in ten AFDs in your wikipedia "career". In your own words, describe why you think you would be an asset at AFD/TFD/MFD/CFD/RFD.

A:I do admit that I should take part in AfDs more often. I think that I would be an asset to all the devisions of the deletion processes more so in closing the nominations themselves. I've closed reviews manually at FTC for years and I do know when there's a consensus reached. I especially want to do this without taking part of the review due to that being a Conflict of Interest. One must always have a neutral/uninvolved party around to state an opinion of both sides to an argument. GamerPro64 06:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Please provide diffs of some speedy-deletion tagging.

A:I tried finding some articles that I tagged for speedy-deletion, like Talk:Mega Man 11. But I can't seem to provide any diffs of me tagging the deletions. According to Help:Page History, it says that "When a page is deleted, its revision history remains in the database and can be retrieved by an administrator, who can also undelete the page". So I don't think I, in my current position, can provide the diffs. GamerPro64 06:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff for Mega Man 11, tagged as G8: [1] (sorry, sysop-only) → Call me Hahc21 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Vejvančický

6. Is there any other way how to find the articles you tagged for speedy-deletion, other than user CSD log and the deleted diffs/edits visible only by admins?

A:I was planning on answering this question as soon as I figured out an answer but then I saw it being discussed in this nominations talk page. So I don't think I can really answer the question seeing how it was already answered for me. GamerPro64 15:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I apologize for the confusion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Miniapolis

7. Thanks for submitting this RFA. Why did you have your user page salted?

A:I didn't want my page to be created by someone else and have it be filled with vandalism. When I first started out, I wasn't sure how to create an article, let alone my own user page. Later on, I didn't think it was a big deal that I didn't have one. No one really called me out on it. So I thought it would be a safe bet to have it not be accessible for creation. But if people want me to have a user page for the sake of me having one, I'll ask to have it be unsalted and do so. GamerPro64 16:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a user page now. Its not special. But its a thing now. GamerPro64 19:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TomStar81

8. I see much attention given to the deletion process, and much criticism given to the fact that you afd participation has been low, however it appears to me that both you and the participants have forgotten that admins do more than deletion work; they also block users and protect pages. In light of the difficulty that you seem to be having with regards to your deletion capability, why don't we examine your rfa request from these other two venues. Have you ever been in a situation where being able to protect a page would have helped Wikipedia? Have you ever encountered vandalism only accounts or socks, and if so have you notified them via message or template that they were in violation of our policies and/or guidelines? In your own words, can you explain our blocking and protecting policies, and your interpretation on when they should be applied? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: These are some nice questions. Really bringing me back to my first year on the site. For the answer to the first question, before it became semi-protected, List of best-selling video games was bombarded with a lot of IP addresses committing vandalism and misinformation. There was even a point where a Requests for comment had to be made for one editor's "POV-pushing". My contribution to that was just me certifying the basis of it. I myself attempted to have the article semi-protected but it was repeatedly reverted. That was before I knew I had to request protection onto an article.

For question two, I have encountered a couple of vandalism only accounts throughout my time here. I never actually messaged them about them being in violation. A few times it had to do with other people getting to them first. But it mostly had to do with it ending up being an account that would be used once or twice and then no more editing. This mostly happens with IPs vandalizing, which I've seen more of and believe is harder to be strict about since different people would use an IP. Especially if it was a publicly accessible one. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't warn IPs about vandalizing. I remember logging out of my account once on a computer and got a message for the IP account, saying that they will block me the next time I vandalize something. It certainly surprised me since I don't use an IP address and I just got off my account before seeing it.

For the last question, the policies for blocking and protection is that they are used to prevent vandalism and disruption in their own ways. Blocking is for when a user or IP address is repeatedly being uncivil or is just adding nothing for the benefit of Wikipedia and is doing it to troll others. It could be both if that is the case. Blocking doesn't have to be permanent, though. If an editor has cooled down and is willing to be more productive and willing to improve an article while getting along with others, that's a win for the site. Protection is when an article or any page in general (like the Main Page) has certain restrictions on who can edit the page. IPs/new editors can't edit, only admins can edit, school IPs are restricted from editing, etc. Like Blocking, Protection doesn't have to be permanent. So unless there's a good reason for an page to be indefinitely protected, and there's a belief that persistent edit wars on a page has died down, it would be fine to have anyone edit on there. GamerPro64 00:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TomStar81

9. Do you know when and how to seek help? I'm indifferent on most of the other opposition based complaints, but if you know that you do not know then to me that means you are more likely to ask questions and double check your work, which means you will be learning on the job, something I have no objections to. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A:I think probably the best way to seek help is by asking for advice from other administrators. There are of course members of the site that have had experience from things that I may encounter in the future that I might know how to fix. Knowing how they handled the issue would be both helpful and can be seen as an example of members cooperating with one another. I always find asking other editors questions help out for the best. If someone doesn't know what to do, someone else might. GamerPro64 00:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TomStar81

10. What would you do for a Klondike Bar? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A:I don't eat Klondike Bars. Ice cream, and usually dessert in general, isn't something I consume on a daily basis. I personally find soda to be my vice. Particularly Mr. Pibb. GamerPro64 00:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from WritingEnthusiast14

11. If this RfA succeeds, will you be open to recall? If so, do you have any idea on what your criteria would be? --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 02:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I don't see a problem in being open for a recall. I might do that if I think its a good idea to since there is opposition against me being given the tools. My criteria for the recall would be ten editors, at least two being Administrators, having at least 5000 mainspace edits made, and have been active on the site for at least three years. GamerPro64 03:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Gaff

12. I'm concerned about your answer to question #8 above, from TomStar81, particularly as regards blocking of accounts. It sounds like you are confused about the difference between vandalism from an IP address and that from a vandalism only account. Your answer also raises concerns about your level of familiarity with the processes and procedures for notification of problem editors, prior to instituting a block. Have you done work on the WP:CVU? Would you say that you have done a lot, some, or not much work in terms of reverting vandalism? Have you frequently needed to notify and admin of vandalism in progress and would you know how to do so? If your RfA passes, will you feel comfortable knowing when and for how long an editor may be blocked? Thank you. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: No I have not worked on the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I vaguely know of it. I believe that I have done some work in reverting vandalism on the site. Whenever I do see vandalism and revert it, I point it out in the edit summary. On the top of my head involving notifying admins about vandalism, actual vandalism happened on my talk page. I do admit that my all caps response in the edit summary to revert it was a bit vulgar but it could've been much worse. I did talk to the editor who indefinitely blocked the vandal, asking about the possible reasoning for the vandalism. Everything did work out at the end and we went on doing our regular work on the site. I don't outright remember a time where I actually needed to notify an admin of vandalism.

I do think that I will feel comfortable knowing when and how long the block placed on an editor should last. GamerPro64 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from DGG

13.pt.1 Are we more lacking in AfD in people to discuss the article and give opinions, or in people to close the discussions? DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that we are lacking in people discussing and giving opinions in AfDs. GamerPro64 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13.pt.2 Are we more lacking in speedy in people to screen new articles and sekect those that ought to be deleted, or in people do actually do the deletions? DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think we might be lacking in people who screen new articles and selects ones that should be deleted. It may have to do with human error and editors missing an article that turns out to be a hoax or doesn't meet the notability criteria. One more pair of eyes can help out a lot. GamerPro64 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13.pt.3 In doing deletions as an admin, is the hardest part makingthe decisions or in explaining the results? Have you ever tried to explain why an article was deleted to a new editor unhappy about it? DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: That question kinda goes hand-in-hand. If an AfD only has a comment or two for voting to Keep or Delete the article and nothing more, the consensus would pretty much be self-explanatory. If an AfD has more input than usual, probably at least 15 people being on both sides of the spectrum, It may be more difficult to decide if it should be kept, deleted, or have an overall no consensus decision. An explanation might not be satisfactory for some as well, which might have people debate on whether a deleted article should be made whole again or another AfD be created for an article that barely got more keep votes.

I have rarely commented on an answer to one of my questions but: I think you must mean, "it will be sufficient to tell the person that most of the people voted to delete it"; if so, you have never seen repeated afds or re-creations, and have ever even looked at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not what I meant. I'm saying that making the decisions and explaining the results are both equally hard. I have read repeated AfDs before and seen articles get re-created after they were deleted. GamerPro64 03:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I have never explained to a new editor why their article got deleted. I've never seen an editor get unhappy about an article that got deleted and I was involved with the decision. Guess it just happens to some people. GamerPro64 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I think this might show that you have never interacted with new editors at all. and as far as I an see from your contributions page, you never have done so. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Links for GamerPro64: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
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.

Discussion[edit]

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights

Support[edit]

As nominator. → Call me Hahc21 05:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As co-nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support He interacts nicely with other editors, he's been around long enough, and he is intelligent. These are essential ingredients, the rest can be learned. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable enough editor, been here a while, unlikely to break the wiki. While helpful, experience in deletion is not necessary to become an admin. —Kusma (t·c) 07:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to concerns that admin candidates should have "deletion experience" or "namespace balance": I was pleasantly surprised to see that this user apparently has not "worked to become an admin". I much prefer a candidate who does good work in the area of his/her choice to somebody who attempts to please RfA regulars. —Kusma (t·c) 18:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good and trusted editor, active community member, capable as admin. - Taketa (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I wish to support based on what they have done, rather than oppose based on what they haven't. No redflags for me. —Frosty ☃ 09:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- any candidate not failing my criteria (at least one AfD, one vandalism revert, no big blocks, a thousand mainspace edits, etc) gets my support. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 13:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've worked with GP64 for years at the WP:VG Newsletter and have had plenty of opportunity to observe him in action. This editor is active in the community - I notice his name frequently when I check the active WP:VG talkpage - but, significantly, his work also includes the unglamorous corners (e.g. WP:VG/NL and WP:VG/R) where dust and only a few tired wikignomes tend to collect. Though not article-space per se, edits in these areas address very important community-fostering and outreach goals. I think this speaks volumes regarding his motivations. GP64 isn't here to become popular or powerful. He's here to serve the community by keeping the gears turning and helping the encyclopedia show its best face to the outside world. In GP64 we have a sensible generalist editor who could expand the reach of his help with a bit of extra moppage. A lack of obvious green flags in CSD/XfD is not the same as a red flag for me. I have seen no actual red flags. -Thibbs (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^T★C 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The pie chart appears to be lopsided because this editor does so much behind the scenes work coordinating, evaluating, and assisting. Nonetheless they have a row of FA and GA credits. I've looked at their deleted contributions and although there isn't much deletion tagging, it's all sensible. (Examples: Mowgli's Palace tagged as a hoax; File:Pilotwings hang.jpg tagged as corrupted file; Jon jafari nominated at Redirects for Discussion; and at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wright brothers/archive1 they correctly identified it as inappropriate since the article was not a FA.) As to overall number of edits, their account happens to be less than two weeks younger than mine, and they had much more of a fast start than me; I was made an admin in April 2012 with something north of 8,000 edits and much less community involvement, and that was the year they sensibly took some time off. There is life off-wiki, and there's an essay somewhere pointing out that even a relatively inactive admin (like me) offers useful help. I see only signs this editor will be helpful and wise in their mop work. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom, but I'm also pretty unconvinced by the conflicting suggestions that they should work more on articles and work more on XfD. There's no need for an admin to have deep experience at XfD unless they plan to close a lot of debates and most of that experience can be gained pretty easily "on the job" (spoiler: it's not as hard as it seems). Protonk (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: He's long been a trusted member of the community and a valuable behind-the-scenes contributor to WikiProject Video games. He's handled WP:FTC well for years, and he's no stranger to janitor work—without him, WPVG would run like molasses. His mainspace contributions, such as his revival and FAC nomination of the stalled Anachronox, have been infrequent but always solid. And, for what it's worth, I've never had anything but pleasant interactions with him in around five years of knowing him. I doubt anyone else could say differently. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For an editor in a coordinating role I find it quite normal that the main space edit portion is rather small. They still managed to produce featured content, that's impressive. The candidate comes across as thinking first and acting then, and that's the important thing. That there is not really much experience in deletion is but a small concern for me. --Pgallert (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support So I slept on this, and have reread the discussion, and have decided to move up here. Yes, he hasn't closed many AfD's, but they have been involved with a lot of other closures that seem fine, so I can overlook the ommision. Looks like an overall net positive; They may not want to get involved in the whole range of admin work, but then again I am hardly involved with everything on-wiki at the same time, so me opposing on that basis would just be hypocritical. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like a solid editor who can be trusted to use the tools carefully, and as Kusma says, this user has cared more about improving the encyclopedia than becoming an administrator. Time for bureaucrats to start enforcing our policies and mass-ignoring opposes/neutrals that violate our WP:DEAL policy; this would easily pass if not for the usual mass violation of policy by the usual nattering nabobs of negativism. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me expand my support by saying Support per Mkativerata. It's good when people don't hugely want to be administrators, and if Wikipedia isn't your whole life, that's good. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flimsiest 'oppose' section I've seen in quite a while. (For instance, telling somebody with like seven years of experience to "come back in six months" is nothing short of farcical; we also have one user telling us the candidate's many articlespace accomplishments constitute "showing off", and another objecting on the basis that the candidate has insufficient content contributions. See my confusion?) All anybody does on WT:RFA is bemoan the lack of competent users running for RfA... well, now it's not so hard to see why, is it? The candidate is experienced and professional and I can scarcely think of a more suitable option for adminship at the present time. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yngvadottir and Juliancolton sum it up for me. Definite net positive, with sufficient clue to learn what he needs to know. Nice to see someone not champing at the bit for the ... er, bit. Miniapolis 13:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, moved from Neutral. As someone who has followed and had to moderate posts on the Gamergate issue on another forum (and a woman who occasionally plays video-games) and hasn't taken a stand one way or another, I was going to ask a question as to how you might deal with discussions on it as someone closely involved in the area of interest, and whether you took a public side on the issue. Because of the intensity of the situation from both sides, I wondered how you might deal with this and similar incidents as an admin, having to mediate/arbitrate between both sides of a heated and angry issue. I was going to ask you a question, because this is probably going to get more rather than less intense in future, and a good admin has to be able to get beyond the fray to look at things impartially and decide which side has the most merit for the encyclopaedia. However, having looked at your participation at the talk page of WP:VG over the past month or two, I'm impressed with someone who appears to have been stewarding a large and vocal Wikiproject for a while. Therefore I think that trumps my previous concerns and I'm happy to endorse you as an admin who can be trusted to steward the project as a whole. LS1979 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support opposes make some points, but knowing the candidate, I think the likelihood is net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I do agree with a few of the opposes, some improvement should be seen in the future. The user is a positive coordinator at WP:VG. Most importantly even though user has a few percent of mainspace contributions, the user has made a significant amount of work on promoting articles to GA and FA class. ///EuroCarGT 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Little experience in AfDs I believe is minor even when it is listed as work that would like to be participated in. Question #1 is only a sketch of possible ideas. I don't think Gamer intends to jump into AfDs without knowing fully how it works. Gamer demonstrates experience in how Wikipedia works. I don't think that trust is an issue. -24^Talk 19:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gamer has has established a strong pattern of positive edits so I've no reason to think that they would use admin tools incorrectly. They may not have a lot of experience in some areas (e.g. AFD), but afaics they're sensible enough to recognise that and go carefully when expanding the range of activities they undertake. DexDor (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally wouldn't support someone with 15% mainspace... but with those few edits he has written FAs and GAs; much better than someone who has done several AWB runs. Thus, not convinced by the opposes. --Rs chen 7754 23:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Juliancolton, Rschen, and Protonk, as I don't really see how six years of work on this site isn't an overall benefit to the project. Besides, no one is perfect, and we shouldn't expect this of our potential administrators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A little more edit summary usage would be even better, [2] as fully stating reasons for administrator's actions are even more important.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I find it quite bizarre that 12 thousand edits, GA and featured content credits, and a clean block log is not considered sufficiently experienced for some of the opposers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Support per Lankiveil. Some of the oppose votes are the most pathetic i've seen in a long time, we are talking about someone who has written and participated extensively in featured content. Secret ^account 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, moved from neutral. My main problems were; AFD experience and mainspace edits. AFD: GamerPro64 is experienced in judging consensus due to his position as a delegate at WP:FTC/WP:GTC. Mainspace edits: His delegate roll and his work at WikiProject Video games make his graph look lopsided but his GAs and FA show he understands content creation. — NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As others have mentioned, the 15% of edits in mainspace statistic is misleading as Gamer has significantly contributed to producing Good and Featured content. Gamer has the sincerity and levelheadedness to be a fine admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support In our haste to harass the candidates here we all too quickly forget that admins are and always have been trusted users first, that the mop is No Big Deal, and that learning to the use the tools correctly has always been a process of trial and error. In looking at GamerPro64 I see plenty of experience, a willingness to learn, and most importantly honesty and the ability to admit when you need assistance. These are the cornerstones of the people whom we should entrust with the tools, as they are the people whom our fellow editors come to when then need help with their articles, tips from a veteran editor, or a sound board to try out new ideas. Accordingly then, I offer my strongest support to GamerPro64 in his request for adminship here, and would encourage others to have a little more faith in such a seasoned veteran editor. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the opposing points have swayed me against this candidate. There's no indication that GamerPro64 lacks any of the skills that are necessary to be an effective administrator. AfD is not rocket science. Even special cases where the results would diverge from the norm aren't too hard to pick up on over time, and the occasional mishap is easiy overturned. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An editor that is sound and has potential. Hafspajen (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GA and FA work, and not enough content contribution? Really? So the candidate won't be closing a bunch of AfDs where the consensus is difficult to determine. Big deal. Candidate has demonstrated competence (in chosen areas of contribution), reliability and the ability to collaborate well with others. I respect many of the editors in the oppose section, but I am unconvinced. I see no evidence whatsoever candidate will break/drown/flush Wikipedia if given the mop. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit further. First of all, a tip o' the hat to @Ad Orientem: and @Andrew Davidson: for expanding on their rationales for the opposes. I have no personal skin in this game, and I don't believe I've ever interacted with GamerPro64 before. I remain a bit concerned that someone with such an extensive editing history is generating as much opposition as he is concerning his experience. What I see is a well-rounded editor who is willing to step outside of his comfort zone and try new things. He is not an obsessive grammer-hammer (great way to get a ton of mainspace edits) or a drama-monger (so many admin wannabes try to get their "adminny" experience that way, not that I've seen it work.) What I do see is those qualities I expect from an admin: a dedication to this project, the ability to learn, the admission they aren't perfect, and the ability to collaborate with others. If we wait for the very perfect admin candidate to come along, (say, Philg88, congrats on 100% !votes), we won't have enough admins to shoulder the load, they just come up so rarely. Instead, we should allow for some mistakes from new admins, let them grow. It comes down to trust: Do I have reasonable faith that GamerPro64 has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, and will work in a collaborative manner? I think: yes. I would have some pieces of advice for him, though. Carrite does give the one oppose vote that truly gives me pause. this was a *really bad idea*. As an admin, please keep in mind WP:INVOLVED and go overboard to avoid. Also, as an admin your communication style needs to be exemplary. Your intention: succinct. The interpretation: abrupt. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, due to the candidate's pledge to avoid closing AfD debates for a while, and to cancel out some of these dumb oppose votes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. My oppose !vote is a fairly weak one and I have to admit that some of the arguments I am seeing from the O side of this discussion are eye rollers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Several thousand edits to mainspace (none automated), participation in good and featured articles, and a willingness to perform administrative work (rather than a desire for status) are enough reasons to allow GamerPro64 to be an administrator. Kablammo (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust him not to break anything if given the extra tools, based on all his experience in a variety of areas. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User has extensive history of good work on Wikipedia. I agree that more experience on XFD would be ideal, but I see no signs that the user will abuse the tools. Nothing on the oppose side is a deal breaker for me. The biggest concern seems to be about lack of experience, and I am OK with learning on the job (provided that the user has demonstrated competence).--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wasn't aware of GamerPro64 before his RfA (his edit areas and mine are very disjoint) but I spent a bit sampling his edits and all I saw seemed respectable. I think the editor has the project's best interests at heart and I trust him to use the tools in good faith. While I too noticed the low number of main space edits and also pondered the editor's relatively narrow editing focus, I don't see how it affects his ability to be trusted. Wikipedia needs young enthusiastic new admins and I think he'll be fine. He seems to be willing to adapt as shown by the (late in coming) creation of his user page. There's extensive guideline's and documentation that can be consulted before taking any action, so the candidate should remember to look at it if in doubt. And there's no imperative to use the tools so the candidate should proceed slowly and with caution if they feel a lack of experience hinders their handling of an admin task. Good luck to the candidate and even if your RfA doesn't pass, don't let it hinder your growth as an editor. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great work at FAs and GAs. Competence where he contributes, even though not that much AfD, it is still a Wikipedia:Net positive. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This support was also my 3000th edit, so take that with you also. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT, I have been fairly inactive with WP for a few years and have just started to get back to it. I participated in RfA's in the past and saw all kinds of nonsense barfed out for why someone shouldn't have the cosmic power and "honor" of being an Admin. I see nothing has changed. S/he's obviously a good user and won't abuse the the buttons. As long as s/he has a working knowledge of WP policy and the willingness to learn more, I say yes. Jesus, it's still no big deal. That is all.It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jason Quinn, Hafspajen, and TomStar81; candidate appears trustworthy, meets my criteria, and i am willing to trust him to learn as he goes slowly. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- sure, why not? Looks the goods. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: User has extensive history of good work on Wikipedia. I see no signs that the user will abuse the tools. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of my interactions with him have been positive, and I'm confident he will use the tools properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We have in the opposes: (1) Not logging CSDs, (3) Can't / hasn't contributed to Asian articles, (5) Revenge vote, (7) No speedy deletion, (11) Insufficient technical expertise, (14) No userpage / colored sig, and a lot citing lack of "admin area" participation. Based on my review, I believe that he can be trusted to move slowly into the admin areas. Many (most?) admins are not tech-gurus, so that shouldn't stop him. The other oppose reasons are mostly silly. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I respect the whole idea of his willingness to learn and to admit that he will need some guidance during the process. Having someone from the 'gaming community' is a plus since a lot of editors' eyes cross when reading articles on these articles - yet they seem very popular. Isn't this attitude better than "heck I know everything and I don't need anyone to teach me." Pardon the fancy signature, I know it might be frowned upon.... Bfpage |leave a message 19:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-Support Not too concerned with lack of AfD experience. Fylbecatulous's oppose example seems like a user searching for a problem.--v/r - T P 20:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support since there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 20:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per co-nomination by Crisco 1492, though I have to disagree with the co-nominator -- clearly the Nintendo 64 was better than the SNES. Good luck candidate, — Cirt (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I like them about equally myself. The SNES has an overall larger library of games, so it has that going for it. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand DGG's concerns (currently Oppose #8). I read a lot of Gamer's interation in talk pages (ignoring very early ones because of his self-admitted behavior in the answer to Q3). Looks like he's always civil (I found no instance where he wasn't). He's helpful even though he doesn't hang around the Help desk or Teahouse. He helped get articles promoted even though he says he's "into stuff like FARs and GARs rather than FACs". I thought about sitting this one out but after reading a lot of Gamer's interactions, I'm here to support. I also judge that it's sometimes good to have an admin who rarely gets involved in the drama of disputes and the noticeboards to provide a fresh and independent viewpoint when asked. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Jason Quinn; and the unconvincing oppose rationales. Most opposers feel somehow uncomfortable with the candidate, but can not pinpoint any negative action by the candidate. Lack of experience, after 6 years and 1 FA? I don't think so. Anyway, there's no obligation to use the tools all the time, but it would be good to have another admin around who could help out occasionally. Just tread lightly in the beginning, and any clueful editor will gather experience in due course. Kraxler (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - solid and clueful contributor, willing to learn. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Not a perfect candidate but most likely a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GamerPro's regular maintenance work and positive contributions I believe make him a net positive for the project to be an administrator, and having had quite a fair bit of discourse with him before, I cannot say I believe he would misuse the tools, and I believe he would be cautious in order to avoid making significant mistakes. All in all, I feel very comfortable in supporting GamerPro64 in his candidacy for adminship, and am not swayed by the opposes. Best of luck, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to trust with the mop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I trust that the candidate is able to learn on the job, and we able to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the editor is competent, and there is no evidence that they will abuse the tools. Concur with the WP:NETPOSITIVE sentiment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support After much though I will support this candidate. Experience can be gained on the job and I am confident this user will move carefully in areas that are new to them and accept the advice of their peers. Chillum 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with how this editor reacts to criticism, I am withdrawing my support however I will not oppose. Chillum 03:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright. --Eurodyne (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 00:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good user, has two fabulous nominators, and overall I see nothing wrong here. buff bills 7701 01:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive. Appears to be responsible, competent and composed; very good traits for an administrator. Has done some good work in sometimes difficult areas. A bit of concern about inexperience in deletions is overcome by overall long-time experience and good work. I think the candidate will be trustworthy and will go slow in areas where they need a little more knowledge. Net positive. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I wish the candidate had more mainspace experience he appears mature, capable and judicious. Majoreditor (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Longterm experienced contributor. Some people have raised concerns about the number or frequency of mainspace edits, but the candidate has an FA, that's worth thousands of the minor typo fixes that are my stock in trade. The other common reason for opposing GamperPro is that the area he wants to use the tools in is not one he has particularly worked in. That isn't how I'd recommend that anyone apply for the tools, but I don't see anything in his deleted edits that worries me. As for not having an optional userpage, and that being a sign of being uncommunicative, Usertalk is for communication. A user page is for among other things talking about yourself, I have no objections to an editor not exercising their option to have a userpage. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 15% mainspace edit and lack of AfD participation worried me. But I can trust this user with the tools. He is matured, competent, responsible. He will gain experience on the job. Net positive. Jim Carter 12:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first Requests for adminship vote here. Going to support as he has the experience and does regular maintenance work (I think that it's needed for adminship). Also, no reason not to trust the candidate with the mop for now at least. --good888 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In reviewing this RfA, I see nothing to suggest that there will be a catastrophe if the candidate is provided with administrator duties. While some people in the opposition are harping on the candidate's quantity of edits, I think the quality of the edits is what a person should judged upon. I am also impressed with the maturity and the intelligence of the candidate's responses in this RfA. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 21:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

#Oppose for now. While GamerPro seems like a good candidate, the lack of participation at AfD is a bit of a red flag for me; I'd like to see a few more !votes, and a few NAC's would help a lot more in this reguard. A low edit count or a lack of CSD tagging isn't an issue for me; However, I will consider changing is a few non-admin closures are made in the next few days. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) moved to support --Mdann52talk to me! 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with regret. GamePro64 looks like solid future Admin material. But, at the risk of piling on, s/he needs a little more work in the mainspace with content creation and also in the adminny side of things. I suggest six months of concentrating on actual editing on articles coupled with some work in AfD. Most of the other issues mentioned are not a big deal and a reasonably intelligent editor who has demonstrated good will can learn that stuff as you go along. Come back in six months with more of a record in AfD and mainspace edits and I think you will have a good shot at passing. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Moving to neutral. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Looks like a good content editor, but there's insufficient experience in the stated areas of admin work (i.e. deletion) for me to be comfortable supporting. For CSD especially, keeping a log and demonstrating a high proportion of successful nominations is essential. Will be happy to support when more experience in deletion is gained. BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's unfair to call the candidate inexperienced, but it is true they are inexperienced in the areas they want to work in as an administrator. BethNaught (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is unfair to call the candidate inexperienced! One can only get experience as an admin after becoming one! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For several reasons. 1/ Contribution history: Less than 15% (!) of all edits are to main space. 2/ The answer to Q4. An admin should know the difference between "conflict of interest" and involved. 3/ The answer to Q5. I am baffled that an admin candidate is not aware of the fact that the edit history of a deleted article is not visible to a non-admin. 4/ Basically no participation in AfDs whatsoever, even though this is an area where the candidate would like to contribute. All together, this is too much for me. The candidate seems like a solid enough member of the community, but more is needed to be a successful admin. I don't think a second RFA should be attempted before the candidate has more mainspace contributions, a more solid AfD and CSD record (activate Twinkle logging!), and a better understanding of policy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I have the impression that some people misinterpret my comment #1 as bemoaning too few mainspace edits. That is only partially correct. Although I do find 1,873 mainspace edits very low, the candidate does have experience with expanding and improving articles. However, besides the fewer than 2000 mainspace edits, I also don't think that I have ever seen an editor (let alone an RFA candidate) who had less than 15% mainspace edits. As for the above-mentioned "violation of our WP:DEAL policy", I disagree. Being and admin is no big deal in the sense that this does not give one some kind of superior "authority" in content disputes or something like that. However, that does not mean that we should hand out the mop to about anybody, we could then just as well do away with RFA and, just as we do with things like autopatrolled and rollback, leave it up to individual admins or bureaucrats to hand out the tools to somebody they have vetted. I certainly value the work that the candidate is doing for the project. However, I don't think that we should hand out the mop to someone who has the missing knowledge as demonstrated here. Sure, we all learn on the job and being rather new myself, I know I am still learning (I regularly watchlist an AfD where I don't really know how to handle it just to see how somebody else who ha more experience is going to deal with it). But again, a certain minimum understanding is necessary to function as a sysop. As a final aside, I don't mind if people disagree with the foregoing and support this candidature. Given some of the remarks made in the "support" section above, I would request though, that the same courtesy be extended to those who oppose. --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add to my "oppose" reasons: 5/ The answer to Q13.pt.3. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having some cute little icons over the top of your talk page or userpages will not speak about anything other than some amount of showoff. I am doubtful if GamerPro64 can contribute in Asian articles. Took him 6 years to make only 12,000 edits. Are we going to have another admin who get on this website just for making one edit a year? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement for administrators to be able to contribute to specific areas or edit on a regular basis. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is no requirement, other than having an account. It is usual that voters look for a skilled candidate. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bladesmulti: With all due respect, this almost feels like trolling; so what if GamerPro64 can't contribute in Asian articles; so what if we "have another admin who get on this website just for making one edit a year"? If that one edit per year is good, and the candidate is trustable, then why reject it? Also, please read WP:DEAL. Please reconsider this !vote; I understand and respect the others, but this almost feels like trolling. Thanks. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lixxx235 It sounds like you have a small dictionary. And no, it was just my opinion, I usually look for the variety of articles that they have created or contributed into. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti You have a distinctly insensitive way of expressing your 'opinions'. Also, to suggest that someone has not, or might not, be contributing to Asian articles is totally inappropriate. Good, well researched, objective participation at RfA would help attract more candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – GamerPro64, you need to make more edits to article space and participate more in XfDs, if that's why you are getting the admin tools. Also, your answers to the questions above are not satisfactory, as Randykitty states above. You are a good member of the community, however, and you should retry in about six months. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Given the circumstances, I would vote neutral because the user is a long-term user in good standing and has excellent contributions to FAC and other places, but this is an oppose purely for the record; it is a reluctant oppose. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with deep regret per Ad above. Also s/he opposed my Featured Pictures nomination which I know shouldn't count for anything but deep down probably does however hard I try. But good luck with the block! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to call for COMC's Oppose to be disregarded. He's been going after editors on FPC for a while now. With Crisco being a co-nom being a possible factor into this vote as well, seeing how he made a thread at the Incidents board about him. GamerPro64 17:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not worry about that comment being given any credit. There is already a consensus to block this user for battleground behavior on ANI, it is just waiting for an uninvolved admin to close it. I suspect this user is being intentionally disruptive here before the inevitable block comes down. I doubt any 'crat will consider this a valid vote. Chillum 18:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - COMC is currently blocked for three months. GamerPro64 15:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. To be quite honest, I'm really not sure why you want to be an administrator. I get the impression from your contribution history that it's never really been on your mind. You have obviously built up a very solid track record in your discrete areas of editing, and if we were !voting in a process that was doing no more than recognising the quality of that work, there would surely be overwhelming support. But I'm afraid we're not doing that. We're !voting to assign you a wide range of administrative tools, and the undeniable fact is that you have little to no experience in the kinds of areas in which those tools are most often exercised. That's not a bad thing. It just means it would be unwise to give you those tools at this time. Sure, you could learn on the job. But the safer thing for the community to do is to ask that you build up a track record first, in areas like speedy deletion tagging and AfD !voting. Or you could choose not to do that all, continue to do what you do, do it very well, and not be an administrator. It's your choice and your skills are going to be of great benefit whatever you choose. And, for what it's worth, I like the no-userpage shtick! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the first two sentences of my oppose aren't part of my reasons for opposing; they're just an observation. Didn't think I'd need to make that clear, but, well.... --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. My work on the site doesn't exactly show my interest in being an admin. But I do want to become one and help out with anything with the tools given. GamerPro64 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want competent editors with a solid track record of experience to deal with speedy deletion as administrators. I don't see it here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not yet ready A few months of practice with deletion process should cure one part of that. But I also notice no work whatsoever in any of the dispute resolution areas, or on a noticeboard, or in helping new users, or any similar area. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per DGG, really. Some attention to the "meta" and process areas, to demonstrate competence there would dispel these concerns, I'm sure, and I look forward to supporting in the future. Begoon ^talk 14:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as imho too inexperienced - I'm not seeing any AFD / CSD work and 15% in article space isn't brilliant, I suggest perhaps retrying in a few months after working in AFD/CSD related areas. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion an admin should have a strong understanding of how the MediaWiki software works. Not knowing what deleted edits are (as evidenced Q5), and then wanting to work in deletion areas, just doesn't make sense to me. In Q1 they state they will keep an eye on "articles that are protected under recent changes", linking to the help page. Perhaps they meant protecting heavily vandalized articles, that they've noticed as such at Special:RecentChanges, or accepting/rejecting pending changes, which they can already do. I'm not really sure... but the vague wording / link choice hints at a possible lack of technical competence. I don't expect a candidate to be a whiz, but they've been here for six years. I think they are otherwise an excellent content contributor, and lengthy work at WP:FTC shows dedication toward project maintenance, but that's not what being an admin is all about. You should have some concrete experience and evidence of good judgement in areas in which you intend to take administrative action. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It bothers me that Gamer wants to specialize in deletion while not having much experience in it. I don't have stringent RfA standards, and lack of content creation isn't an issue with me, but I do think you should have demonstrable experience in the area you intend to specialize in (in this case, CSD and AfD). If Gamer gets a little more experience in deletion, I'd be more than happy to support next time. I'd also consider changing to support in this current RfA if he renounces his intended area of specialization and is able to prove that he has experience in it. Best regards, --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Moved to neutral. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 16:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Renounces his intended area of specialization and is able to prove that he has experience in it." What does that mean? You want me to renounce wanting to work AfD and then be able to that I have experience in it? Or something else? GamerPro64 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better wording would have been "if he promises to hold off AfD closures and speedy deletions until he gets more experience". If there's another area of admin-like work you have experience in, and promise to primarily work in that area as a new admin, I may consider changing. Of course, you're absolutely under no obligation to change your desired area of focus if you think you would enjoy it. If you still want to specialize in deletion, I'd just recommend doing a good amount of work in deletion processes before you file your next RfA. If you do that, I'll happily support you on your next try, as I said above. :) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 20:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if I was given the admin tools I would hold off AfD closures until I have more experience. I did mention in Q1 that I was also interested in helping out with the Main Page. And there are other fields that I could work out too. GamerPro64 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Although I would like to see you get a little more experience before being handed the tools, I found this comment reassuring should you pass RfA this time around. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An average of only 6 mainspace edits per week over 6 years. Little demonstrable knowledge/experience in XfDs. No need expressed for tools. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second the argument the candidate needs to show more maturity before acquiring admin. Gets exasperated then "loses it" with sarcastic comebacks & ad hominems to perceived opponent Coat of Many Colours (at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September Morn, carried over into this RfA). So put a block bat in his hands?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There s/b a reason to acquire admin, not "don't see any reason not to" just because a wiki-friend nominates you. The argument "Adminship is no big WP:DEAL" would be true, if said status weren't *for life*, or if de-sysops were easier to come by per Jimbo Wales's recommendation, or adminship didn't come with a *block bat*. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, without prejudice against trying again in 6 months or so. The candidate's own statement says it all: "My work on the site doesn't exactly show my interest in being an admin. But I do want to become one and help out with anything with the tools given." There isn't much evidence here of enough experience to do the work. I'd like to see more XfD participation (not just WP:AFD), and a track-record of successful non-admin closure of various XfDs and other processes (RMs, etc.), and a track-record of being on the right side of such processes 90%+ of the time. More history of participation as a commenter at admin noticeboards, especially WP:ANI would be desirable. These are [among] the processes in which admin judgement is formed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Both DGG and Mkativerata get at some of the same concerns I have. While this is obviously not a bad-acting editor, there's virtual no experience with anything administrative. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr: Oppose, not nearly enough drama. ;) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: Your comments don't seem to have anything to do with my post. Did you have something substantive to ask or say? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maturity concerns with respect to the "trademark" lack of a User Page and the badgering/gravedancing vis a vis Coat of Many Colors above. An apparent red link with no (talk) option is an absolutely unacceptable signature style for an administrator, in my opinion. Lack of AfD participation and lack of mainspace editing experience are additional troubling matters. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: You seem to be in favor of other expressions of individualism such as userpages. Could you clarify your specific maturity concerns re: the nominee's "trademark" signature? Would these concerns extend to all custom signatures? -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion on the nominee's talk page when it was pointed out to him that a User Page would be expected during the RFA process. "Oh, I can't I deleted it and salted it..." ... "That can easily be undone" .... "Well, I just don't want to because having a redlinked signature is my trademark." (paraphrase) Yeah, right, fine. Have your trademark, just don't forget to pay the toll of my support at RFA. Administrators are the public face of Wikipedia and their interactions with newcomers can have lasting consequences in terms of those newcomers' future participation. Having a signature that's nothing but a red link with no talk link — a situation that is really NOT fixed yet despite the grudging and childish "it's a real thing now" at the 11th hour — is absolutely unacceptable, as is the badgering behavior of this nominee. I rarely get fired up at an RFA, but I really am now. I am 100% secure of the appropriateness of opposing this nominee now and I find it hard to imagine supporting him six months from now either. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC) RFA not AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Having a signature that's nothing but a red link with no talk link" - I'd quibble that it's actually a red-colored link directly to the user's talk page. For reference, the current signature in question is this: [[User talk:GamerPro64|<span style="color:red">GamerPro64</span>]] But anyway thanks for clarifying your position, Carrite. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, that's the same technicality that the nominee is counting upon. I don't see ability to fudge a technicality as an attribute for adminship, although your mileage may vary... This inappropriate signature requires a new user wishing to communicate with this proposed administrator to counterintuitively click what appears to any new participant to be a redlink (non-functioning link) to a user page in order to communicate. Uh no. Not ever acceptable. The fact that the nominee STILL doesn't have a user page showing is a minor matter, I suppose, if he wasn't so intent on selling this more or less non-real thing as a "real thing now." About 15% of the content of that page is a tribute to his late and lamented user page redlink, RIP. Again, not the level of maturity that I'm looking for here... Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your definition of "maturity," as well as your double standards on the matter. → Call me Hahc21 21:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no "double standards" in Carrite's position. I opposed for different reasons, but I respect Carrite's opinion. I'd suggest you might do better for your nominee by doing likewise. Begoon ^talk 23:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging his oppose vote; he's free to do so, and I respect that. → Call me Hahc21 23:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ignoring, or just missing, Begoon's point? (There's no basis for anyone to not respect Carrite's freedom to !vote. You don't need to inform us that you do.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG. I'd also like to reiterate one of the points made above about AfD participation. AfD participation is pretty low, and yet you want to help out in deleting articles. I don't think waiting another while will do any harm. st170e^talk 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obviously a great content contributor but excellent content editors don't always make good admins and the converse is true; the skill sets required are quite different. What I am looking for is a need for the admin tools and experience in the areas where the tools are intended to be used. This is necessary to determine whether the person would exercise good judgement as an Admin. Whilst being an Admin may not be a big deal it is some sort of deal and, sorry, but saying that the candidate won't use the tools until the have gained the requisite experience is putting the cart before the horse. In the case of GamerPro64 I am unconvinced that they have thought through properly why they wish to become an admin, or that they need to use the admin tools at this time. The need for the tools is unclear because some of the answers are somewhat confusing. For example, from Question 1, "Keeping an eye on the Main Page is something I already do in terms of being part of some of the discussion on its talk page. Helping out with it all together would be another helpful thing as well." may or may not require the use of the tools depending on what they wish to do and "I would probably help with decision making on pages that are tagged for deletion" also won't require the tools except for closing some AFDs that may be implied here but is not explicitly stated. I am not negative on the candidate because of lack of deletion discussion experience per se but because this is the area they have identified to work in. For example, if someone wishes to use the tools at WP:RM I am looking for experience there but experience at WP:AFD would not be needed; likewise for someone intending to help at WP:AIV I would look to see how they have handled vandals in the past. In this case, because of their stated wish to work in the deletions area, their lack of experience in this area rules out my support. Just Chilling (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, too many areas of inexperience. Have a year of looking at what admins do - dealing with vandals, deletion requests, move requests, etc. Add Twinkle and Huggle to your system, see what they do and see how others use them, so you can understand how the reports that those gadgets make are produced. Also if you really enjoy content creation, will you have enough time to use the tools anyway. Once you get into the admin zone, it can take up a considerable amount of time. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I decided to oppose after research. Based on an exchange between GamerPro64 on their talk page with another editor who came to make sure an apology was seen and in my opinion, receive reassurance, and got instead a rather clipped answer (it is still currently there); I looked at the talk page where the "offense" occurred and the retorts by this editor seemed too immature and troubling for what I would like in an administrator. Sorry. (the section on GamerPro64's talk page is headed "Apologies" and dated September 20, 2014). Fylbecatulous talk 02:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Short texts on the web are very easily misinterpretted. Read both comments and imagine a serious friendly smiling senior person saying them and the entire meaning changes. Both of his conments are open to interpretation of intend and in my opinion they are neutral comments. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I wasn't going to link but now I will for clarity. I am referring to this exchange from earlier on Crisco 1492's talk page. [3] in the section "Sleeping Dogs FAC". It is more a negative tone, especially at "00:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)"" Fylbecatulous talk 12:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I see insufficient experience/exposure in key admin areas. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only does the candidate lack the needed experience, both they and their nominators disregarded the piles of RfA guidance addressing these editor expectations. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced about the candidate's experience in several important areas. Sandstein 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient contributions and experience. Andrew (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please elaborate? I've never seen a candidate with over 10000 edits get slammed for having both too few mainspace edits, and simultaneously not enough "adminny" contributions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only around 15% of the edits are in the mainspace. This is not a point of great concern to me, but there are some editors who put great stock in content creation when looking at prospective admins. However the fact remains that there is a darth of edits on the Admin side of things and almost none at all in deletion related fields. Yet he wants to work on deletion. That is a problem for a lot of us. His pledge to move very slowly while he gains experience was enough for me to move from oppose to neutral. But I can't in conscience pull the trigger for this candidate given that rather glaring blank spot in the resume. I'm sorry, but if you want to be an Admin, you need to have some credible experience doing Adminny things. In closing, I reiterate that I think this is a solid editor who will make a good Admin, if not this time around then probably the next. But there are limits to my comfort level with OJT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's three examples of the candidate's contribution history.

Firstly, the candidate has only created one article themselves. That was a list of videogame characters, which is not challenging content, but they only made one edit and didn't follow through.

Secondly, they claim several stars for featured content. The first of these is another videogame where it seems that another editor (Zeality) actually created most of the content.

Their second featured star is for a picture (see right). It seems that the candidate neither took the picture, nor uploaded the picture nor improved the picture. So, what did they do? Er, they nominated it. So, who did take the picture? The file description doesn't say. When was it taken? We don't know exactly. What about the caption — how do we know that's right? Er, well it tells a touching tale of someone who was starved deliberately by the Viet Cong. Who says so? That seems to be some unspecified spokesman at the U.S. Information Agency. Note that, at this time, the US was at war with the Viet Cong. What we seem to have here is a propaganda photograph of vague provenance being presented uncritically as featured content. Here's the nomination. Andrew (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be all right I would to address these examples of my history. For the one about the Punch-Out!! list, that was made during my first year on the site. I was learning the ropes about what to do at the time. I'm not one who wants to make articles anyway. I prefer improving the ones we have now. About Anachronox, yes Zeality did the majority of the work. At the same time, he wasn't doing much editing due to IRL stuff. I still took it to GAN which helped improve the article for FAC. And during FAC, when Zeality came back to help out what little he could, I placed him as a co-nominator. I never took all the credit to getting it to FA status. Though I still fixed the concerns raised in the FAC which resulted in it becoming a Featured Article. And about the picture, yes I didn't upload nor improve on it. Crisco did. Though I was the one who brought it to his attention and found a TIFF for him to use to clean up the picture. We had a whole discussion about preparing it for FPC here. GamerPro64 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anachronox, I can vouch for GamerPro. I was with Zeality from the beginning: I helped him gather most of the sources used in that article. Zeality took the page to a high level of quality but never went the whole way. After he disappeared, the article languished for several years (2011-2014, IIRC) before GamerPro showed up. He rewrote the Reception section and did a bunch of general work on the article—key stuff. Without his efforts, the article never would have been featured. It's more than fair for him to claim Anachronox as featured content here, even though he's never pretended that it was all his own work. I mean, who else can say that they stepped up to finish Zeality's project? I certainly can't. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, linking to your discussion with Crisco about nominating an image to FPC above: here: again demonstrates a lack of both maturity and much needed confidence to function as an administrator. Your remark after Crisco stated: "don't be afraid to weigh in there": I know. Be Bold and all that. It's usually nerves that have me second guessing it. I mean I remember getting this picture to Valued Pictures status but you must remember how that process went. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Although seeking advice is not a detriment, on most occasions admins have to make firm and confident decisions and be ready to back them up. If you are nervous and second guessing over nominating an image to the Featured Pictures project (one I participate in), I believe this level of hesitancy and timidity will not serve you or the community well if you are an administrator. (I have already cast my !vote in this section). Fylbecatulous talk 03:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG. No real need or use for the tools has been shown, and nominee has little experience in admin related areas. INeverCry 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG and Carrite. I will happily reconsider in six months if the candidate spends that time helping out at AfD and similar deletion related venues. I do not care all that much about the lack of an informative user page, though it mystifies me. I will not support a candidate for administrator, though, who has a red linked user name. That sends a message that I interpret as "Don't even try to communicate with me!", and that message is, in my view, incompatible with the role of an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, echoing sentiments of others saying to come back in a few months after actively demonstrating activity in the areas applicable to administrator tools. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. GamerPro64 is a good editor. However I am concerned by the lack of experience in XfD. GamerPro64 has only two AfD comments this year. The most recent one isn't exactly a compelling argument either. For someone who intends to delete articles, I expect a lot more contributions to these discussions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I value the candidates contributions to the project, but there are just too many red flags around AfD/admin experience, mainspace contributions, maturity etc. and these lead me to oppose. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 15:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per credential stuffing discovered by Andrew OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over this edit - admins should have a basic understanding of how licensing and copyvio works. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with several neutral votes below that there's plenty of good here (e.g., Dennis Brown, Mkdw), but I don't feel right parking in neutral. The Q's are trouble. Generally, I use Q1 to find out what admin duties interest the candidate, and then I judge the candidate in that chosen area. If Q1 is about vandalism, then there better be several AIV or RFPP requests. If deletion, then AfD and CSD need checking. Copyright is a different skill set. If the interest is something technical such as templates, then there should be some history there. If there's little experience in the stated area, then I lean oppose. The candidate is a civic minded volunteer, but I want more evidence of the need for and the skill in using the privilege. If a candidate is not participating in AfDs now, then I don't expect participation later. Q3 is also weak; if a candidate wants to work in a contentious area, then I want to see more conflict meat (there are hints in later Qs). The total edit count is superb, but the distribution is a surprise. Generally, I want to see a candidate have 3K article edits and article+talk > 50%. Here, the article edits are at 1875 and the percentage is 32. The numbers are not set in stone, I'll bend on the numbers, but I'm leery to do that here. The user page issue is another surprise, but it has little import for me. I'm reluctant to invoke no big deal or net positive because need+skill are part of my basic criteria for an RfA. Forgive me, but I also weight skill more heavily for AfD than most other tasks. Q13.pt.3 bothers me on several levels. Glrx (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (but a very weak one, with a very large side salad of moral support) I've looked through some of GamerPro's interactions on talk pages and I am generally impressed. The user is content-focussed and is cranking out GAs and FAs and not getting caught up in either drama or nastiness, so that's a big plus. But I have to agree with Kudpung and DGG: if GamerPro wishes to work in AfD, he needs to hang out there and participate. AfD desperately needs people with time to go through and neutrally participate: without participation, AfDs drag on and on. I'm not so bothered about the percentage of mainspace edits—working on GAs and FAs shows he's able to contribute to mainspace, even if he contributes to other areas of the site too. If this RfA fails, don't be put off GamerPro: if you are as reasonable and awesome as I think, go do some maintenance work that demonstrates the sort of judgment you think you can bring to the role of admin and you'll be a shoe-in for it in six months time. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely have I had such a difficult time making up my mind about an RfA, and this is a decidedly mild oppose. Although some of the opposes above seem weak to me, I think that some of the support comments, saying how ridiculous the opposes are, oversimplify what is really the case, and I see some thoughtful and valid oppose rationales as well. In addition to the comments in this RfA, I've spent some time looking in detail at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anachronox/archive1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates, in order to get a feel for how the candidate navigates discussions. On the plus side: someone who isn't trying hard to be an administrator, someone who is willing to be cautious and to seek advice, someone who is usually very civil and pleasant, and someone who has significant experience in featured and good content, albeit not in the most traditional ways. I'm awfully close to saying this could be a net positive. But on the minus side: those recent conversations found by Fylbecatulous, a couple of opposes above, sit badly with me, not the kind of thing I like to see in potential administrators. The discussions at the video games project talk page, where there is a high level of activity, show the candidate making friendly comments, but those comments are relatively infrequent and not generally dealing with particularly contentious things. The featured topics work, on the plus side, strikes me as assessing consensus in discussions, not all that different from closing AfDs, but on the minus side, does not really look like there was that much resolution of discussions where editors disagreed sharply, unlike AfD. The FAR for Anachronox does show the candidate dealing successfully with criticism about content, but I also keep seeing inarticulate comments like "Maybe I'm not understand the issue." and "This one I am also at a lose." Most of these things are not strong reasons to oppose, but I'm asking myself whether I'm ready to trust this user with some significant tools and responsibilities, and my gut is telling me that this might be a slight net negative. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very, very reluctant oppose, moved from neutral via support. I was originally neutral per my reasons down there and then I decided that his stats were misleading per my reasons up there. But after reading GamerPro64's answers to some of the questions, I am not confident he understands the deletion processes. Also many supports say; "Lots of GAs and FAs". I must agree with Andrew Davidson. Sorry for this and I will support next time if you get more experience in the deletion processes — NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can support a candidate with fewer than 2,000 mainspace edits. It's true that number of edits isn't everything and that content creation isn't everyone's favorite thing, but it is (supposed to be) the core of what we do here. Administrators need experience with it. More importantly, though, I don't see any need for the tools to continue doing the work you're doing and doing well, namely coordination in the WP and WT namespaces. Thanks for the offer to help at XfD, but contrary to popular belief what's needed most right now is not more admins to close (though those are welcome) but more participants making better arguments. Consensus there ultimately redounds to consensus on what Wikipedia is. If you want to help at XfD, participate! Once you've learned the ropes there, decide whether you want the power and responsibility of judging consensus and implementing its mandates. Lagrange 613 03:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Samsara and Lagrange613 and Carrite. In my opinion the nominee does not have the maturity or experience to make best use of the tools. Some of the answers to the questions are worrying. Along with the diff pointed out by Samsara, I feel the editor isn't that clueful. Julia\^talk 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG. Would reconsider after some months if the candidate got his mainspace edit count up and addressed the concerns voiced by the other opposes (e.g., Andrew). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - really way too many serious issues here. First, managing a very low proportion (and even total!) of edits to mainspace, while also not managing a significant number of edits in admin-related areas, seems to be a show-stopper just from that - it's almost like the punchline of a "what numbers and proportions of edits would be most unsuitable for being an admin?" joke. Second, the first three sentences in response to Q1, "I have taken part in a few deletion process on the site a few times. I would probably help with decision making on pages that are tagged for deletion. Handling articles that are tagged for speedy deletion would also be something I would like to take part of." Questionable grammar aside, for a candidate to lead with that, when their participation and experience in that area up to now has been so very limited, is extremely alarming. And then there's this; "Keeping an eye on the Main Page is something I already do in terms of being part of some of the discussion on its talk page. Helping out with it all together would be another helpful thing as well." What does the second sentence mean? I don't want an administrator who can be a little helper "all together" now and then, I want someone who can show careful judg(e)ment in closing contentious discussions or blocking editors or deleting revisions. The candidate has nowhere demonstrated such judg(e)ment. Third, as explained in detail by others, never mind the number and proportion of encyclopedia edits, there are qualitative problems too. It is a common saying that, if you are going to be deleting others' work, which in many cases will be a new editor's first article, then you should at the very least have the experience of creating a new article yourself and bringing it up to an acceptable state and experiencing the sorts of obstacles and requirements involved. This candidate has not yet reached that level of participation in the English Wikipedia project. Fourth, taking "credit" for images in whose preparation he had apparently no involvement at all, alongside the Anachronox fiasco also pointed out by Andrew, is really concerning too. Fifth, replies to questions have demonstrated lack of knowledge of the community's approach to blocking and to handling vandalism in general, and this edit as already pointed out by Samsara, shows a total unawareness of the licensing requirements Wikipedia has for copyright reasons. Deletion, copyright, blocking, the most important and sensitive areas, and there are serious problems in all three! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm changing back to my original positing. Reason for oppose: Not enough experience/knowledge of how/when to use the tools, as noted abvoe by several far more eloquent and experience contributors than myself. I don't care about the user page. I do care about flimsy knowledge re: XfDs and weak answer to #8, how to handle vandals/blocks. (Maybe because those are areas I have spent a lot of time working on.) Simply put, if this were my RfA, I would expect to be given a to-do list of concerns and an invitation to request again in a few months. Positives: Strong editor and solid contributor, plays well with others. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Neutral I've reconsidered and will hold further comment. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose for now. Sorry, but one of the most critical roles of an administrator is knowing the fundamentals of policies governing XfDs. That knowledge is gained through interactions in the debates. Based on research presented by User:NickGibson3900 below, I'm not able to support at this time. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Neutral Spent the last twenty minutes researching GamerPro64. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see GamerPro64 made an a admin, at will defiantly support if there is a second RFA (hopefully that won't be needed ). I have made the following observations: Great job at Good/Featured Topic Candidates. Nice job at WikiProject Video Games. However, GamerPro64 has only participated at ten AFDs (only 2 this year) and, by my count, at least seven were: Per xxxx, per nom, or a pile-on vote at the end of the nomination. Also only one nomination at AFD. A relatively low mainspace count. Only ~1800 out of ~12000. Also could you please create a user page with a bit about you. E.g. languages, experience, etc. — NickGibson3900 ^Talk 05:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) ~~Moved to Support per reasons there - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)~~ Now oppose - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Good edit summary usage, but should participate in more AFDs, more mainspace edits and create a user page to get people know you better, per NickGibson3900. Romtam^TalkToMe 06:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for raising the fact that I do not have a user page. Even though I am overall against making a user page (six years of not having one will leave a lasting effect), I will make one if it will benefit the overall outcome. However, my user page is currently salted due to me requesting that action years ago. GamerPro64 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I will unprotect your userpage right now; just let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I think the redlink name is kind of a signature style more than an effort to avoiding divulging personal information. As far as I can see GP64 is pretty open about himself. He answered all questions posed to him candidly in the 2011 interview he gave. That may be a good place for others to gain further insight on him. -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. A redlinked username in my watchlist suggests a very new user (often a vandal/spammer or incompetent newbie) and hence the edit needs to be checked. I expect an admin not to have a redlinked username; just saying "Hello" on your userpage or redirecting it to your talk page would "fix" the redlink. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Moved to support. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There are good points and bad points (it's a good start when you're namechecked on a major page such as WP:FTC, but I'm concerned about the candidate's assumption that this translates directly to AfD and about the lack of user-page) but I'm going to wait on some more questions before moving my vote to Support (though wouldn't Oppose), since this is still within the first 24 hours of the RfA. LS1979 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Moved to support. LS1979 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; the lack of AfD contributions and the lack of a userpage do not bother me. However, the lack of mainspace contributions and the lack of knowledge about deletion ( makes me unable to support this candidate at this time. I can't oppose either though, because this candidate does great work in the featured topic area, and is clearly a helpful user. I would certainly support in the future with more mainspace contributions, and I could even be convinced in this RfA if I see enough positives later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Switching to support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~StringTheory11 sums up my exact feelings.~~ Experience with deletion policy is a must. Having 15% article edits is a bit unusual as well. Dennis 2¢ 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would very cheerfully support this nomination in the future; as others have said, insufficient experience at AfD and other places where the intricacies of our policies become relevant. Also, this is not a requirement, but I would like to see some engagement with content areas more controversial than the video-game arena; areas where political affiliation and neutrality start interfering with one-another, and so where a cool head and a solid understanding of policy are required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I will support this in the future if this user gets more experience in the required fields for the kinds of jobs that he would like to do in the future. Razor flame 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - On the positive side, GamerPro64 has exactly the kind of maturity, responsibility, trust, engagement, and composure that make an ideal admin. However, these qualities require the support of sufficient experience in admin related areas and unfortunately he does not meet my criteria on any of them. All admins learn a lot on the job, but most of us had an all-round, more-than-just-basic knowledge of most of the processes involved and were able to clearly demonstrate it, and show that in doing so our error rate was acceptably low. If this experience can be demonstrated over the next six months, and especially if the candidate reads WP:RFAADVICE, and although not mandatory, but as a courtesy to our readers and users make a slightly more comprehensive user page, I would certainly and wholeheartedly support another RfA . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Gamer's maturity, willingness to have a recall process, and promise to hold off AfD closures and speedy deletions have convinced me to switch to neutral. I'm not yet fully comfortable supporting, though, partially due to his misunderstanding of things admin candidates should really know (i.e. the difference between COI and involved, not understanding what deleted edits are, etc). I do hope this RfA goes well, though, and I'm confident that he'll use the tools wisely if he gets them. Best of wishes, --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 16:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There's a lot I like about this candidate except for the fact that they are specifically asking for the tools in an area they have nearly no experience in. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (formerly opposed). While I still think he needs a bit more experience, Gamepro64's pledge to go slow with deletion while he gains some experience removes the main catalyst for my oppose !vote. I also would note that a few of the arguments being advanced by some opponents of this candidate seem trivial, if not actually petty. I don't expect a prospective Admin to be an expert on every subject and I don't give a bleep if they have a user page or not. A record demonstrating basic competence and good will goes a long way with me. I am slowly coming around to the view expressed in discussions elsewhere that perhaps too many editors (including me) have been setting the bar a bit too high for those who are willing to serve as Admins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really can't support this editor in spite of content recreation because of the lack of good participation in speedy deletions and in afds in general. But I can't oppose them either based on all that they've done. So a neutral for me. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. GamerPro seems to have many positive qualities that tend to show that he would make a fine administrator in the future. On the other hand, his lack of experience and demonstrated understanding of AfD and other article deletion processes is problematic for an administrator. I also believe that an admin candidate should show solid, if not excellent content work. While the percentage of his mainspace edits is relatively low, I also recognize that some of GamerPro's best content contributions have been made to nine or ten Feature Articles and Good Articles. That's no small thing. I want to support, but I need to see a better grasp of deletion policy and guidelines before I can move from the "neutral" column to "support". Call this comment strong "moral support". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - GamerPro64's comment about holding off AFD closures until he was more experienced reassured me. But I think the candidate needs a little bit more experience with AFD. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While I chagrin that the dogma subscription inherent to the required "understanding" of AfD processes is required of who are supposed to be our most trusted members, complaints have been raised that GamerPro does not possess it. I will note that, in my interactions and observations, he has always been plenty helpful and considerate - moreso than a great many appointed admins, though I won't be naming names. He also has quite a history with general maintenance tasks, including around WP:VG - unusual for a non-admin. Tezero (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2014 (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.