Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K6ka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

K6ka[edit]

Final (189/50/9). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

K6ka (talk · contribs) – It's long overdue that I present to you k6ka for consideration for adminship. In many ways, k6ka reminds me of me: they're rather gnomish, focusing more on the maintenance side of the project and helping other users rather than writing articles directly. I first came across k6ka in 2014 when they began clerking at the Wikipedia:Changing username venues. I was rather impressed with their diligent work there - they had a keen sense of the relevant policies, guidelines, and community norms, and excelled at helping users navigate the sometimes-confusing username change process. Accordingly, I encouraged them to apply for the meta:Global renamer privilege when it became available to non-bureaucrat users in 2015. Since their successful candidacy, I've had the privilege of working alongside k6ka on the global rename queue, at meta:Steward requests/Username changes, Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, as well as Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations (where they continue to clerk in advance of the much-awaited global usurpation policy). While k6ka does not have a large volume of content-writing contributions that can be presented for scrutiny, neither did I when I became an administrator many moons ago. And we need administrators who are willing to do the grunt-work of clearing backlogs, just as we need our article writers to focus on creating high-quality content for our readers. Accordingly, I strongly recommend granting k6ka the administrative toolset - I'm certain you will not be disappointed with their administrative work. –xenotalk 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination[edit]

xeno gave a great summary of K6ka's work in the renaming-department of Wikipedia. With a whopping 34,000 mainspace edits however, K6ka also does great work with counter-vandalism. First thing one notices when they go to k6ka's talk page are multiple notices that would help new editors, which are frequently attracted to vandal-fighters' talk pages. If you visit k6ka's subpages, there are multiple ones that might attract a new user. One that catches the eye is User:K6ka/Becoming a vandal fighter. It is pretty much an unintended, extremely simplified version of User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. With 3 years of activity, a clean blocklog, and exemplary responses in the archives, it is pretty clear that k6ka is civil. I am sure that k6ka would be a great contribution to the mop corps. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you for the nomination. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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 intend on focusing primarily on AIV, as my background on Wikipedia is largely comprised of vandal fighting. I have also reported a number of usernames to UAA, and my background in global renaming will also come in handy there, as I can already process username change requests. I have tried out New Pages Patrolling, but very scantily, and I don't intend on working there anytime soon. I also don't have much interest in working at AFD. I have had experience with the admin tools on Wikia, but Wikia and Wikipedia are two very different places, so expect me to be a bit careful with the tools within the first week of adminship. Of course, I'll ask for help during difficult situations.
EDIT Jan 7 2017: It would seem that there is some misunderstanding about what I mean by expect me to be a bit careful with the tools within the first week of adminship. To clarify, I am not saying "I'll be careful with the tools for the first week and then it's off for a demolition derby!" When I wrote that statement, the idea I originally had in mind is the sort of gingerliness practiced by someone when they are new to something. For example, take someone who is new to driving: they've just gotten into the driver's seat and their entire body is shaking with fear. Once one gets used to and comfortable with driving, however, the prospect of getting behind the wheel becomes much less daunting. The idea is the same here: as a new admin, I may be hesitant to use the tools initially, given the fact that I do not have experience with using them here; however, after using it for a bit, I'll be more comfortable with using them when needed. It does not mean that one isn't careful: a driver that is comfortable behind the wheel must still observe all of the rules on the road and must never drive carelessly; thus a Wikipedia administrator must still observe all of the policies and guidelines and must never brandish their tools wantonly. There are unique circumstances, however, where admins should again be gingerly when using their tools, such as a controversial ANI case that is difficult to resolve; this is much like getting into a car with a severe thunderstorm outside — no matter how experienced the driver is, it is good for them to drive with infinite care. In both cases, it is often better to hold off on using the tools/driving the car, and to avoid basing actions on instinct rather than rational thought. Finally, "first week" is variable, and perhaps it should be more appropriately worded as "for as long as it takes for me to get used to the tools". As aforementioned, it does not mean that I will begin to use the tools recklessly once the timer is up, much like it does not mean that a driver is going to drive like a maniac once they are no longer paranoid of the driver's seat.
Hopefully I've clarified some concerns, and I apologize for any confusion caused. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Much on my work on Wikipedia has been fighting vandalism, and recently I have been very active on WP:CHUS, processing requests there. Before I received global rename, I was a clerk there — a non-admin clerk, admittedly, but the job didn't require the admin bit, and it was really mostly about fixing malformed requests and notifying users about problematic requests.
I will admit that I do not have much content creation tucked under my belt. Most of my non-maintenance edits on Wikipedia have been gnomish work, fixing typos, some copyediting here and there, adding a source, etc. Recently I've been working on Tribu (film), which isn't a particularly *exciting* article, but while it may not meet up to even GA standard, it still looks better than when I first found the article earlier this year.
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've been fairly careful to avoid conflict on Wikipedia, though there have been some shoe scuffs here and there. The most significant of the conflicts I had been involved in took place at Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco about two years ago. I only made one edit to the article in question; I noticed that a substantial part of the article was removed despite being sourced, so I reverted with an explanation. I tried to explain our policies to the editor that got reverted, but as I lacked interest in the subject of the article, I limited my participation on the talk page. There was a resulting edit war on the article, one that I did not partake in, and eventually the editor was blocked per WP:NOTHERE. It did help me familiarize myself with the content policies, and above all it was a very important reminder not to lose one's cool and to always assume good faith, especially if you're telling other editors to do the same. I don't recall too many times where I have been frustrated with an editor, and I'm willing to apologize for any cases where I have snapped, since that's never okay even if I was right.
My only significant appearance on ANI can be found here. It was not a user conduct issue, but a technical one; a glitch in the MediaWiki software resulted in random users being notified about messages left on their talk page even when no such message existed. It just so happened that one of the warnings I (correctly) issued somehow gave an innocent user a notification, and the user got confused and thought something was up. The problem was already being discussed at the correct venues, and was fixed shortly after.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Linguist111
4. You see the following usernames at UAA or in the new users log. None of the users have edited yet. What do you do?
  • JulieLejeune&MelissaRusso
  • K7ka
  • SpeedyDelete201
  • DonaldTrumpFan930
  • Jim bo
  • UndoEdits732
  • IWannaBeAnAdminAndSPIClerk
A:
  • JulieLejeune&MelissaRusso: This username is clearly in violation of WP:ISU, as it implies that the account is in use by two or more people. A quick Google search indicates that these two names are real people who are already deceased, so that would also be of something to note, especially if the user chooses to edit articles that are related to the subjects in their username. WP:UAAI states that it is not sufficient to block an account for implied sharing alone, so the best course of action would be to tap the user on the shoulder and inform them about their username, and encourage them to change it.
  • K7ka: A red flag for sure. I'm willing to err on the side of caution and wait for them to edit. If it's clear that they are attempting to impersonate me and are disrupting Wikipedia, I'll block immediately. If they aren't editing, it may be best to AGF and leave them a note advising them about the similarities between our usernames.
  • SpeedyDelete201: May count as a misleading username as it appear[s] similar to naming conventions used by community administrative processes. If they aren't editing disruptively I'd softblock and encourage them to change their username.
  • DonaldTrumpFan930: Nothing inherently wrong with this username, but would monitor this user for any biased/promotional editing. Highly unlikely that they would be blocked for their username, however.
  • Jim bo: May be an intentional reference to Jimbo Wales, and may also be perfectly innocent; their nickname (or real name) may be "Jimbo" or "Jim Bo" and there's nothing wrong with that. Would monitor for inappropriate edits, however.
  • UndoEdits732: Much like "SpeedyDelete201", it may count as a misleading username and it may imply disruption as well. Again, if there aren't any disruptive edits, I'd softblock and encourage them to change their username.
  • IWannaBeAnAdminAndSPIClerk: This username doesn't seem to be a clear-cut violation of WP:MISLEADNAME, as it makes it fairly clear that it isn't yet an admin or an SPI clerk. It does imply, however, that the person behind the username already has a knowledge of Wikipedia administrators and sockpuppet investigations. I would not block immediately without sufficient evidence; it could be a troll, an actual sockpuppet, or a young, enthusiastic hat collector — best case scenario is that it's nothing harmful at all. Would monitor their activity, and if a block is issued, it would be because of their actions; the username itself is not enough to warrant a block alone.
k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Beyond My Ken
5. In 2013 53% of your edits were to mainspace. In 2014, they fell to 47%, then 43% in 2015, and this year they are a little under 30%. Why is that? What have you been been doing instead of editing the content of the encyclopedia?
A: In 2013 I was still a fairly inexperienced editor, without much knowledge of the Project namespace; as such, I mostly edited mainspace articles. In 2014 and 2015, I focused heavily on vandalism-fighting and patrolling, which created a significant uptick in User talk and Project namespace edits. I did less patrolling in 2016, however, and primarily focused on working at WP:CHU, hence the reduction in mainspace edits. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Ritchie333
6. A brand new user creates an article. Its text in full is "the target roundabout is in west london". What actions, if any, would you take towards this?
A: The article should be left alone for at least ten to fifteen minutes to give the editor some time to expand on it. A1 is not appropriate for this article as there is some context to help editors expand on it, and it is not eligible for A3 as it isn't entirely devoid of content. At the very least parts of the article can be slightly rewritten (e.g. "<Name of roundabout>" is a roundabout in West London"), and a {{Road-stub}} tag can be added. While it may not be eligible for CSD, I may PROD it if I cannot find any reliable sources relating to the subject of the article. In all cases I would ask for a second opinion, though not "formally"; I may either ask an editor who is interested in road-related articles for advice, or I may bring it up on IRC for suggestions from other editors. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Ritchie333
7. An IP adds an infobox to John Le Mesurier with no edit summary. It is quickly reverted by an established editor known for creating multiple featured articles with an edit summary "rvv". A different IP, but clearly a dynamic one allocated to the same ISP, puts the infobox back in, again with no edit summary. The experienced editor reverts with a summary "rv tedious bullshit". The IP re-reverts the infobox with no edit summary again, and it is promptly reverted by the experienced editor with a summary "why don't you fuck off to facebook"; additionally the experienced editor adds {{uw-vandalism4}} to the IP's talk page. You are asked to take a look at the dispute; what actions would you take?
A: The first course of action would be to notify the IP editor about the three revert rule, remind the experienced editor about the consequences for edit warring, and encourage the two to stop editing the article and discuss the changes (politely) on the article's talk page; a handwritten message should be used for the more experienced editor, to avoid templating them. The experienced editor should also be advised to mind their use of language and to avoid telling editors to "fuck off" as this, at the very least, construes incivility and makes consensus-building difficult. It should also be worth mentioning that their use of {{uw-vandalism4}} is grossly inappropriate as edit warring, while disruptive, is not considered to be vandalism, and it is also inappropriate to use considering the IP editor hasn't been issued lower-level warnings before. On the other hand, the IP editor should be advised to also stop edit warring and to discuss their changes on the talk page, and to seek towards achieving a new consensus through civil discussion or to respect existing ones. If the two users persist, I would prefer asking another administrator for a second opinion, especially if this was the first time I was attempting to resolve a potential edit war as an administrator. In all cases, it's best to avoid making any changes to the article that may aggravate the edit war, or would otherwise convince other editors that I was involved in the war. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from WereSpielChequers
8. Two of the opposes mention your level of content contributions, in your answers you mention one article and that sometimes you add a source. Please could you give us a few diffs showing where you have added a source other than to Tribu (film)?
A: I've added some sources to Kabuki, Maya society, Maya script, Maya numerals, Not Giving In, and Toronto Transit Commission, to name a few. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, nice to see someone citing books, do you still have them? In the context of the dispute as to how extensive are your content contributions a few more examples would be welcome. Especially if there are any where you have added content as opposed to checking and sourcing content added by others. ϢereSpielChequers 08:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: Looking at K6ka's most recent edit history, I can see sizable content contribution to Tribu (film). This obviously isn't K6ka's prefered way to contribute, but they have some experience of it. Yaris678 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll have to look through my contributions to find a few more examples, if that's what you were requesting. And to answer your first question: no, I don't have those books; I found them while sitting in my high school's library doing a history assignment (Yes, predictably, it was about the Mayans). I noticed that some things on Wikipedia needed a reference, so I thought "Why not?" and used some of the books I found. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

;Additional question from Hawkeye7

9. The cops knock on your door at 4am to inform you that you, as a Wikipedia admin, have 24 hours to delete an article on a notorious pedophile or you'll be thrown in gaol for contempt of court. Which of our policies and guidelines apply here?
A: Administrator note:Striking this question as it is ridiculous and could be interpreted as trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Beeblebrox for striking out this question. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But didn't something similar happen in France? [1]: Noyster (talk), 10:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's why he added this question. Who knows? The deliberate misspelling of jail rings alarm bells for me, though, and as such I fully endorse the striking of this question. Hawkeye7, I'm disappointed. To think you were once an admin yourself, and ran again this time last year, only for this to happen? Goodness me. Patient Zerotalk 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a misspelling; it's an acceptable alternative spelling.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Patient Zero:, gaol is the most common of the word among Australians, particularly the older generations. See wikt:gaol. Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor involved, Rémi Mathis, was Wikipedian of the Year in 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Tokyogirl79
10. You haven't interacted with AfD much, something that many feel is necessary for an admin. How would this change if you were made an admin? Would you feel comfortable closing an AfD?
A: I am aware of the opposes for my lack of AFD participation, and I am not undermining the importance of AFD; it is a place that needs administrators to keep it humming along smoothly. I have generally avoided AFD due to my lack of interest in that part of Wikipedia, and it's clear that this has caught up with me. I can't say that this will change drastically if this RFA succeeds, but whether I get the mop or not, if I do wish to get involved in AFD, it is important that I remove my administrator hat (If I have one) and put on my editor hat, and participate at AFD as an editor. Only after participating in a sizable number of AFDs ("Sizable" does not mean "Three AFDs and I'm a whiz!"), attaining sufficient experience of the process to know how it's done and what is expected (Content creation helps with this, as many have told me), and having consulted with different editors about my performance will I be comfortable closing an AFD. Lastly, as Wikipedia:Administrators states in its lede: [Administrators] are never required to use their tools, and if there is an AFD that I am genuinely uncomfortable in closing, it may be better to either take off the admin hat and participate as an editor in order to work towards a clearer consensus, or to leave it for another admin to handle. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Tokyogirl79
11. This is a spin-off of my other question. How would you close the following AfDs? You haven't interacted with AfD much, but I figure that we can gauge your experience by seeing how you'd close these AfDs. Something to keep in mind is when the AfDs were held and what the main arguments for or against deletion were. (I'm aware that these are already closed, I just want to see if you agree with the closes and your rationale.)

This one is optional since honestly, it'd make most anyone run for the hills and would take a very seasoned admin to close, my thought is that if you can break this one down then honestly, you can close just about any AfD with ease. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) (Again, not a requirement.)

A:
Additional question from Mike1901
12. There's mention in the Oppose section below about the admin 'hat' being too difficult to remove from you in the (in my view unlikely) event you did anything majorly pear-shaped. Would you be prepared to commit to being open to recall, should this RfA succeed, to help allay this concern?
A: An administrator's accountability for their actions on the project is extremely important, and given how many of the oppose !votes are concerned about my future behaviour, I will admit myself to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall if this RFA succeeds; I have been able to live without the admin bit for my (almost) seven years of volunteering at Wikipedia, and I have no problems with it being removed in the event of my misuse of the tools. I have not drafted a recall criteria yet, but I wish to keep matters simple; Firsfron's criteria looks like a good template to base my criteria on. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional questions from Oshwah
13. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? When should you do so?
A:
14. How could this ANI have been handled better?
A:

Discussion[edit]


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

Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nominator. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I've known K6ka for a while now and I can say, without a doubt, that I would trust them with the admin tool set. Their judgment in matters of renaming prove that they are competent enough to be granted the bit. --Majora (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support – I've interacted with K6ka several times on IRC (often when our names are confused), and they will clearly be a great admin. KSFTC 19:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Lets see how many people say thought he was one already ;) Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    Support. Obvious net positive. k6ka has been trusted with global renamer for a while, which is a right that can crash the site if misused, so he's reached the threshold of trust many times over. As far as competency, every interaction I've had with the candidate has been extremely positive. WP:AIV and WP:UAA both need additional administrators to process things in a timely manner. The former is high-priority, and the latter is chronically backlogged. ~ Rob13Talk 19:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Per xeno. Lourdes 19:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support. Bradv 19:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    To clarify, I have read the concerns expressed below, and I do not share them. It is far more important that an editor be familiar with policy, willing to help new editors, and able to resolve disputes, than that they have created vast amounts of content. Admin tools are specifically not content creation tools. Bradv 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Obvious net-positive. Thought they were one already. Someone should really write an essay about that. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    @AntiCompositeNumber: Ask, and ye shall receive. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  8. Number 10, double-digits! WP:NETPOSITIVE. Happy New Year! Linguist Moi? Moi. 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support clear net–positive. Lepricavark (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support Per Rob13. Clearly deserves the tools. Joshualouie711talk 20:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support - In the nicest possible way this is loooong overdue!, But anywho another excellent candidate who I'm sure will make an excellent admin :), I see no issues here, Good lock. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support About time. Widr (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  13. Absolutely, no qualms at all. — foxj 20:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  14. Support as a well rounded editor with a clear need for the tools. K6ka has a demonstrated civility and the level of clue we should expect from our administrators -- samtar talk or stalk 20:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  15. Support - it would be almost inappropriate to simply say, "we need more admins," because it ignores how strong a candidate K6ka is. I've seen him around plenty and have full faith in his abilities and competence with the mop. Best, GABgab 20:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  16. Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  17. Support Absolutely. Go forth and fix UAA. ;-) Katietalk 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  18. Support – Certainly. Haven't encountered this user before, but he seems to be just what we should be looking for in new admins. United States Man (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  19. Support - Another editor I'm surprised to learn doesn't have the tools. 81k edits, no blocks, strong gnome. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  20. Support I started to write a nomination statement for K6ka over a year ago, but never finished it or presented it to him. Now I won't get the credit as a nominator :( but that's OK, just glad to see this happening! On the counter-vandalism front, K6ka is easily one of the best in the fleet. It only makes sense to give them the block and protect buttons. I can count on two hands instances they've resorted to pinging admins on IRC to protect a page due to rapid influx of vandalism, when the WP:RFPP request had gone unanswered for some time. Clear case of they need the tools, but don't have them, and the project consequently suffers. That's a net-positive, but I think they'll far exceed even that classification. Sure, content creation is important, but the bulk of adminship is about preventing abuse, and that's something K6ka excels at MusikAnimal talk 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    I don't agree with that. Most of my admin work is deleting articles per CSD A7 / G11, but I'm sure the vast majority were created in good faith, so "preventing abuse" is an ill-fitting description. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  21. Support - highly accomplished for his age! Bearian (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  22. Support strong candidate Dschslava Δx parlez moi 21:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  23. Strong support Lucky 25? Wow! I reached out to k6ka just last week regarding them considering adminship. After writing a nomination, a few editors approached me cautioning k6ka's range of experience, etc. Second-guessing prospects, I told k6ka that I would nominate after a bit more of time. In the same boat as you, Musik. Clearly, I have no second thoughts about this support. Well deserved, and Happy New Year k6ka! --JustBerry (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  24. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  25. Strong support Absolutely! I've seen k6ka on ClueBot's talk page many a time. Always applies logic, common sense and keeps a calm head with awkward editors--5 albert square (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  26. Support. Wow, what a great New Year this is turning into! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support An excellent editor! I've interacted with him many times on IRC, and he's very competent, skilled, and kind. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support Competent editor, who is a net positive. We need more vandal fighters with the tool set, and K6ka is a great example of what we need in administrators. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support no obvious issues. Looks to be a net-positive. No objections to giving them the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support - k6ka is a net positive and definitely worthy of the mop. He has an established track record with the community in vandal fighting and solid decision making. -- Dane talk 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support. Good editor, very helpful, responsible, and friendly from personal interaction Sn1per (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  32. Very Strong 100,000,000 Million Billion Trillion Times Support Support. k6ka if you are reading this, IMO you should have been admin two years ago. You're a very nice user who is kind and welcoming to everyone, and is always calm, but you also help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism and do a very good job at it. I admire your sense of humor sometimes. I think you are about one of five or six people I can personally say this about. epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC) And he's only a year older than me. I like that. More young editors here. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I trust you mean more young mature editors - if Wikipedia became full of teenagers high-fiving each other with vandalism barnstars I think a sizeable portion of editors would leave. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    On a tangent to Ritchie333's comment, according to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, the "average Wikipedian" is between ages 15 through 49. What we really need is more contributors over the age of 50 in order to balance the age pool. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: Are you saying it isn't? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I almost never add a comment among the !votes but here I thought I would post agreement with Ritchie333's comment about maturity. I think that especially young administrator candidates do need to definitely prove themselves before being favorably considered here. I was aware of K6ka's age when I placed my support so I think he qualifies in regard to maturity and having proved himself. I am glad to see Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's comments in support along these lines. Also, FWIW, the surveys concerning the average age of Wikipedians are from 2005 if I read the paragraphs about them correctly. Even if valid then, there has been plenty of turnover in users since then. The surveys, even if a valid picture of the age distribution in 2005, may not tell much about the current age distribution of regular contributors. It certainly does not exclude the fact that there are some number, perhaps many, older contributors. It seems to me that most current users do not disclose their age so no valid estimate of age distribution could be made from the ages of those that do. In addition to knowing the age of those whose ages are disclosed, I do think that occasionally one can make a good guess about a user's age. Again, that may only be relevant if there is a demonstration or suspicion of immaturity or inexperience. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    From the limited evidence of Wikimeetup/Wikimania photos and those who do identify their age or stage of life and the types of discussions that take place here, the vibe I get is that the average Wikipedian has aged significantly from 2005 to 2017. Many prolific school or college student editors from 12 years ago have full-time jobs, are at an important stage in their careers, have become or are already parents with further responsibilities and are therefore, no longer as active. Meanwhile, the increasingly retired baby boomers are more computer literate than their counterparts in 2005, and with a rise in spare time edit much more here. Gizza (t)(c) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    There was an editor survey circa 2009/10 since then we know the community has aged - you only have to consider the hundreds of still active admins who are now six years older than they were six years ago to prove that. The issue we can't be sure of is whether we are only aging a year per year or whether the combination of the rise of the silver surfers and the loss of the latest generation of screenagers to smartphones means "the greying of the pedia" we are aging by more than a year per year. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support. K6ka has the demeanor and calm composure to be a good administrator. I have noticed K6Ka's work almost from the beginning. I have had friendly interactions with K6ka. Great in the counter-vandalism area where 24/7 vigilance is needed so extra administrators paying attention to it are needed as well. Good experience so knows policies and the purpose of the project. Very well qualified editor. I am fully confident that K6ka will seek to learn about and seek advice about any new areas of work. Has shown trustworthiness and has earned unqualified support. Donner60 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  34. Support more admins is always a good thing especially ones who want to handle AIV/UAA. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  35. Oppose - proven to be power-hungry on IRC. Support - Looks good to me. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  36. Support - clearly is trusted enough to hold sysop rights here, given their (formerly) bureaucrat-level rights across all Wikimedia projects. Also has some use for the bit! Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support- Its great to make my first edit of 2017 supporting k6ka! I first ran into him in July when he helped me with the renaming process and he's one of those people who I thought they were already an admin! He's trusted with global tools too, so why not? It may be time to remove the "I'm not an admin" bit from your talk page notice😉 Happy new year! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 01:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  38. Meh- --Stemoc 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Stemoc: Would you mind elaborating? --JustBerry (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  39. Candidate appears competent at their planned areas of activity. I will however note my discomfort with part of the answer to Q6--IRC should in my opinion never be used as a substitute for on-wiki communication, particularly where new users are involved and we should be trying to make our process and policies as clear and straightforward as possible. C628 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  40. Support - Easy decision. Surprised K6ka hasn't already been granted adminship. Kurtis (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  41. Support No issue. -- ferret (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  42. Support. No concerns. Have had good interactions with this editor. K6ka does good work. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  43. Support – K6ka is one of the most seasoned vandalism patrollers on the project. He avoids drama, is experienced in the various janitorial areas of the project, and is appropriately cautious about using administrative functions in areas where he is unfamiliar. I had a memorable interaction with K6ka way back in March 2014 while we were fighting vandalism together on Huggle – he is invariably the one who beats you to the revert button (and never inappropriately). K6ka has a friendly, mature temperament, and if he ever makes a mistake, he is of the kind to admit it and ensure that it never happens again. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  44. Absolutely. Without hesitation - K6 will be a benefit to the project. SQLQuery me! 03:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  45. Support per strong nomination, benevolent intent, and abundance of clue.--John Cline (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  46. Support another great editor whose successful adminship will give Wikipedia a boost in the right direction. Gizza (t)(c) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  47. Support I've seen K6ka around RFA and AIV for quite some time. I was very tempted to ask them to explain in their own words the difference between a block and a ban. Other comments like this fill me with confidence. Growing the Canadian admin cabal one qualified candidate at a time. Mkdw talk 05:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  48. Support WP:TTWOA! K6 is an amazing editor who should have earned this position a long time ago. JTP (talkcontribs) 05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  49. Support - A great user, very helpful and polite. Definitely, without hesitation --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  50. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  51. Support clueful and civil, wants to fight vandals and work in backlogged areas? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  52. Support no issues here, knowledgeable and recognises that asking for advice is a good idea. Yet another editor I thought was already an admin. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  53. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  54. Strong support Jianhui67 TC 07:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the throng of opposes coming in, I think I have to reaffirm my support. K6ka is always reverting vandalism and reporting vandals to AIV. I believe that he would be an asset to the community if he is given the tools. We need more admins to work on vandalism control. K6ka has my trust. I agree with the supports above and below me. Jianhui67 TC 15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  55. Support So often people whose primary contributions are anti-vandalism get pushed to the side. Eric-Wester (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Support Now I have to be honest and say that K6ka is quite a different character to myself and we probably have different views on what's important around here. However, after a thorough look and tackling the questions (loosely based on real world events), I can't do anything other than support. My advice : don't spend all your time at AIV as false positive mistakes will acrue you enemies, and treat the so-called "content creators" with respect and handle tricky situations carefully and diligently. And the Target Roundabout really does exist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC) (moved to oppose)
  56. Support – K6ka impressed me when I welcomed him to Wikipedia and advised him about how to deal with vandalism, and I've continued to be impressed by him ever since. Graham87 10:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  57. Support: candidate has demonstrated trustworthiness as a global renamer and I have no reason to believe this will not continue when an admin. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 10:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  58. Support - old cliché, I know, but I thought they already were an admin. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 11:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  59. Support - Didn't think he was one already but he clearly should be one. I trust him not to dive head over heels in new admin territory and/or make painful mistakes. Yintan  12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  60. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU () 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  61. Support as K6ka appears thoroughly experienced in the areas in which he intends to do adminship work and trustworthy. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  62. Support: Trustworthy - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  63. Support - outstanding editor. I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. YITYNR My workWhat's wrong? 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  64. Support. He's shown responsibility and maturity during his time here, and I can think of no reason why he wouldn't make a great admin. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 16:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  65. Support, great responses to situation questions and a good plan laid out by the candidate of what they will do when they do get the mop. Icebob99 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  66. Support - Favourable impression of k6ka from previous encounters. Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  67. Support - clueful candidate. Risker (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  68. Support A quick check of this user's contributions does not raise any red flags but instead demonstrates the reliable and clueful wikignoming this project needs as well as content creators. To the opposing users, let me just remind you, that administrators need content awareness, not content creation to do a good job. The admin's symbol is a mob and not a pen for a reason. Plus, they wouldn't be the first user to start content creation after becoming an admin. I am surely not a prolific writer but even I have 31 DYK credits under my belt - each and every one created after I became an admin. Those obsessed with a candidate's content creation imho fail to understand what adminship is and is not about. Requiring admins to be great content creators is like requiring museum janitors to be great artists. I don't think any museum does that. So why should we? Regards SoWhy 20:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sure that you meant "mop" and not "mob", but I cannot help but to think that it was a very apt slip instead of a typo. (Said purely in a friendly and humorous way, and not intended as a criticism or a gotcha.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  69. Support Certainly a trustful user. GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  70. Support no concerns whatsoever, seems like an ideal candidate. st170e 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  71. Support It's unusual for a candidate to actually be nominated by a bureaucrat, let alone a trusted editor. With that kind of trust, it's certainly a win-win situation as far as I know. Minima© (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  72. Support I cannot see anything that worries me. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  73. If adminship were a "perfect editor" award, I'd oppose this nomination over the lack of content work. Since it's not, that would be silly. You don't suddenly achieve wiki-enlightenment after your 3rd DYK about a train station or mushroom species. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  74. Support. I see no cause for concern. -- Tavix (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  75. Support Candidate explicitly states that they do not intend to work in AfD or NPP. Content creation and AfD work aren't needed to block users at AIV and UAA. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  76. Support Whilst I generally insist on content creation before the mop should be handed out, here we've got an editor who has a clear track record in areas where admin tools would be most helpful. If I may offer some advice: should your bid be successful, it would be best not to stray into admin areas where more content creation is helpful for having a better understanding of policy and context. Also, it may lessen the concern that some editors have already expressed through oppose votes, if you were to make a statement regarding Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. But I for one are convinced that having you on the sysop team would be a plus for the WP community. Schwede66 23:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  77. Support Babymissfortune 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  78. Support as a clear net positive, and from my many great interactions with him. K6ka is a wonderful editor, and would be a great addition to the administrator team. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  79. Support per SoWhy and WP:CANCC. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  80. Support There are multiple paths to becoming a good administrator; content work is valuable, but gnomish work is valuable too, and I see no reason to keep a good editor from getting the bit because they favor one over the other. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  81. Support I think they would be the perfect addition to the admin team. Content creation is not a prerequisite for adminship, IMHO. --Adam in MO Talk 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  82. Support no concerns, good anti-vandal record Atlantic306 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  83. Strong Support. K6ka is an editor whose name frequently appears in my Watchlist warning vandals. He ought to have the prerogative to block vandals himself.– Gilliam (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  84. Support - some editors create articles, others improve them, others like deleting them. The opposers favouring one of these over the other is ridiculous. K6ka is clearly here to build something for the tools will help them do that. No concerns. GiantSnowman 10:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  85. Support precious fighting vandalism with music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  86. Support Solid candidate despite the modest content contributions. Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  87. Support. Would have co-nominated them myself if I had had more time lately. Ks0stm (TCGE) 17:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  88. Support: I usually favor some content creation, but the nearly 30,000 reverts and prolific counter-vandalism work far outweighs that concern. Esquivalience (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  89. Support. The opposers make some sense. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that somebody 'gets' what we're doing here and has demonstrated at least basic editing skills. We need our administrators to be able to tell the difference between vandalism and constructive edits, between reliable and unreliable sources, between neutral editing and POV pushing; and we need them to be able to respond appropriately. But I believe K6ka has demonstrated those abilities through seven years of editing. I was on the fence at first, but the answer Q8 swung me firmly into the support column: the edits to Maya society, Maya script, and Maya numerals show that he is willing and able to do some research and find a reliable source for something rather than robotically tagging and moving on. That's enough for me. It's true that that is the primary purpose of Wikipedia whereas K6ka tends to focus on secondary activities, but we're all volunteers and we focus on what we're interested in, and nobody sensibly doubts that maintenance and vandal-fighting need to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  90. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88talk 20:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  91. Strong support based on my prior interactions with this user. Easily gonna be a good admin. Gestrid (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  92. Clueful, easy to work with. --Rschen7754 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  93. Support. Kishka! :D Someone give this man a mop. -- œ 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  94. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The more admins around, the less of a 'special status' it'll seem.--v/r - TP 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Just in case this goes to a 'crat chat, I want to make it clear that I have read the opposes and I am reaffirming my support.--v/r - TP 00:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  95. Support I've had the opportunity to interact with the candidate on IRC and on the project. They consistently make high quality edits and their work in clerking leads me to believe that they have both a need for the tools and the responsibility to handle them. AlexEng(TALK) 00:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  96. Support. I've had to think hard about this one, but I'm ending up supporting pretty much per HJ Mitchell. On the one hand, I see no problem with what the candidate says on their user page about content creators and admins. I'm definitely not a stickler for content creation, but I think that quite a few oppose comments are valid to the extent that there really is awfully little experience in content matters. (The diffs about giving incorrect advice to new editors are pretty old, from 2014.) I looked at the ANI thread linked in the answer to Q3, and had a moment of cognitive dissonance over all those links dated later in 2017, but I would have been happier if the candidate had been a little more communicative about feeling bad about the glitch. So I've wondered if this is someone who lacks the communication skills that admins need, and also lacks enough experience in content disputes beyond just vandalism reverts. So my advice is to not overreach, just focus on using the tools in the spirit of "mopping" rather than mediating or enforcing complex disputes. And that said, I trust the noms enough to believe that there won't be overreach, and I see this as a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  97. Support - k6ka is a solid wiki gnome. I'm sure they'll be a fantastic addition the admin team. Auror Andrachome (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  98. Support following a modest review of contributions, Q&A, etc. --joe deckertalk 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  99. Support - I have no major concerns, and the concerns about not enough content creation are of no concern to me with respect to this user. The answers to the questions thus far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  100. Support - WP:NETPOSITIVE, and I trust that the user will use the tools they know how to use, and seek help if they come across a situation they don't feel comfortable with. PGWG (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  101. It's no surprise that I've always been against the notion that editors have to only write articles and do nothing else here to be admins. Wizardman 02:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  102. Support K6ka reminds me of me in a way. Not a lot of content creation, but knows good content, and does a lot to help the project. Would be a solid choice as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  103. Support Competent editor. I've seen K6ka a lot around here and have always been shocked that he isn't an admin. Music1201 talk 02:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Music1201: It's "he", actually. I'm a male, and I identify myself as such. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    @K6ka: That was a typo, my apologies. Music1201 talk 02:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  104. Support. As Ritchie333 states in his oppose: ’’teenagers high-fiving each other with vandalism barnstars ‘’ happened to be also the reason the WP:CVUA was closed down a few years ago and re-started again from scratch, so I do have a certain foreboding of people who started their Wiki career before they were old enough to wear long trousers. Fortunately this not the case here and K6ka obviously does not appear to have been working towards adminship, but oddly that brings me to the essence of my concern: mainly, but mot only, the lack of article creation. There are a few valid points in the oppose section coming from people I enjoy working with, while other comments there I take with a pinch of salt. Failing widely to meet my criteria largely because some of the items the list are conditional on others (conundrum: you can’t be classed as a bad driver if you’ve never driven a car and don't know the difference between a clutch pedal and a rear view mirror), I could nevertheless not come up with the kind of flimsy cause to oppose as one of our regular oppose voters is wont to do. I therefore put my trust in Xeno whose opinions I trust and respect, and HJ Mitchell (who also ought to be a 'crat by now) who makes the most valid statement, in the knowledge that K6ka is almost certainly going to be a net positive and will probably not find himself at the centre of too much drama in horrible places such as ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  105. Support as nominator. –xenotalk 06:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  106. Support Very much a capable editor Nördic Nightfury 08:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  107. Support - oppose rationales are unconvincing. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  108. Support, nothing wrong with having more good vandal fighters as admins. —Kusma (t·c) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  109. Support, why not? --Vituzzu (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  110. Support as my default stance since I see no reason to oppose, considering that I am unconvinced to do so per the "Oppose" section below. From what I can ascertain, this nominee definitely has enough clue to where I could trust them with the toolset. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  111. Support per HJ. Although I'd like to see more content work and less reliance on IRC, IMO the candidate is a net positive. Miniapolis 14:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  112. Support fully qualified candidate. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  113. Support I concur with those below who say that the (complete) lack of content work is a concern if using the tools in certain areas, but UAA and AIV are not those areas and I trust that they won't get involved in areas without the required experience. As such, k6ka gets my support. Mike1901 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  114. Support Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  115. Support. While I understand the objections from those who are concerned about the amount of content creation, the reality is that we need admins like this. Here's someone who can clearly be trusted to help in areas they understand and not to cause problems in areas that they don't understand (until they take the time to understand them). That's the right attitude, and enough for me to support. agtx 17:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  116. Support - it boils down to trust. I've read the opposes, and there is some merit there. K6ka is a long-term, valuable vandal-fighter. They have demonstrated plenty of clue in the areas in which they wish to use extra tools, and I see no evidence they would do otherwise. Therefore I see K6ka with the tools as something that would make this project better. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  117. Support. The candidate's focus on gnoming might be a concern, but his answers to content-related questions above would suggest that this candidate will become a net positive admin. Deryck C. 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  118. Support: Content creation is helpful, but is only one of many qualities that make a good administrator. K6ka seems to be competent and trustworthy.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  119. Support: A solid candidate. I see no problem with his limited content creation; the content creators one again seek to create a caste system, then use it to keep worthy candidates from holding the tools. --Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  120. Weak support as a net positive. I am deeply concerned about the limited content creation, but I cannot justify to myself opposition on that alone given the stellar contributions in the more gnomish aspects. I think the candidate will use the tools well, but I really hoe once this is done that they go and write an article. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  121. Support Solid candidate whose contributions I've admired for a while now. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  122. Support Based on WP:NETPOSITIVE. There are some powerful arguments in the oppose camp, and equally compelling arguments in support, with highly respected colleagues on both sides of the debate. The bottom line is, is the nom going to lose it at 4am and blank the main page, or block much of Western Europe? Probably not. I would strongly advise the candidate to seriously get some content creation under their belt. There are many prolific content creators who are also admins. It is not necessarily an "and/or" situation. This was quite the most difficult of the rich crop of RfA's to !vote on. Oddly, this unprecedented glut of serious RfA's both in quality and number has also made the !voting community step up a gear, and I am seeing far more well-reasoned debate, and a lack of nasty crap. Odd. Should future RfA's be run in batches of at least 3 runs simultaneously? It seems to improve the atmosphere and debate. Irondome (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  123. Support, no evidence that this user would misuse the tools. I've always been a bit baffled by the idea that heavy content creation should be mandatory for a role that doesn't involve the creation of content. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
  124. Support While content creation is a plus, its absence is not a disqualifying factor for someone who can obviously be trusted with the tools. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  125. Support. Trustworthy, sensible, and pretty much certainly going to be competent with the tools. Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  126. Support Opposes have a valid point. I'm not sure where the content creation bar should be, but someone who hasn't done significant writing here is likely to run into content disputes that they have a harder time relating to. But I think will be a net positive. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  127. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  128. Support Afaik, one of the most active renamer, while he's not a bureaucrat, due to the policy. He already do a bureaucrat job while not an administrator on any wiki? Outrageus!--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  129. Support Even the encyclopedia anyone can edit shouldn't demand that admins must be writers. However, please do try and do more content work if at all possible.--MONGO 17:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  130. Support Although he hasn't participated in a lot of AfDs, his response to my question about what he'd do after gaining the tools is very well written and thought out. I feel confident that he will use the tools properly if he passes this RfA. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  131. Support He has a demonstrated history of trustworthy work in an area few of us are familiar with. He intends to use the tools primarily in an area (AIV) where we need experienced help. Unlike many in the oppose section, I don't think that article creation is a bright-line requirement for admins; we have room for a variety of talents in our admin pool, and K6ka has demonstrated that he has that talent. I believe it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to give him the tools. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  132. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log. Dissent seems to revolve around lack of new content creation, which I don't care about much in an administrator, particularly when we're dealing with a self-described vandal fighter — nobody needs the tools more; frankly, content people chasing the kit are just trying to get stroked by their peers as often as not... 81K edits, more than 30K to mainspace is more than sufficient. Carrite (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  133. Support Excellent candidate, Clear net positive, opposes are unconvincing - we need vandal fighters just as much as we need content creators, and I trust the candidate to remain within his area of competence. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  134. Support per lack of any reason given to oppose. --B (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  135. Support as a clear net positive. More content creation would be nice, but can be trusted with a mop based on skills and demeanor. — soupvector (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  136. Support - or rather a strong support if it makes it any different. I understand why it is important for admins to have knowledge about content creation but I don't believe that a lack of it will hamper K6ka's abilities as an admin in any way. He's a fantastic candidate who has shown an extremely well understanding of the policies. He's level-headed, calm, dedicated and has shown a lot of clue. He undoubtedly will not be anything less than a stellar admin. Yash! 03:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  137. Weakly. I've been on the fence about this because I'd prefer to see some evidence of content creation, even if very little (it's our main mission!), but xeno's nomination statement swayed me in the end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  138. Support I think it's good to have a wide range of administrators with different skill sets. The key issue is whether making them an administrator would be a net benefit, and it appears to be the case here from what I've seen. South Nashua (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  139. Support - I was on the fence, but since K6ka has stated a willingness to be open to recall, I can support. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  140. Support I believe that k6ka will be a cautious and valuable administrator, and while I would be a much stronger supporter if he had made any effort to have some content creation under his belt before running, I don't see that as a sufficient reason to oppose giving him the extra tools. K6ka has stated quite convincingly that he has no plans to work in the areas he is not currently completely qualified for, is happy to query other administrators, and is open to recall, and that puts me at ease. Sam Walton (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  141. Support Lots of clue, no concerns. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 16:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  142. Support - Marvellous Spider-Man 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  143. Support - I am confident that giving this editor additional tools will benefit the project. Mamyles (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  144. Support. This editor having the tools will be a net benefit. bd2412 T 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  145. Support As I said below, an editor with this record of wikignoming is a praiseworthy addition to admin ranks. I'm not concerned about the supposed negatives previously raised in light of their answers above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  146. Support - Lots of excellent gnomish contributions and shows a very good grasp of policies and guidelines. Yaris678 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  147. Support I waffled a lot on this one, and I think there are some valid concerns in the oppose section that I hope k6ka takes no board, but on balance I'm in the support column. He has a solid record of good work in renaming (where there really are consequences for screwups, unlike many admin errors!) and his intended areas of focus with the tools use similar skillsets. We have plenty of gnomish admins who don't have the "wikicop" mentality Iridescent describes (and which I agree is a problem), and I don't see enough evidence here that k6ka is an unusual risk for developing that problem. I'd certainly encourage him to steer clear of blocking established editors or getting too involved in "civility enforcement", but then, I'd encourage all admins to do that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  148. Support. I can't recall having ever run across k6ka before; but I disagree with the emphasis on "content creation" expressed by most of the opposers, and I see nothing in k6ka's edit history that would justify an oppose. Deor (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  149. Support. I was curious to see how he'd respond to Oshwah's questions, but I don't think I need to see an answer to them to know that this is a trustworthy and mature editor. I'm not worried that he'll go mad with power. The offer of recall shows a willingness to listen to community input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  150. Support - as per WP:NETPOSITIVE J947 23:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  151. Support - he has most of the technical skills we depend heavily upon. Rjensen (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  152. Support because opposes which are solely due to lack of article creation are entirely unconvincing. Adminship is not a reward for writing new content, it's a janitorial duty that someone has to do to keep the place clean so the so-called content creators can be off doing their content creation thing without being mired in vandals and sockpuppets and POV warriors and blatant spam and pages that need to be moved and discussions that never get closed and whatever other clean-up tasks get in the way. k6ka's behind-the-scenes non-content contributions are stellar, and that's what we ought to be talking about. I get that there's an expectation that admins should understand content creation, but I haven't seen anyone here come up with any kind of good reason to suspect that k6ka does not. His one mentioned substantial contribution took Tribu (film) from looking like this to looking like this over a fairly concentrated and extended period of time. Yeah, it's not terribly special, but it's just fine for what it is, and it's good enough to show he knows how to lay out an article and fix problems. Plus I fully expect to see him flying the maple leaf from his mop. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  153. Support - I see nothing in the answers or history to cause me to oppose, and I still strongly object to the "oppose because they don't create content". We need content creators. We need administrators. Taking content creators and getting them to create less and admin more seems... unwise.Shajure (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  154. Support, although lack of AfD participation, or indeed any contested discussion participation, is a concern should he wear an admin hat and suddenly start closing AfD or other discussions. However, A10 sufficiently addresses this concern. His CSD logs and PROD logs are sufficiently red, but as per the AfD concern, I hope he doesn't jump in to too easily delete CSD tagged pages. I am confident that he we contribute usefully in areas of his experience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  155. Support - I like the answers the candidate has given, and I object to the notion of several of the opposers that article creation is necessary for adminship. If anything, once an administrator starts janitorial duties, content contributions decrease anyway (as happened for me after my successful RfA). We need content creators, and we need admins, but we don't necessarily need both in the same package. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  156. Support - I have worked with him as steward and global renamer and he does a great job. Intelligent guy working hard to improve the wiki. -- Taketa (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  157. Support - The anti-non-content-creator vote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  158. Support no evidence provided by any opposition that this editor would break Wikipedia if given the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  159. Support. My best days of content creation came long after I got the mop. I hope I don't ever cross the streams of administrator and editor/content creator; they're different roles altogether. So long as the user is sane it shouldn't be a problem. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  160. Support—candidate seems appropriately competent in those areas he is active in (and, unsurprisingly, less competent, or less provenly competent, in areas he does not intend to be active in). Amisom (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  161. Support While the lack of article work (article talk in particular) is a concern, I really don't see this editor being a problematic admin. --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  162. Support As a net positive Kharkiv07 (T) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  163. Support. While content creation is important, it is not a deal-breaker for me. I believe K6ka will be a valuable and trustworthy admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  164. Support (moved from Neutral). Having taken the time to read what has happened since I voted, I am moving here for two reasons. First, K6ka has just over three years of active editing experience with no major controversies (I am not counting the time before October/November 2013). While he may not have demonstrated article experience, I think he has been around long enough to have picked up on how these areas work and how to properly assess the need for administrative action in those areas. Why I think that leads me to my second reason. He has expressed self-awareness about his strengths, weaknesses, and willingness to listen to the community as shown in the answers to Q11, Q12, and taking the time to consider Oshwah’s complex questions as seen in this edit. Considering said questions directly relate to where K6ka intends to work, I will be keeping an eye on the answers to those questions and reserve the right to change my vote accordingly; however, I suspect that the answer will only further prove what I have written here. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  165. Support. Appears to have the necessary skills and experience to properly use admin tools, and too many of the oppose !votes appear to be based on failure to engage in social networking here rather than legitimate criteria. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  166. Support. I have found K6ka very helpful. He has very useful skills, no reason to oppose. MB 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  167. A clueful and experienced candidate. Re the Oppose arguments, the Teahouse related edits from 2014 may demonstrate that the candidate wasn't ready in 2014, and might have been relevant in early 2015. It is 2017, to convince people that a candidate is inexperienced now you need edits from a lot less than two years ago (fine to go back two years for examples of badfaith editing as that is less subject to change, inexperience tends to be resolved by experience). Content contributions seem thin and the community is divided as to how much one needs - with the addition of the answer to my question the candidate meets my criteria and even cites things to real books. I believe he meets the criteria of a large majority here, but I'd emphasise to him and to future candidates watching the need to demonstrate that you can add reliable sources to Wikipedia. Ideally in your answer to q2. Others oppose because the candidate has never started a new article. I'm usually reckoned one of the more inclusionist wikipedians, but even as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron I think that is going too far. I'm just as happy with RFA candidates who rescue or work on articles others have started. I don't think that starting new articles is an essential experience for an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  168. 'Support I do find K6Ka contributing significantly to this encyclopedia. I think he is ready for the role. CLCStudent (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    @CLCStudent: Again, I'm a male, so that should be "he", not "she". (Or was that a typo?)k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  169. Support - Good editor, no worries here, give them a mop and get to work :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  170. Support No reason to oppose think he quite deserves the tool Mahveotm (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  171. Support with severe reservations. I agree with most of the reasons listed in the "opposes" but the thing that put me in "support" is he clearly understands where his experience lies and where it does not lie and his answers give me every reason to think he will avoid making naive mistakes in areas where he is inexperienced. In short: He will use the mop well in those areas where he can use it correctly and he won't break the wiki by using it incorrectly in other areas. I hope I don't have to eat my words. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  172. Support One of the names I see most often reverting damage to articles, more power to his elbow. "We already have enough admins on vandalism duty" - don't buy it. Not as if we were running out of office space. Much of the opposition seems unfair, outdated or inapplicable. I'd add, though, that it would be great to see K6 broaden the range of his activities here; confident he is well capable of doing this: Noyster (talk), 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  173. Support Would be a great addition to anti vandal admins.  {MordeKyle  01:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  174. Support - net positive. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  175. Support After reading through K6ka's answers and the many opinions left on this page, I'm convinced giving K6ka the mop would benefit the project. He seems to have a cool head and to highly value civility, both absolutely essential for admins. I'm not concerned with his lack of content creation. Building an encyclopedia requires volunteers to do a huge variety of tasks. If K6ka is volunteering to do some of those tasks (and he seems well-suited to do so), I'm happy to have him. Ajpolino (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  176. Support - I can find no reason to withhold the mop from this user. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  177. Support. No reason to believe this user will delete the mainpage. I choose not to oppose the editor merely because they do not edit the way I do, or the way others wish. A delay of six months won't necessarily improve this candidate. BusterD (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  178. Support gives off a good impression and I can't find any good reason to oppose. I don't think additional content creation would make the candidate a better administrator - there are no admin tasks which involve writing content and the skills it improves are either ones which aren't relevant to admin work or ones which can be picked up in many other ways. I honestly think it's mostly asked for here for political reasons (the Wikipedia equivalent of expecting someone to know the price of milk). Lack of AfD experience would be a problem if the candidate was intending to work at AfD, but they aren't and they have the necessary judgement to stay away until they have more experience. I've been an admin for a long time and there are still many admin tasks I have no experience of and would approach very cautiously if I had to. Hut 8.5 11:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Support as candidate appears responsible and sufficiently experienced. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sure K6ka appreciates the support, but you've expressed it already - see #61 above. WJBscribe (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  179. Support All my interactions with the candidate (IRC) have been positive and they're a genuinely helpful user. Penskins (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  180. Support As vandalism is a key threat to Wikipedia, this user's administrative actions will clearly be of great service to the encyclopedia. Poltair (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  181. Support—net positive. I doubt the candidate will start some kind of war against content creators. —MartinZ02 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  182. Support - willing to do some admins tasks that are often backlogged. Give them a chance, they seem able enough and smart enough to not break anything. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  183. Support; candidate looks like he'll be a benefit, and last time I checked, there wasn't a policy requiring extensive content creation for new admins. I see no reason to expect that the tools will be abused, and since we don't have a limit on the number of admins, adding another will be helpful. And as someone who's faced the possibility of Hawkeye7's hypothetical situation (it ended up not happening, but I requested de-admin in February 2015 so I couldn't be forced to do something), I'd encourage you to think how you'd respond if real-life pressure came. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7's question was about which policies and guidelines apply in such a case, not how the candidate would react. Afaik there is not a single page which gives advice to admins on what to do when the police comes knocking IRL, is there? (if there isn't, someone should really create one) And seeing how most people confronted with police asking them to do something are more than willing to comply without questioning their right to ask it (speaking from professional experience as a lawyer who has far too often seen a client happily confess everything to the police and then seek legal counsel), I don't think there is any "right" answer to the question you pose. It really depends on the circumstances, the country the candidate lives in, their personal background handling such requests from official sources etc. But if there is no right or wrong answer, the answer to the question might be interesting in a philosophical way but also skew the results of an RfA without the candidate being able to avoid it and thus should be avoided. Regards SoWhy 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  184. Support Candidate has my trust. SpencerT♦C 15:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  185. Support 75,000+ edits of solid maintenance! jni (delete)...just not interested 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  186. Support Lack of content creation is perhaps unusual, but that's not relevant to an RfA. Κσυπ Cyp   17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  187. Support. I generally look for bad things candidates have done before I compose a rationale opposing them. Most on the opposition side of this are criticizing the candidate for what they have not done, and I find the few criticisms for actions in the candidate's core competency areas (vandalism patrol and user names) totally unpersuasive. My routine patrol of the noticeboards for questionable behavior came up empty. Answers to questions above are satisfactory. I trust that K6ka will not step on the toes of content creators. As long as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" we'll need contributors like this, and I'm grateful we have them. I'm giving K6ka a pass on content-creation because they are an 18 year-old student, and hoping that by the time they've graduated they will have developed a bit more academic research and writing skills, such that they may contribute more in that area in the future. wbm1058 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  188. Support I fully endorse the idea expressed by numerous editors below that administrators should have significant content creation experience, and I hope that's something that potential nominators and nominees take on-board for future RfAs - do some article work - get some DYKs, maybe a GA or two, perhaps populate a featured list or two, that sort of thing, before running. It's essential that candidates have a good grasp on sources, can write in a neutral one and can understand concerns expressed by those who focus extensively on writing, something that is virtually impossible to determine without significant mainspace contributions. The only reason I'm supporting is because I've chatted with K6ka online and I've been able to satisfy myself personally that they can be trusted with the toolset. If I wasn't satisfied I would be very firmly opposing. Nick (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  189. Support as a net positive. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Insufficient experience of content creation. The candidate has never created an article, does not have autopatrolled status and so has little to show in Q2. Clerking does not seem to be an adequate substitute. Andrew D. (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Now that you mention it, he has no experience deleting stuff either or blocking, 0 deletes and 0 blocks, soooo unqualified to be an admin, I wonder what i was thinking when I 'Meh'ed him ..--Stemoc 11:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Editors can get experience of deletion policy by attending AfD, for example. But the candidate only seems to have participated in three AfD discussions and that also seems inadequate. Andrew D. (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I know it's fashionable to dump on Andrew D at RfA these days, but he has a valid point here. I am certainly uncomfortable about people who file an RfA specifically for the block button, which is the most contentious tool of the whole lot. My take on it is that I don't expect K6ka to get involved in difficult content disputes or closing AfDs as it's not his area of interest, and I'm sure that if he did, a quiet word asking him to get more experience in the area would be probably work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    For the record, K6ka does indeed have autopatrolled status, and has had it for a little less than a year now. GFOLEY FOUR!— 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good point. What is the explanation for it? Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Gilliam granted it, ask him. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Gilliam has supported but has not yet commented on this aspect so I took a look at what was happening. Gilliam seems to grant such permissions frequently to recent changes patrollers. This doesn't seem to relate to activity on site such as WP:PERM so I suppose that related communication happens in some other forum such as IRC. Another user who was granted autopatrolled rights in a similar way at that time was Helpsome. They had actually created some articles though not as many as the suggested standard of 25. They all seem to be about buddhism and the first example is Tsadra Foundation. This seems somewhat promotional in tone and so my impression is that the granting of autopatrolled status was premature. But admins can grant such permissions at their discretion. When you grant admin rights, you are giving privileged keys not just to that person, but to a potentially unlimited number of other users too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox has now removed autopatrolled rights from the candidate describing this as an "obvious error". Of course, if they become an admin they will get these rights again and many more besides. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    The full comment: Per the comments in the oppose section, I have removed the candidate from the "autopatrolled" group. This should in no way be taken as a comment on their suitability for adminship, it was just clearly granted in error. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Andrew's !vote and also the user gives an impression that they're here only for the administrative tools and not for constructive editing such as improving an article by adding content. Most of their edits are merely revertions and undos of other editors' edits. I also think that the user fail to distinguish between what seems wrong and what is actually wrong. For example, the username K7ka seems to be impersonating K6ka. It seems wrong but it isn't because it's just a username that could be coincidentally the same as K6ka's without any malicious intentions. The proper response to that should be to leave it alone and judge their impersonation by editing skills. I feel that the user should demonstrate a desire to help Wikipedia by contributing content and not just by reverting vandalism before getting the admin rights. - TheMagnificentist 12:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Re K7ka - That's exactly what they've said they'll do A red flag for sure. I'm willing to err on the side of caution and wait for them to edit. If it's clear that they are attempting to impersonate me and are disrupting Wikipedia, I'll block immediately. Administrators are frequently targeted by trolls who try to impersonate them or who create derogatory derivatives of their usernames, nothing K6ka has said deviates at all from commonly accepted norms in dealing with impersonation or trolling. Nick (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    It would be improper to block in such a case. Per WP:TOOLMISUSE, "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved". It would be better to report the alleged impersonator to WP:UAA and let an independent admin make the call. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    We've never considered blocking obvious impersonation accounts or trolling accounts to have any level of 'personal involvement' and as far back as I can remember, I can recall no administrator being sanctioned for doing so, hence K6ka's answer being in line with commonly accepted norms. Nick (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)TOOLMISUSE says the following on the subject "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins" (emphasises added). The use of "normally" implies that there are circumstances in which such tool usage is acceptable. WP:INVOLVED further clarifies that "in straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I consider username impersonation to be a serious form of vandalism because it poses a serious threat of disruption. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation of policy here. Lepricavark (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    It is quite normal for usernames to be similar because there are many millions of user accounts while the possibilities are limited. For example, I see a User:Nick-D active on my watchlist just now. That seems to be a different user from User:Nick and other similar cases like User:NickD, User:Nickdc, &c. As people can be quite possessive about such short names, it would be quite improper for an admin to act in their own interest in such a case. I grant that they may often get away with such action as the sanctions for tool abuse are weakly enforced but that doesn't make it right. At RfA, a candidate should indicate that they have a good appreciation of WP:INVOLVED and not casually expect to get away with such infractions. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have blocked several obvious troll accounts which used usernames impersonating me. Care to take me to ArbCom? 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 13:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Some details of those cases might help us understand the matter better. Looking through the block log, I can only find User:BathNought who seems to have been blocked primarily for being a sockpuppet. Andrew D. (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Given that I was pinged (I don't think that you needed to link user names in this context Andrew :) ), I'll weigh in to say that I agree with my fellow Nick above: admins can, and should, block obvious disruptive impostor accounts pretending to be themselves. From memory, I've blocked someone who - for whatever reason - was pretending to be me. Other admins have also blocked other accounts from people who were doing the same. Obviously this should only occur when it's blindingly obvious that the account was created for malicious purposes - which is why I haven't blocked the various other Nicks listed above. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Andrew, I've blocked quite a few obvious troll accounts (NSFW) impersonating my username, if you care to look through the list, and I don't recall anyone ever claiming that I was INVOLVED (except maybe some of the trolls/socks that were blocked). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    I fully agree. Users must demonstrate that they are here for constructive editing before an RfA. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Giving the admin bit to editors without significant experience of writing content is just plain stupid. Eric Corbett 14:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. An edit history with virtually no significant content building does not prepare an editor well for dealing with content builders. I am underwhelmed by the answers to the questions -- I agree with TheMagnificentist over the personal involvement question; also the answer to Q7 rather misses the point, highlighting the editor's disconnect from the business of content creation. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Three AfD votes and not a single article created over a span of 6 years of editing.--Catlemur (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not enough content creation experience for me. Sorry. Intothatdarkness 20:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Too many question marks raised from the opposes above. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose k6ka is certainly a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. However, to be a good administrator requires having some experience with making and evaluating content. k6ka has created no articles nor substantially edited any article that I can find. For example, k6ka has edited Reflection (Fifth Harmony album) 84 times, the most of any article, but they are all vandalism reverts. k6ka has virtually no experience in AfD. Thus, contrary to the first nominating statement above, k6ka is not a content gnome. I suggest 6 months of content focused editing and there should be no issues.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Extreme dearth of content edits. I'm not talking about new article creation, I'm talking about content edits, period. The only content editing I see is on Tribu (film), the article the candidate cites in the Q&A, and those content edits were all done in the past two weeks [2], as if for show for this RfA. All other edits across article-space seem to be reversions. There's also a dearth of article talk-page edits, and no participation in dispute resolution (such as ANI or RfCs, etc.). Between the extreme dearth of content edits and AfD participation, and 55,000 automated or semi-automated edits, I just don't feel comfortable giving this candidate the tools. The thing is, nearly every single RfA candidate says they want to work in anti-vandalism, so that's not something we need, as there are many admins and non-admins already working in that area. And the tools are not given out piecemeal. We need admins who have edited content and discussed content policies and guidelines. And admins who know how to resolve conflicts. The fact that the candidate has an admitted aversion to NPP and AfD says to me they are not ready to be given the tools, because we don't give out the tools piecemeal. I thank the candidate for their counter-vandalism work, keep up the good work there, but I do not see a sufficient qualification for, or even need for, the tools. Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    Edited to add: I just now reviewed the candidate's Teahouse responses and find him ignorant of the processes of article creation and submission, to the point of giving incorrect advice. He does not appear to adequately know about personal sandboxes or user subpages: [3]; does not know how articles are actually submitted to article-space [4], [5]; and does not know where articles can be requested [6]. My personal advice to this candidate is to spend the next 6 months or so focusing heavily on content-editing and creation (including creating and fully citing at least one full-sized article), participating strongly at AfD, and engaging in some dispute-resolution assistance (e.g. at ANI, WP:DR, WP:RfCs [for the latter can sign up at WP:FR to be notified], etc.), and possibly also assisting with NPP, and then come back and reapply for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    Those examples from the first half of 2014 might merit your advice that he needed six months more experience when he made them, but that's over two and a half years ago. Do you have anything that might indicate he needs 6 months more experience now? ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Per everyone above me. I don't expect prospective admins to have written huge volumes of timeless prose, but I expect them to have contributed enough to Wikipedia—writing, photography, drawing, scripting, or whatever—that I can feel comfortable that they'll have a degree of empathy with people who become frustrated on seeing their hard work deleted or significantly changed without good reason, and I see no indication at all of this here. Wikipedia has had serious problems in the past with people who've been granted the admin bit in these circumstances setting themselves up as self-appointed wikicops and going on to cause significant disruption but being almost impossible to dislodge, so my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to those who request advanced permissions without appearing to have the slightest interest in Wikipedia's actual purpose is not high. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Fortunately, having managed to recently put a ban on a long-term admin causing disruption (with consensus), the community might actually be getting through with the message that admins are not invincible and can be banned or blocked like anyone else if they bugger about too much. Plus a few more opposes will ram this point home. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    We're not supposed to be frustrated when someone deletes our "hard work" or changes it without good reason, though. In fact we even have a policy WP:OWN that specifically deals with this. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, but if you are a craftsperson who takes pride in their work, coming back to see it marred without good cause is at least annoying. Without people taking pride in personal work, this encyclopedia would long since have sunk under the water.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Banedon, we're not supposed to, but a decent admin recognizes that it happens regardless, and that "for fuck's sake, I just spent $100 on sources and a month of my time writing/drawing that, why have you just undone it without discussion?" warrants a discussion as to the merits of the content in question, not an immediate block for incivility. (WP:OWN is a policy more often cited than read. This section of it is just as much Wikipedia policy as if you create or edit an article, others can make changes.) Per my previous comment, Wikipedia has recently had serious problems with admins who see themselves as Judge Dredd cleaning up the streets and take a "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" approach—TRM and Mike V are the most high-profile recent examples but certainly aren't alone—and as long as we don't have a working desysop mechanism, I don't consider it appropriate to give an essentially irrevocable power to anyone who isn't able to demonstrate that they have an understanding of the environment in which they'll be using that tool. ‑ Iridescent 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Take a look at Talk:Bond Street#Problems. Should I be more civil against an IP hopper who uses incivil edit summaries, whose edits are not obviously disruptive but not necessarily a net improvement to a GA, and whenever challenged on content immediately switches to cries of "admin abuse"? Yes, I should. Should I have semi-protected the page to stop an edit war I was WP:INVOLVED in? No I shouldn't, it's against policy. However, we are all human and sometimes we over-react. (In my defence I at least got a third opinion on the talk page and partially self-reverted as a result) The problem then, as Iridescent says, is when non-content creating admins swoop in on high and dish out WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA sanctions seemingly without any idea what the root cause is, or whether it's actually going to be a net improvement to the project. That didn't happen in that instance, fortunately, but it only takes one annoyed admin to run full speed to ANI shouting "off with their heads!" See also User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#Ownership for similar thoughts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thing about all this is that according to policy we're still not supposed to be frustrated. We have lots of policies specifically dealing with what to do if someone makes a change to an article we don't agree with! If we believe in these policies we should also apply them. If someone says "for fuck's sake, I just spent $100 on sources..." a civility block is way too soon, but if that same someone violates 3RR for the same reason I would support a block (and I suspect you will too, since it's policy). I don't want to say much about TRM vs. Mike V, but again in that situation there were policies laid out on what to do. Simply following the policies would've resulted in the same result with less vitriol all around. I see already too many disputes which could've been resolved if everyone just dropped the stick and did something else; I certainly don't see it as a positive to appoint more administrators who are happy to tolerate such behavior.

    @Ritchie333 I can't agree with that, because "we are all human" is not an excuse to violate policy. Even in real life this can at best only be argued as a mitigating factor. As for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, the judgement of an uninvolved administrator is to be trusted - that's why we have WP:INVOLVED right? And as long as we're citing examples, here's one I was involved in not so long ago: [7]. Like in your example, an anonymous / new editor pops up to add information to an article that may not have been an improvement. This edit was soon vigorously opposed by several different editors and removed. But if you compare the two discussions, there was almost no conduct dispute in the chess article, no need for administrator intervention, and the dispute was resolved amiably. That should be the kind of ideal we strive for - getting frustrated is not good, even if it is human and even if it is justified. I'm sorry but I cannot agree with this reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Moved from neutral, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Kierzek: Could you please explain your rationale for opposing? Thanks. Joshualouie711talk 17:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    I already mentioned my points of concern in neutral section; lack of content creation and lack of AFD. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Oppose mea culpa, I did not check the candidate's user page before voting and the polemic on there about "administrators vs content creators" (particularly the quotation attributed to HighInBC) is a divisive and disruptive drama-fest waiting to happen. I see strong parallels with this RfA and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icestorm815 2 (better known these days as Mike V (talk · contribs); you would not believe how many off-wiki complaints I have received about Mike in the last 3-4 months in particular, begging me to do something about it, but I am not going to sit here and let another "us and them" situation erupt. It might take a year or two to flare, but it will happen, and it's divisive, unhelpful and puts real stress on the project. No thanks. Drop the maintenance stuff and try researching and writing an article - you may enjoy it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    It's just stating an opinion. It makes a logical point, that's about it. (Yes, I do agree with that statement). Also, I don't think complaining about another user that has some similarities to the candidate is really that valid of an argument, especially when the other user is a checkuser and oversighter (and k6ka's not really that much like Mike V in personality, as well). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    While that's a fair comment, I just used Mike V as an example, he is far from being the only offender, and I have checked the RfAs of others to see a similar pattern, which lead me to conclude that granting the tools at this time is too high a risk, and they will be too hard to remove in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I've held off on committing to this for a number of reasons. For one thing, I respect the nominator, xeno, a great deal, and therefore would very much like to support, but I'm not really happy with (nor did I completely understand) the nom's answer to my question. On the other hand, Meta thought enough of the editor to make them a global renamer, but on the other hand, I'm philosophically opposed to the usurpation of what were prerogatives of individual Wikipedias by Meta, nor do I think that the participation there is at a level that their decisions about functionaries can automatically be taken as a recommendation. Content work also seems to be lacking - " fixing typos, some copyediting here and there, adding a source" is all fine, I do the same, but I'm looking for real content work, i.e. creating non-stub articles, greatly expanding articles, taking a badly written or structured article and revamping it into a good, informative, well-written article. It's only by doing work like this that a would-be admin can understand the needs of content editors, which is vital to the reputation of the encyclopedia. As a result, I'm sitting here at oppose (sitting at neutral is just silly, and I rarely do that) unless and until I see further information to change my mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    User:Beyond My Ken, I'm a little confused on how renaming a global account across all wikis is a prerogative of individual Wikipedias. Could you clarify that? If you just oppose SUL entirely, that train left the station a long time ago, and I'm not sure this is the place to voice your concerns. Also, in Mike's RfA, you opposed because his editing percentages were 46% Main, 47% user talk. Here, it seems that you oppose because the editing percentages are 43%, 43%. We can agree to disagree on the content creation issue, but what are your required pie chart percentage ranges to support? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    I see no conflict between the two opposes. If 46% main is too low, then 43% is too low as well. I have no hard-and-fast line, each nominee is evaluated based on their total package. I believe in one recent "support" I said that I wasn't happy with the editor's article percentage, but, given other factors, I was supporting their nomination. I am, after all, not a robot, I try my best to use my human powers of judgment in determining how to !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. We need all kinds of editors and administrators on Wikipedia. I believe that K6ka takes a reasonable stance when it comes to content creation versus adminship, and his sentiments, including the quote from HighInBC, are hardly the polemical, divisive stands others make them out to be. While I am no fan of the self-congratulatory dick waving from the self-styled content creators, I expect an administrator to have a minimal amount of experience with article writing and creation. This editor otherwise appears to be an ideal candidate, so write a couple of new articles and I'll be glad to vote support next time. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per WP:NOTYET Admin tools are for content creators. Every admin is expected to be able to write articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    I would like to state why I think the answer to Q7 is inadequate. When someone presents themself as a vandal fighter, I expect to see understanding of that role, and this question tests this. The first thing is that the three-revert rule may not apply in this case. You should have considered exceptions to this rule. You mention consensus building, but when you looked at the article in question you found a comment that clearly states "A consensus exists not to have an infobox – see Talk:John Le Mesurier/Archive 5#Infobox (from 2012) and Talk:John_Le_Mesurier#Infobox (from 2014 & 15) – please do not put an infobox without seeking to change that consensus on the talk page". Thus, the editor in question has wilfully gone headlong against an established consensus that has already been built, not to mention the ArbCom INFOBOXES case, which you should have familiarised yourself with. An admin should attempt to uphold and enforce existing consensus. A passing admin could have blocked the offending editor forthwith. Or could have locked the page, which would be appropriate for a page under attack from multiple IPs. Did you consider the pros and cons of such alternatives? Or the irony of telling someone to respect existing consensus? You state that "that their use of {{uw-vandalism4}} is grossly inappropriate as edit warring, while disruptive, is not considered to be vandalism". This begs certain questions, including: What is considered to be vandalism? What are the actual policies on what constitutes vandalism? If an article contains an explicit instruction to not change something, say the spelling of a word, would deliberately doing so be construed as vandalism? What would be a more appropriate warning template? You said that the "IP editor hasn't been issued lower-level warnings before". That's incorrect; the IP addresshasn't been issued a lower-level warning. Are there warnings on other pages? Is a sock puppet investigation in order? And is there a requirement for the whole series of lower-level warnings to be issued, or can you jump straight to level 2, 3 or 4? Or, for that matter, straight to a block? I do not get the impression from the answer that all aspects of the issue are being considered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Has not created any articles so far, and mainspace edits are mostly reverting vandalism. Try creating and expanding articles, and once you have created enough articles, you may try RfA again. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Does not meet my (fairly minimal) standards for content creation. Per Andrew and Eric Corbett.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Iridescent, Ritchie333, Softlavender and many others above. How can anyone comment or adjudicate on content etc if they know little or nothing about content creation themselves? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    If an administrator is commenting or adjudicating on content in an administrative role, something has gone horribly wrong. That's well beyond the role the community appoints us to fulfill. ~ Rob13Talk 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Iridescent, Ritchie333 and others. A reasonable level of article creation or expansion should be a pre-requisite for anyone before they are granted the admin tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Essentially zero AfD knowledge appears to exist. As this is an area which I consider to be of notable importance covering multiple policies, I fear I must oppose. Collect (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. I am not comfortable granting the tools to someone with so little understanding of content creation and encyclopedia building. Divisive attitude and drama waiting to happen. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. I'm a smidge worried the drama-waiting-to-happen take could become a self-fulfilling prophesy--like, perhaps in this here RfA!--so while I oppose for now, I want to say, I think k6ka could be a great admin and I'd only ask they undertake some content creation because I do think there are critical aspects of the project's functioning which 1, you can only learn by trying your hand at that part, and 2, will make any admin a lot more effective in handling disputes, among other issues (which is good for the encyclopedia for obvious reasons but also good for the new admin, in sparing them avoidable friction). Come on back in a few months, and thanks in the meantime for all your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - It's not at all fair to expect every admin to have created thousand of articles or have scores of FAs under their belt, but I think it is fair to expect some substantial experience, because that's where all the reports, noticeboards, nominations and all the other minutiae of the project comes from. You're not expected to be an expert at absolutely everything, but you are expected to be a well-rounded experienced editor, and that is a huge chunk of what being that means. Further, some of the answers posted above at the Teahouse show that lack of experience is reflected in overall understanding of areas that admin's shouldn't need explained to them. I would definitely encourage to come back in six months or a year if this is unsuccessful, and to spend that time getting gut deep into some content. Along the way, you should also consider that "expect me to be a bit careful with the tools within the first week of adminship" is, in my opinion, not at all an appropriately level-headed and humble approach to have. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Insufficient content creation, but could be a good candidate after a few months of working with content. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Failure to create not even a single article is disqualifying for an admin, in my view, but I agree that if he gets some experience in that area he should return. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. The candidate has shown wonderful dedication to the project and has gazillions of edits. Neither has the candidate committed a huge faux pas. Although I appreciate vandal fighting, it is not an activity that requires the admin skills I want to see. I want administrators to show they can understand and apply policy. The vandal fighter also doesn't have to interact with difficult people. Revert the vandal a few times; if he persists, then have him blocked. OK, it's not always clear cut (Cluebot cannot do it all), but it's typically not the same challenge as CSD calls or AfD debates or a content dispute. A career arc that has some significant content contributions provides more exposure to policy and conflict. I have a lot of trouble with Q1–3. Q1 has poor focus. He says what he plans to do, but then spends a lot of time saying what he won't do. He talks about having admin privs on Wikia; this is not Wikia, and now I wonder about hat collecting across the Internet. He's tells us he knows how to be an admin (at Wikia). More concerning is the "expect me to be a bit careful with the tools within the first week of adminship". I want admins to be reserved, and I want the candidate being "careful with the tools" all the time — not just within the first week of adminship. Forgive me, but I read what people say and how they say it. An old boss taught me to read everything twice: once for what it says, and once for what it doesn't say. Q2 appropriately claims vandal fighting and admits little content creation. Content is an issue for me. I'm troubled by the comment that Tribu may not be GA remark because it's a touch dismissive. Furthermore, the first sentence at Tribu fails for grammar. Conflict question Q3 gives pure vandal fighters trouble; reverting vandalism is not reverting a well-intentioned editor's hour's worth of work; the vandal won't complain but the editor might. Swatting a vandal carries little risk of backlash. The conflict example that involves a single revert fails to understand the question's audience. Not only is there no conflict experience, but I'm also leery of candidates who are unwilling to engage. I don't want an aggressive stance or eagerness to engage, but I want admins who will be comfortable in difficult situations. The ANI example does not seem to be a stresser. I would have appreciated links where the candidate "snapped". I want to see practical experience with conflict rather than academic musings. Q6's ten to fifteen minutes is on the right track, but why the rush? I copied an article from the de.WP and started translating it — a task that took me 18 minutes; of course, the article was CSD'd at the 7 minute mark. There are some other issues. I don't see you following the ORCP advice. Despite Beeblebrox'x comment, the autopatrolled issue goes beyond an improvident grant; I expect the candidate asked for right, and that implies a misunderstanding by the candidate. I don't think the candidate is bad, but I want to see experience with policy and conflict. Consequently, vandal fighters without significant content experience give me trouble as a class. Some other issues gnaw at me. Glrx (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Not enough content work. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  28. Oppose I can't support at this time. Looking through their UAA question (blocking), west london roundabouts (deletion - specifically A1), RFPP requests, and the user/IP edit war/civility issue I have to question the candidates discretion. I find each mostly above what's needed to protect the wiki and stopping users from contributing, or taking insufficient action to resolve the situation at hand. Finding issues at each one of the places where basic admin tools are to be used speaks to needing more experience. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    Each of these is defensible. (i) Might well doubt the motives of someone who would register a username like that. (ii) He specifically & rightly said A1 was inappropriate. (iii) Do you stop everyone in the school from editing at all, or stop everyone in the world from editing that one page? (iv) In my early days I innocently added a few infoboxes, thinking that was just what one did. If I'd been treated like the hypothetical newbie in Q7, I'd have been stopped from contributing, ever again: Noyster (talk), 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  29. Oppose I think admins should have sufficient content editing experiences to be able to understand the pressures and frustrations involved in producing encyclopedic articles. J3Mrs (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  30. Oppose though it pains me. AIV gnoming is underappreciated, but admins need to know, more roundly, what goes on in building the encyclopedia. They should take a bit of time to create some content, get some existing content promoted to at least GA-class, learn to cite sources better, and perhaps negotiate some policy/guidance change RFCs. They'll come back better equipped for the job. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  31. Oppose (moved from support). Sadly, I'm ending up here. The lack of content creation isn't a huge concern of mine, but the more I think about it, the more I worry that it demonstrates lack of judgement to go for RfA with zero substantial content creation against the advice of many administrators and RfA regulars, myself included. That's relatively minor, though. The thing that forces me into the oppose section is the RFPP link from Amanda above. That article so obviously doesn't need semi-protection that I seriously worry that the candidate requested it in the first place as recently as October. With only two IPs on the article in a very tight range, there's just no need to prevent all non-confirmed editors from editing the page. Content creation would have allayed some of my concerns here, but at the end of the day, I care most about how well-polished the candidate is in the areas they want to work. The link Amanda provided calls that polish into question, and I found a few further concerns upon some digging. For example, reporting a username (POOOOOOOOOOOOOO) which is not an obvious violation of the username policy. ~ Rob13Talk 01:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Seems a little subjective to me – POOOOOOOOOOOOOO can be interpreted as offensive (and was indeed interpreted as such by another administrator), but if you do not see why it's offensive it's not likely to offend you either. Reminds me of the time someone I know used the name "Suka" for a while (off-wiki) before the wrath of the administrators dropped on the name, because "Suka" is an offensive word in Polish. Ironically, "suka" is also a perfectly innocent word in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia. Banedon (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    It is a username that can/should be discussed with the user, but it's not an "obvious violation" that should be reported at UAA or blocked on sight. At most, a discussion could have been opened at the RfC on usernames page. ~ Rob13Talk 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    It's a poop username. We block those on sight if they have edited even once. This has been standard practice for...at least as long as I've been an admin. Looks like this RFA is going to pass and I wouldn't want the candiddate to hesistte one bit to block someone with a obvious reference to defection in their username. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, regretfully. My bar for content creation is pretty low, but looking through this page, the candidate has no signficant content creation in their most-edited pages (i.e. any page with 7 or more edits) except for Tribu, and some of the sourcing there is sub-optimal. The rest of the edits to pages listed there, bar one or two exceptions (i.e. the TTC edit above) are reverts, filling in bare refs with tools, tagging, and occasionally some minor edits that didn't add much content. As far as I can tell, the candidate has next to zero content contributions aside from Tribu, which was only significantly contributed to last month. This is not a call for FAs or GAs from the candidate. Even a handful of pages with similar levels of content contributed by the candidate as shown in Tribut would be good enough for me. Empathy for the process of content creation is important, and I would encourage the candidate to devote a bit more time to content before reapplying. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. The candidate has negligible content related edits, very little participation at AfD, and has given poor quality answers at the Teahouse. I recommend that the candidate edit productively in these important areas of the encyclopedia for another six months, at least. I want new administrators to understand the challenges of creating good quality encyclopedic content by doing so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  34. Oppose at this time. A very capable and active vandal fighter/gnome by all accounts, and there are no major red flags that make me think they'd abuse admin tools, but there is just too little content experience here for me to support. I am not someone who expects all admins to have 20 FA's, and have supported candidates with minimal content work before - just not this little. It's not that hard, especially when you're a student with access to a great library: take some time, vote in some AFDs, contribute to (or create) a few articles and I would be happy to support at later date (barring any major drama/misbehaviour in the meantime). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Moved from neutral. Too many open questions in the end. Samsara 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  36. Oppose at this time. I cannot support a candidate with vitually no content creation. No such user (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  37. Oppose very little content creation (as per previous votes), and there are better candidates right now. Fbergo (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Fbergo: While I'm also opposing, I'd like to urge you not to compare any candidate to other candidates running at the same time. This isn't an election. If we have five RfAs going, we can take five, take none, or anything in between. We do have a problem with lack of administrators at the moment, so if a candidate is qualified, we shouldn't count them out because others are more qualified. It's better to have too many admins than too few, assuming they're all qualified. ~ Rob13Talk 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. I know it's a position that gets attacked in some quarters, but on reflection I am in the camp where I believe some level of content creation is a must for adminship. See WP:PILLARS#WP:5P1. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". That means we write articles. Of course, for some people their bread and butter is to hunt down vandalism, block vandals, perform deletions, close discussions, all that stuff. I thoroughly commend those people, it is a great thing, and essential, to have people working on those things round the clock. But like a manager who doesn't understand the thing that the people they're managing are doing, an admin without experience of content creation will always be one step removed from understanding the real issues underpinning what goes on here. My advice: go and write some articles, hunt down sources, get into it, destub some things - it's all great fun in its own right - and then come back here in a few months. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. Lack of creation is concerning. A lot of admin work relates with deletion requests for ex. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per Catlemur. This is an encyclopedia and the candidate's content creation is very very little....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  41. Oppose I do have to agree with those who are citing the lack of content creation. You have many strong points but the lack of articles created is the reason I find myself here. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - I was about to vote for support, until I look at the article created analysis. This user didn't even created an article before and probably have no experience in WP:NPP and WP:AFD. This seems problematic since admin needs to have experienced work in all aspect but not only mastered at only vandalism-fighting etc. NgYShung huh? 05:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. Candidate is deserving except block authority re content writers. RfA !voting is crazy-making as long as toolkit remains unbundled. IHTS (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Valued contributor to the project, but low content contributions and AfD participation are among the things that raise too many red flags for me. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 11:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Not enough experience in the workings of AfD and the creation of content The Banner talk 13:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  46. Big Oppose Low on everything, low exper.and hardla any afd. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    "Low on everything"—are you trying to say that the candidate is bad in every way, Wyatt2049? —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  47. I'm afraid I don't want someone who's never created an article to be a sysop.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  48. Q7, sorry. Administrators need to support experienced editors, not waste their time with officious warnings. An administrator with substantial content work under their belt would be more likely to appreciate this. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Could you give what you think is the right answer to this question? I think his answer was nearly spot on. Hobit (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Hawkeye has posted a range of issues above. I would pick the following: the officiousness of warning an experienced editor, who has no doubt worked hard to build and maintain the article for some time, over their use of language of all things. The admin response shouldn't be the lawyerly "who has done wrong and what should I do about it?", but "how do I act in the best interests of the article at hand." If the candidate had asked the latter question in this case, the answer to Q7 would have been very different. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Looking at Hawkeye's response (which I'd not noticed) I think this is both a solid question and a reasonable objection. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  49. Oppose - I really tried to justify promoting an editor who lacks experience creating content, or broader experience in maintenance areas (AfD, CSD, SPI, ANI, content noticeboards, policy discussions, etc.) but I'm just not able to convince myself. It's obvious that K6ka can write, so I would gladly reconsider his future bid for adminship after he has created a few non-stub article, made some article edits that require researching sources and discussing edits on article talk pages.- MrX 13:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  50. Oppose Candidate fails my criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now and with regret. While I don't see any red flags and they have an impressive record in the fields they have worked in, there are some gaps in areas I expect to see in a candidate's resume., Of particular concern is the dearth of content creation and AfD participation. In an otherwise highly qualified candidate I might be able to overlook one of these, but combined the two leave a big hole in my RfA check list. At the moment I'm not seeing anything that would cause me to outright oppose the RfA, but neither can I pull the support trigger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral for now, I will review in further detail soon, but I am bothered by the lack of experience; no content creation and only a very, very few AFD. Kierzek (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC) moving to oppose. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral. Moved to support. While I don’t think a large amount of content work is needed as an administrator, the amount with this candidate is so low that I cannot vote to support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, and if a user wants to seriously contribute here, in any role, I think their contributions should reflect a greater understanding of this. Xeno may have been able to become an administrator with little content work many moons ago, but Wikipedia has changed quite a bit since then. That said, while I agree with the oppose views regarding the lack of content work, the nomination statements and answers to questions are strong and reflect a willingness to work in specific areas of familiarity. K6ka becoming an administrator will not cause Wikipedia to go down in flames. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: As a content creator with close to 1000 articles, there is this extreme attachment I have to my articles that I believe all article creators should also have (maybe not as extreme like mine though). It will make things easier for me if any admin I'm interacting with has had that feeling in the past. Darreg (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Neutral (moved from support) I have to change my mind due to lack of content creation and AfD participation, but their other work is good enough for me not to oppose. —MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: Due to the number of oppose votes increasing, and lack of content creation and XFD participation, K6ka becoming an admin is no big deal. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Huh? That statement doesn't make much sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: The one that I added an link to the essay but those red flags made me move to neutral. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    That was the wrong essay to quote, in all fairness. WP:NOBIGDEAL is a reason to support a candidate... Patient Zerotalk 13:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's why I moved to neutral while leaning support. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, I see now KGirlTrucker81. Thanks for clarifying. Patient Zerotalk 12:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I was sitting at "weak support" (as on the balance of things I think that K6ka was going to be a net positive) but having the quote by HighinBC on their userpage (which is divisive and shows a lack of understanding of processes) is a real problem for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral Moved to oppose. I see some good answers, better perhaps in at least some areas than other recently passed candidates. OTOH, I was honestly a bit horrified that the user expects to be careful with the tools for the first week. Having been around for a while, I continue to learn about new ways of being careful on at least a weekly basis, so the answer strikes me as a bit naive. One of the ways of being careful is knowing the difference between vandalism and a dispute. The banhammer must be swung gently so as not to come down on those expressing genuine quality concerns in awkward ways. I'm sitting on the fence over whether content experience is important to knowing that difference, and I regret that X!'s tool gives me no data about the candidate's contributions. [8] Similarly on the fence about scarcity of AfD indications. Samsara 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. I'm sure K6ka is trustworthy and I would like to support, but would also like to see much more content work before adminship. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Neutral (leaning support) while I don't have a specific reason to oppose, I am somewhat swayed by the oppose arguments related to a low engagement level with content creators. If we had an 'eliminator' type group that just dealt with AIV actions I would have supported. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Neutral The lack of content creation is my main concern for this reason: how do you relate to content creators while acting as an administrator when you have little experience of it yourself? I would support granting the tools in six months if I saw some evidence of increased content creation, even just a couple of articles created, something taken to GAN or ITN or DYK. Don't need an FA or anything, but some evidence that the nominee can see things from the content creator's view would eliminate any lingering worries I have. -- Shudde talk 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. I am not seeing any particular red flags here that would merit an oppose !vote. Much of the concern about content creation and AfD appears to be grounded in wiki-philosophical disagreements rather than actual tangible issues (and the notion that namespace percentages are somehow a reliable proxy for anything is silly bad). On the flip side, DeltaQuad's concern is reasonable and a lack of article work means there is little to outweigh it. And beware the "civility enforcement", that needs a lot more skill - and "but the other guy started first!"/"but I am right!" handling experience - than regular administration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
General comments[edit]

  • After reviewing the Oppose !votes above, I'm having a hard time understanding how, why, and most especially when new article creation became the sine qua non of admin qualification. Especially when, as is the case here, the admin candidate has both a record of and primary interest in vandal-fighting. K6ka expresses clear interest in not affecting New Pages or AfD. There should be recognition of multiple paths to adminship instead of forcing every RfA into a specific editing resume. To hold them to a standard requiring involvement in those areas they do not wish to affect seems like asking for overreach. It strikes me as nothing wrong with a potential admin who acknowledges their limited interest on improving the project. Indeed, creating notional requirements for accomplishment in many different areas of the project in order to give some-one the admin bit creates a distinct incentive for over-reaching editors trying to comply with such demands. Adminship is not supposed to be a community award of some sort of superuser status; there is a reason it is often called being given the mop. An editor who wants to wikignome their way into removing negative aspects of the project is at least as noteworthy as one that wikidragons their way into adding to it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I am not opposing this RfA, I will take a shot at answering the question above. I don't think that [xx] amount of content creation or AfD participation should be non-negotiable criteria. But it needs to be remembered that an Admin has all the tools, not just the ones they are planning on using. Whether or not you plan to use them, some of the tools are so commonly associated with the basic things that admins are expected to do from time to time, that you need to know how to use them, just in case. Knowing how to judge an article and what to do if it clearly needs to go is one of those. And that touches on both content creation and AfD. I personally do not expect expertise in any given field. But I do need to see evidence that a candidate has enough knowledge so that if they needed, or chose to get involved with an issue outside of their preferred area of concentration, that they can handle it. We need to remember that once you get the mop your talk page is going to become a magnet for all kinds of people with their own diverse problems. Obscure stuff is perfectly OK to ping another admin but being able to judge a dicey article, is something that I think all admins need to be able to do. Writing as a newly minted admin I can affirm from personal experience that in my one week on the job I've already run into a few things I wasn't expecting. It happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
...in my one week on the job I've already run into a few things I wasn't expecting. It happens. To a certain extent, that's kind of my point. I don't understand the general desire expressed in recent RfA's for near-perfect editing resumes when on-the-job learning is a near-universal part of the new admin experience. If this admin candidate has to learn about (say) closing AfD discussions, why is that such a bad thing? They can't break the encyclopedia there unless they really go rogue and there are mechanisms in place even if they do. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between demanding a perfect resume and asking for some evidence of competence in the most common things that pretty much all admins are expected to be able deal with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, obviously. Equally obviously, I suppose, is that I have seem to have an outlier opinion from others on where those standards have been set in recent years.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't part of RFA determining if a candidate has the community's trust? One element of that would be that we trust the candidate to have enough self-awareness of their personal knowledge (and knowledge gaps) that they don't use tools they aren't comfortable using. We also trust that they have enough of a WP:CLUE to educate themselves in areas where their knowledge is weak (be it through collaboration with other admins or users or through reading policies and prior discussions), should they have to take action in those areas. For example, I would say that being able to put a block in place is a pretty basic administrative activity - but I can't count the number of times I've seen very experienced admins looking for a bit of guidance at ANI in establishing a range block. They know their limitations, get help, and do what they have to do. I'd be willing to wager that way more of those communications happen off-wiki. Perhaps there is merit to being able to get some of the individual tools (such as viewing deleted articles or contribs) piecemeal, but until then I personally feel it's safe to have some faith in the people we trust. PGWG (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There are two types of permissions groups on these sites: specialized and generalized. Specialized ones include rollback, template editor, CheckUser, etc - they have one main purpose, and you can evaluate candidates based on their ability to perform that main function. Generalized groups are basically admins and stewards - access is granted to a broad range of technical permissions that, for security and community reasons, are not available to all users. I don't think I've seen a candidate for adminship that has experience in absolutely all areas that the toolset encompasses, because by nature it is quite large. What becomes important here isn't specific experience, but transferable skills. Can the candidate easily find policies and interpret them well? Can they keep a level head and deal with conflict in a mature way? Do they have the competence to figure out what user hit a spam blacklist rule through the logs, in the same way that they could use the logs to see when a user was last blocked? Now, experience with the content side is a bit different because that is the "front-facing" side of the project, but I would argue that you could again look for those transferable skills. If the candidate can deal with disputes over renaming in a civil way, then they will most likely be able to do the same on an article talk page. Or at least that's my opinion of it :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Eggishorn: new article creation is not the sine qua non for adminship. It isn't even the most common argument in the fairly small oppose section here, several of whom don't even mention it. We have over 5.3 million articles not even 0.1% of which have reached FA status. There is an awful lot to do including a vast amount of content creation that doesn't involve creating new articles. The vast majority of the RFA community have no problem supporting candidates who never create new articles. Opposes for not having created new articles are a new fad, RFA has such things, a while back we had people opposed because of the percentage of automated edits. I suspect this fad too will pass. Insufficient content creation is a different matter and one where this candidate is close to one of the de facto criteria for adminship, hence my question 8. Clearly the candidate has some content contributions, sufficient for many to support but not for others. Having some content contributions has been part of the de facto requirements for admin since the unbundling of Rollback 8 years ago - before then "good vandalfighter" was sufficient to pass RFA. A significant proportion of the community or at least that part of the community who votes at RFA expect that all new admins will have mastered the skill of creating inline citations to reliable sources. A candidate without content contributions won't pass RFA, whether this candidate has sufficient is the main area of disagreement between the Opposers and the Supporters. ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a big content creator, as I may create stubs also! hehe ;) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry Henry Winkler, you'll never be a Wikipedia administrator because your dyslexia would make content creation impossible. There are infinite types of human being, each with unique interests, cognitive uniqueness (me, I've got ADD), differing levels of English mastery, etc. The content creation mandate needlessly disqualifies trustworthy editors simply because they either don't have an interest in writing, or because they just may not be very strong at it. Adminship is not an elitist award that requires a college degree. It's a trust position. I trust K6ka. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note:Per the comments in the oppose section, I have removed the candidate from the "autopatrolled" group. This should in no way be taken as a comment on their suitability for adminship, it was just clearly granted in error. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


  • MartinZ02's Question #9 is extremely poor. There's no correct answer, and it's set up to make the candidate look bad no matter how they answer. If they don't take the concerns seriously or just state they have different criteria for adminship than the opposers, they come across as arrogant and entitled. If they do take the concerns seriously but lay out how they believe they can be a net positive as an administrator, then opposers will throw the answer in their face and state that even the candidate doesn't feel they're fully qualified. Can you justify the question as a genuine attempt to discern the candidate's qualifications (which he's already listed in detail in questions #1-3) rather than a rhetorical device, Martin? ~ Rob13Talk 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree. It comes off as very loaded and presumptuous, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree; deliberately or not, this appears to be a loaded question. I see no way this can make K6ka look anything but bad. Dustin (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This is only the case because the candidate isn't qualified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's only the case because he's not qualified according to your criteria. The problem is that saying he believes he's qualified despite not meeting your specific set of criteria makes him look like an ass because disagreeing with your opposers is bad form at RfA. He's been set up to either give a poor answer or give an answer that goes against the grain on the norms of how one acts at RfA. I encourage the candidate to just ignore the loaded question or simply refer to questions #1-3 and his nominators. ~ Rob13Talk 22:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel very discouraged. The candidate admits to having no interest in building an encyclopaedia, yet he is allowed to become an admin, whereas I am shown the door. Not all problems have solutions; not all questions have easy answers. The issues that many admins face are difficult and often intractable. Your solution is not to try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Trolling an RFA because you are still upset that you were desysoppped by arbcom 4 years ago is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, this kind of stuff is why many people avoid ever requesting administrator tools. You speak of K6ka as "having no interest in building an encyclopaedia" while disregarding all the necessary functions that allow for the encyclopedia to operate 'other' than content creation. This isn't even accounting for the disruptive question you posed above, which any reasonable editor would forgive a candidate for completely ignoring. Many administrators primarily focus on encyclopedia-maintaining areas rather than content creation, and without them, vandalism and other problems would be rampant. I hope you'll reconsider your current perspective. Dustin (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added some questions about AfD. K6ka, I've added in the incel AfD as a bit of an extra, so please don't feel like you need to answer that one if you don't want to. That's the process of a very long campaign to get involuntary celibacy onto Wikipedia and honestly, most admins would probably rather stick their tongue on a frozen flag pole than close that AfD. My thought process with that was just that if you can break down the reasons for the AfD closing the way it did and summarize it, then I honestly think that you'd be able to close anything, given how messy and protracted that whole AfD process was, as most AfDs are far more cut and dry than that and there's no requirement for admins to close an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd already added my support, but I wanted to write this out here - I found the answer to my first question about AfDs to be very well written and thought out, to where I believe that we can trust you with the admin tools. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This editor appears to have taken the RfA process too lightly. As BU Rob13 notes, running for adminship with zero content creation record and against the advice of experienced editors, speaks of arrogance. This user has all of three AfD votes. While I agree that content awareness, not necessarily creation is all that's required for admins, I'm afraid that this user's contribs don't show much evidence of that either. This user has the time to maintain an overly extravagant user page, as well to edit and be an admin/crat at such wikis as the how-to wiki and others mentioned down his user page, but no time to do any actual writing work for the encyclopedia. Not to mention that the answer to Q1 is a bit alarming. "expect me to be a bit careful with the tools within the first week of adminship" ? So that means they don't intend to be careful with the tools after the first week? I'm also a bit concerned that they are a hat collector, as is often the case with cross-wiki vandal fighters. This user is not evil, but they certainly don't deserve the tools at the present time, or upon their first attempt. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 9:13 am, Today (UTC−5) Copied from talk page by --regentspark (comment) 02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.