rmv Legoktm - successful |
→Current nominations for adminship: let's have some fun and give everyone an opportunity to tell me how much they hate me.....again :-) |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule --> |
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkdw}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkdw}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 04:15, 15 May 2013
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mkdw | 104 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 17:36, 15 May 2013 | 0 hours | no | report |
KumiokoCleanStart | 14 | 2 | 24 | 88 | Unsuccessful | 19:47, 17 May 2013 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mkdw | 104 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 17:36, 15 May 2013 | 0 hours | no | report |
KumiokoCleanStart | 14 | 2 | 24 | 88 | Unsuccessful | 19:47, 17 May 2013 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Mkdw
Final: 104/1/2. Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Mkdw (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to be able to offer up Mkdw for your consideration as an administrator. Whilst I'd seen him around, I only really became aware of him when he asked me if I'd consider adopting him - I declined to do so "officially", since he was already more a more-than-competent editor, but I kept a casual eye on his editing after that and liked what I saw. Recently he suggested he might think about running for adminship at some point in the future, so I took a closer look to see which areas he would need to improve in before filing an RFA. My verdict was that he's perfectly ready for the bit right now, and so I'm putting him forward.
Mkdw has been here since 2006, generally editing gnomishly but still managing to get Vancouver, History of Solidarity and Portal:Vancouver to Featured status, and getting James Gwyn to GA pretty much single-handed. He's worked in a wide range of areas, from CSD (his Twinkle CSDs have only been logged since December, but there's still enough red there to paint a London bus) to AFC to ANI to numerous other three-letter acronyms, generally pitching in wherever a helping hand is needed. In his interactions with other editors, I've found him to be courteous, thoughtful and thorough in his explanations, willing to defend his position but also capable of re-assessing it and learning from new information. In short, I can think of few people who would be better suited to the tools; he's got bags of CLUE and I have no qualms about recommending him to the community as a sysop. Yunshui 雲水 09:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Mkdwtalk 17:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I have spent most of my time involved in the cleanup and maintenance of the Wikipedia article space. In particular the deletion process; CSD, PROD, and AFD. I would also be interested in the undeletion process at WP:REFUND. I tend to explore new areas cautiously and would stick to those places for now. I do like to help out in areas where there are backlogs and if I could be of use there I would consider it.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have always valued article writing. In 2006/2007 I was heavily involved in the WikiProject Vancouver and we were able to get Vancouver and the Portal: Vancouver to featured status. I had to take a significant hiatus from editing due to school. I did my best to maintain a small presence with spikes around the winter break. Now that I am ‘back’, I have committed myself to some writing and was able to save a new article, James Gwyn, and bring it to GA. I have created, expanded, and improved several DYKs, one of which I created reached over 5,000 views. I have also been helping out around WP:AFC and #wikipedia-en-help connect IRC channel.
- 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 think invariably when you work with people closely on collaborative projects conflict is bound to rise. I have done my best to stay calm and make a genuine effort to make things ‘right’ when conflict emerges. The only somewhat immediate example I can think of a heightened disagreement was my NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat in late Feb early March. I was reported at ANI over the closure and no action was taken. I certainly could have handled the ANI better and learned a lot about the controversies of NAC. I've subsequently sought to seek advice from other admins and respected editors over issues that may be considered controversial and it's worked out pretty well thus far.
- Additional question from AutomaticStrikeout
- 4. Why do you want to be an administrator?
- A: Thank you for asking. I consider myself to be a 'below average' writer which is why I'm very proud of the few articles I have written. Where some people are natural born writers, I often struggle in doing so. If anything, I am a reader, and Wikipedia has always had a special place in my heart. As such, I've always wanted to give back to the Wikipedia community through my gnomish edits and involvement in the custodial maintenance. I feel comfortable in the tasks I've been doing so far, and have identified a few areas, where if I had the tools, could do more to help out.
- Additional question from TParis
- 5. Between April 2008 and Dec 2012, you had only a handful of months where your total edits reached over 100. As you know, long breaks are perfectly acceptable. However, exactly six months after your activity picked up you've posted an RFA. Were you waiting for any sort of magic number with an RFA in mind?
- A: Not particularly. I definitely considered what would be an appropriate amount of time between my return and asking for the tools when I accepted this RFA. For me, this felt like the right time. I wanted to have a good foundation and feel confident in my contributions. It has taken me up until now to find that sense and to truly
own'stand behind' my contributions. I would not have accepted this RFA if 8 or 10 months had gone by and I had not written a substantial article, or been involved in what I consider a decent amount of AFDs. Fortunately I've found what seems to be my routine and I'm still thoroughly enjoying my time here so now seemed like as good a time as any.
- A: Not particularly. I definitely considered what would be an appropriate amount of time between my return and asking for the tools when I accepted this RFA. For me, this felt like the right time. I wanted to have a good foundation and feel confident in my contributions. It has taken me up until now to find that sense and to truly
- 6. I see you've listed a number of religious articles for deletion ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) and voted keep on one ([13]). I'm not opposed to deleting articles simply because they are religious, but half of these nominations did not succeed. What is your position on religious topics? Should they be presented as folk lore, as truth, strictly according to the reliable sources, or something in the middle?
- A: I nominated those articles out of a pro-guideline position. I had recently been looking into the larger scope of WP:CORP and WP:ORG and came across WP:BRANCH. The other criteria I looked at was WP:LOCAL and WP:NGEO. Because Wikipedia fundamentally does not have a solid guideline regarding buildings I
differeddeferred to BRANCH. So to answer your question about the nominations, I actually nominated because they were buildings and purposely did not focus on the religious institutions in which they belonged. In terms of presenting religious topics, I can't say I've had a great deal of experience, especially from the philosophical side. If the subject, no matter which religion, has been covered by reliable and independent publications, then whatever information is citable can be included in the article. I would hesitate to start with an opinion and build an article off that position. I did notice that you included some examples where I hadn't nominated the article for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition where I !voted keep because the Jewish Encyclopedia covered the topic making its assertion to SIGCOV very strong.
- A: I nominated those articles out of a pro-guideline position. I had recently been looking into the larger scope of WP:CORP and WP:ORG and came across WP:BRANCH. The other criteria I looked at was WP:LOCAL and WP:NGEO. Because Wikipedia fundamentally does not have a solid guideline regarding buildings I
- 7. Do you believe that theology scholars are reliable sources as was discussed here?
- A: Because I am unfamiliar with how theology scholars are generally regarded, I would feel uncomfortable formulating an opinion. That linked conversation jumps around a bit from accuracy, to synthesis, to criticism over the consensus process, and also to the matter of whether the technical wording of the source is reliable and suitable for the balance of the article. Upon that discussion alone I could not make a reasonable assessment. If had I to, I would likely seek to research the matter from reliable sources on how theology scholars are viewed by both the academic and religious institutions that surround them, as opposed to the opinions of editors in a heated discussion. If I were asked to make a comment or mediate that discussion, I would openly state my lack of knowledge over the subject matter, recommend they seek mediation from another who does have experience on the issue, or in the very least, to continue their discussion (as long as they remained civilized and on topic). Sorry to give you a bit of a non-answer, but I feel like a fish out of water on that subject matter.
- Additional question from Go Phightins!
- 8. What do you think the role of administrator is within the community, and how would you, if given the tools, seek to embody whatever role you feel admins should play?
- A: Having the adminship tools means something different for everyone. Much like how being an editor can be a varying experience for each and every person. When I think of the difference between a rollbacker and a confirmed editor, the differences are not that distant in my mind. One has simply asked to have a certain set of tool which aids them in the way they interact with Wikipedia. I think any editor who asks for them should already be performing 'administrative' duties, or routinely be in need of the extra tools, and that by having them, could do more, as opposed to editors who do not perform / require these duties / tools already, and then seek them (mostly because it sometimes indicates a desire to collect privileges or power). That said, I fully understand that in gaining the tools, editors will come to you with various needs. Because I spend a portion of my time helping others at the help IRC, AFC, or really anyone who asks me, that I would continue along the same role and respond to requests that were in need of someone with or without the tools. I further recognize that those with the tools are often looked upon as 'role models' (regardless of the fact that being a role model is more than simply having tools). Either way, they are people whom the community has trusted with tools that if abused can cause serious damage. Maintaining that trust in the community and with outsiders is an important obligation to all Wikipedia editors.
- 8. A Thanks for the response, but you didn't address what your personal opinion of the role of administrators is and how you would seek to embody whatever your personal opinion of what role admins should play within the community. Or, if you would prefer, how do you see administrators (without naming names, of course) either performing or not performing whatever you feel the role of admins is. If this doesn't make sense, I can try to rephrase, or perhaps I am just delusional . Thanks.
- A: That's okay, I actually think I wrote that answer on my iPad at the photocopier. Sorry, to clarify above, I do not believe editors with the administrator tools should think differently of themselves from other respectable and productive editors. They have simply been granted tools that they presumably need and can use responsibly for the benefit of themselves and those around them. In order to maintain the trust of the community and from outsiders, I agree with the sentiment that those with the tools should be held accountable to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct. I do not think that there is a singular 'role' that should be to fulfill outside of responsibility and trust. Having the freedom to work in more technical areas, or 'public service', or mediation, is a choice on the type of editor a person wants to be, and not a requirement. For me, because I am seeking a more public service application to the tools such as responding to requests, AFD, CSD, etc. that I would want other sysop in that field to commit to being open and available to all editors. Newcomers are a large portion of the people we would be dealing with and those interacting with them have a responsibility to encourage and welcome the next generation of Wikipedians. Hope this answers your question.
- Additional questions from Carrite
- 9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?
- A: Technically, yes. I reserved the username User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF way back when I first started editing Wikipedia. Both were registered on 1 November 2006 and never used again. I was considering using them for automated edits such as AWB and a bot that would check an article against
it'sits references for plagiarism but never got around to it. They are officially listed as accounts linked to me (someone at ArbCom added them for me to some list) as well as stated so on their user page. I had almost forgotten, that was 7 years ago, but remembered seeing them on my subpage list as well.
- A: Technically, yes. I reserved the username User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF way back when I first started editing Wikipedia. Both were registered on 1 November 2006 and never used again. I was considering using them for automated edits such as AWB and a bot that would check an article against
- 10. Your failed AfD nominations for Lorenzon Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi seem to have hinged on the fact that the content creator of both, User:Pingpong123q, was blocked for "disruptive editing" (See: User_talk:Pingpong123q). Do you feel that going after this new editor's contributions was appropriate, particularly given the fact that the work of this new editor deemed "disruptive" was deleted on the sometimes subjective grounds of "A7-No Indication of Importance"? What is the backstory here? It certainly appears as though these nominations were driven by the name of the creator rather than the content of the piece, yes? Am I missing something? This strikes me as a rather flagrant example of biting the newcomers, at a minimum. /// Addenda: a couple A7s, other new starts deleted as an orphan, a couple as very short articles... Suggestion and query about biting still very much stands. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A Part 1: I would like to answer this question in two answers if I may. The first part a addressing User:Pingpong123q and the second looking at the AFDs Lorenzo Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi. In terms of biting, I would say that I generally work the opposite and do my best to always answer questions and be helpful. I spend a lot of time in the help IRC answering newcomer questions, answering
{{help-me}}
requests, and assisting editors build their articles at WP:AFC. In fairness, I think Pingpong123q was given a lot of rope. I would have been happy to have assisted them in any way, but after the 7th or 8th CSD tag and warning, and the edit warring at Colombo City despite attempts to explain, a threshold was passed. At that point TParis' block was warranted. I may have opted for a 24-48 hour block to allow the editor to take a breath and read through their talk page, but it was a very persistent pattern where an indef block for mass promotion, edit warring, and disruption was understandable. - A Part 2: Regarding Lorenzo Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi, I don't see their keep outcome as a 'failure'. In fact quite the opposite and a success. As you know I rarely nominate AFDs, and when I do, it's usually because the article (if it has sources) fits in between a CSD and a notability tag. I usually err on the side of notability tags but there are of course times where I feel an AFD may be more suitable. I also don't nominate clear delete articles for AFD. A CSD tag does fine in the world of new page patrol. I think AFDs are a great way of giving an article a fighting chance. I am always cautious with my opinions in CSD, AFD, and AFC as my record shows, and my nominations are no different. I have always taken the position that being cautious and having a shining record is not the same. I am okay with having keep outcomes on my AFDs if it means avoiding from being deleted that should have been kept. I admittedly don't know everything and when I need the opinions of others, and want to give an article 7 or more days if the consensus is not clear, and a chance for the article to be improved, then I'm all for it.
- A Part 1: I would like to answer this question in two answers if I may. The first part a addressing User:Pingpong123q and the second looking at the AFDs Lorenzo Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi. In terms of biting, I would say that I generally work the opposite and do my best to always answer questions and be helpful. I spend a lot of time in the help IRC answering newcomer questions, answering
- Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
- 11. First let me say in advance thanks for answer the questions above and the questions that I will be asking. I see that since Mkdw has registered on Wikipedia, that there were different periods of heavy editing, and less heavy editing, with heavy edit periods being especially Sep 2006-Mar 2007, Nov 2009, and Dec 2012 until the present. What occurred to reduce your editing, and what brought you back each time?
- A: You are basically looking at my entire undergraduate. I had spikes during holidays, reading breaks, and lulls in the semesters, along with a light practicum in 2010. I've used many methods to describe my time at school, but my favourite thus far has been my editing history, shortly followed by interpretive dance (joke). I've always kept a presence at Wikipedia, but during school, it was severely limited to reading and occasionally reverting vandalism off my watchlist. Not coming back was something I never considered.
- Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
- 12. I see that of the 18 thousand plus edits, of which less than 5500 edits were done in the main articlespace, that only six having over 100 edits from you. They being Vancouver (FFA), Flash mob (start), James Gwyn (GA), Hollywood North (B), Break a leg (C), and Sheng nu (B). What lead you to work on these articles? Did you have any hand in improving the quality of these articles? If so, how?
- A: I'm from Vancouver (nicknamed Hollywood North) so a natural local interest. I made editorial edits to Vancouver and worked heavily on improving the references. For Hollywood North, I did both writing and referencing. Flash mobs are really a curious social phenomenon and as the trend was emerging, I thought it was exactly the type of thing Wikipedia should have as a fully written article. I was determined, along with others, to write a very accurate and detailed article about the subject. I am proud to say that when flash mobbing hit the mainstream, the Wikipedia article and its content was regularly cited in news sources such as CNN, CBC, and even a mention in the New York Times. Break a leg was sort of by accident in that I came to the internet to find out what it meant and found an incomplete article. I decided to improve it, writing and researching much of the content, and then had it on my watchlist. Because the saying exists in nearly every language, the maintenance and cleanup was constant. Over the years the tally added up. Sheng nu was the subject of a series of articles I was following in the BBC and New York Times. Again, I found that Wikipedia had no article on it. I initially had no idea it was such a large and widespread topic having been covered by some of the most reputable sources in the Anglophone and Chinese world, and over such a lengthy period of time. I created the article and wrote and referenced all the content. I believe a few other editors helped to fix the odd typo and spelling mistake during the DYK nomination. Lastly, James Gwyn was an article I came across new page patrolling. The editor had more or less abandoned it. I thought it would be an extremely good test for me to get back into writing having taken such a long hiatus. Eventually it turned into a labour of love. As I said above, I consider myself a below average writer, so I struggled with it, but after awhile got it to GA, and I couldn't be more proud of myself because while I did have help from the occasional editor and the GA reviewer, it was as Yunshui described, many weeks of solo work. Hopefully my low quantity of article space edits has been made up by quality. I know other gnomish editors patrol vandalism and subsequently have higher article space edits but I ended up in other areas.
- Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
- 13. I see that the next largest group of edits are on User Talk pages, with the largest edit count being on User:Mkdw/CSD log. What brought about this interest in CSD? With activity at CSD, please provide us an example which you believe best shows us a reason why the Admin tools would be used properly and judicially in your care
- A: To continue from my last answer, I started in anti-vandalism tasks but eventually gravitated towards areas where there was a more significant backlog. Around the same time I started doing CSD. I eventually ended up doing more in CSD in the end. Also, my interest in AFD helped drive my interest in CSD since the two are somewhat related. I'm not sure if I have a specific example of an article where I placed a CSD that would additionally illustrate my ability to use the tools more effectively. I would say in general that I have been both careful and precise in my tagging. I err on the side of caution to reduce any mistakes but have certainly been willing to 'pull the trigger' in cases where the tag was warranted. Because I can't see the deleted articles, it's difficult for me to remember or go back and look at some of the ones that were perhaps a tough decision but ultimately a good tag.
- Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
- 14. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Mkdw, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may the effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?
- A: I have plenty of faults. Maybe too many to list. I would say my largest fault is forgetting to slow down and take a deep breath. I will get caught up or read things too quickly which can lead to misunderstandings or actions where I did not considered all the possibilities. Most importantly, I am self aware of most of faults -- though some may disagree. Things like slowing down is something I continuously work on and learn from the times where I have made a mistake. Being both diplomatic and professional has served me well in resolving differences and misunderstandings, both in life and here on Wikipedia. I think I've also shown the ability to take care in tasks that require a high level of trust. If I were given the tools, I know I would feel an even stronger sense of commitment and responsibility to use them appropriately and correctly. This would mean not making decisions lightly or carelessly. Lastly, I'm someone who does not have a problem asking for help when I am uncertain of how to proceed and I know what I do not.
- Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
- 15. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?
- A: Indirectly to answer the first part of the question, there are 6784 articles on Wikipedia that have their neutrality disputed via
{{NPOV}}
. Using that alone as my basis, I would definitely say there are non-neutral articles on Wikipedia. To directly answer your question, I have not heavily been involved nor have closely followed much of the politics around the community. I think the most controversial article where neutrality was disputed, and I was involved, was back in 2007 regarding Hollywood North and whether the term applied to Vancouver, Toronto, or all of Canada. Even then that was not really a major controversy. I'm not very political regarding issues on Wikipedia and don't closely follow the various spheres of influence affecting the community. Sorry to again have a bit of a non-answer on this one, but I'm really not very knowledgeable about this subject matter. Having been away for such a long period of time and having not been active in any of those types of discussions because my time has been mostly focused in other areas is the main reason for that. The closest I could come to commenting at all would be to say that I read aSign PostSignpost (I even italicized it) article a few weeks ago that said 91% of Wikipedian editors are male which presumably would represent both a gender neutrality and balance issue. I thought it was an interesting fact, but I don't think it would affect my use of the tools. I've always supported the uninvolved method of resolving issues and if I were in a situation where my personal bias or neutrality was in question, I would remove myself from the situation, and hopefully by my own recognition which I think I could in most cases.
- A: Indirectly to answer the first part of the question, there are 6784 articles on Wikipedia that have their neutrality disputed via
- Additional question from Apteva
- 16. AfD makes things go away, and RfCs deal mostly with content. WP:RM deals with how articles are named, and has a significant backlog, even though it is designed to have all discussions closed or relisted before they reach the backlog. Picking two of them, a) Red Sorghum Clan → Red Sorghum,[14] and b) Thomas Ring Petersen → Thomas Ring[15] how would you close these or would you relist one or both?
- A: I do not have any experience at WP:RM and would refrain from commenting, relisting, or closing the discussions. I would be interested to learn in the future more about WP:RM and how closes are done, and what the corresponding policies, guidelines, and procedures are since there is a backlog there. It has taken me nearly 1,000 AFDs to gain a reasonable sense of the current Wikipedia status quo and the typical process at AFD alone. Even now, I still come across new topics, policies, and procedures that I was not aware. So to comment on a RM with no experience I think would ill advised for myself, or anyone.
- Additional question from Minimac
- 17. This is an optional question, so you don't have to answer this if you don't want to. I know that you don't intend to work in UFAA, but I thought I would ask someone some basic question on usernames. Are any of these three acceptable, even if they intend to edit constructively?
- AdamsParkSecurity
- Pleasesuckme
- BOBotto
- A: AdamsParkSecurity appears to be promotional in nature if the username has been named after a company called 'Adam Park Security'. I would inquire with the editor if they were identifying themselves as Adam Park. If the answer was no, then I would inform them of WP:CORPNAME that deals with promotional names and WP:NOSHARE. If the answer was yes, I may be inclined to seek advice at WP:RFC/NAME due to WP:REALNAME as well as inform the user (I would also offer WP:CHU as an option). I largely feel that talking to this person would reveal quite a bit and lead to the appropriate response off that conversation. Pleasesuckme would be a name I'd inform the user about Wikipedia's WP:USERNAME policy and would report it at UFAA. I believe offensive names are not eligible for name change requests. As far as I know, BOBotto does not conflict with any existing Wikipedia policies. If it does, then I would leave it to another who knew specifically to handle it.
General comments
- Links for Mkdw: Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Mkdw can be found here.
- Edit stats added on talk page by TParis. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 17:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Do you really want to say that you feel like you "own" your contributions? I think I know what you meant, but that could be easily misconstrued. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support per nom. INeverCry 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously (dammit, got beaten to the punch on the first vote!). Yunshui 雲水 18:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict × 2) Support - I've reviewed his contributions, which largely seem fine. His CSD nominations are on par with the accuracy that one should expect of an administrator. His AFC reviews also looked fine. James Gwyn is an example of a well-done good article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in general. I see good work at CSD and some very good content work, at James Gwyn and elsewhere. I'm a little concerned about some of the AFD activity in early-to-mid March of this year - and I see now that the candidate addressed that while I was supporting, here. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks okay to me.Deb (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support under the principle of "I thought he was already an admin". Mkdw has already demonstrated his ability to work in the back office realm to help keep the machinery running smoothly. - MrX 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this RfA coming a mile away. It's finally a reality. Outstanding candidate. Kurtis (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent candidate. Answer to my question was good too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You mean you're not an admin already? Someguy1221 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per clean block log, willingness to engage in discussion (such as at Talk:Iron Man in film), sensible comments at film-related AfDs, and clueful contributions on articles like sheng nu. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I spent a long time reading back contributions for Mkdw. I was actually glad to find some minor flaws and times when he got a little hot under the collar, since his recent history of flawless admin-grooming type edits didn't impress me much. I believe Mkdw will be a fine admin, one willing to go beyond groupthink, with a nuanced understanding of policy and its application. Some may like to see thousands of flawless bot-type edits for many months, but I think such edits indicate little about someone's character. In any case, his recent history has plenty of that too, if it floats your boat. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not worried about the vague non-answer to Q7. My Q6 was a concern that the user was too focused in removing religion topics. No matter a person's position on the subject, which I wouldn't judge someone on, an all out vendetta against religion would've been concerning. Obviously that's not the case at all which renders Q7 moot. Happy to support.--v/r - TP 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support some good answering to questions.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (ec) Nice demeanour. Q1 and Q7 suggest that he'll stay in areas of competence. --Stfg (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great editor and great answers to questions. No concerns at all. Tolly4bolly 20:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Weird coincidence, I was looking through some of this editor's (and that of some other editors) AfC work last night, and was left with a good impression, one that confirms my previous observations of this editor over the years. I also quite liked the answer to TP's Q7, there are many places one encounters as an admin where a respect for just how much one may not know about a problem is essential. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above supporters. Seems like a mature editor.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another good editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen around with no problems. Good answers - it's important to know what you don't know about, and not think you do. (I know what I mean. It's been a very hard day...) Peridon (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contributions. Seems very humble to me, especially after reading the answer to Q4. TCN7JM 21:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 21:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributions. Good answers to the questions, and good work in the areas where he wants to do admin work. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The activity and contributions and the counts (he has nearly 20,000 live edits) are really hopeful. Good luck with the adminship. Cheers! World Traveller101 21:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, an overall net positive for the project. — -dainomite 22:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom, and 93.7% is unusually high even for for most current admins. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 02:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Decent answers to good questions, and I appreciate the candidate's willingness to admit (and learn from) mistakes. Miniapolis 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, sure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen Mkdw around and I know that he is very accurate in CSD, but i'm also impressed with his other contributions on here as well. I think he'll make a great admin. Webclient101talk 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Most definitely! A competent, level-headed editor. A real asset to the project. I also liked his answer to question #4. -- Ϫ 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another person on my "what, they're not admins already?" list. A great helper on the IRC help channel, and the AfD ratio is truly impressive. Huon (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Impressive CSD log, nice content work, good answers to questions. Good luck. — sparklism hey! 06:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 08:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great candidate. I don't have anything to add to the supports above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I offered to nominate about 6 years ago, so I definitely think he's ready now :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of surreal to think about, isn't it? Kurtis (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 was six years ago?!? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets crazier — 2003 was ten years ago. It feels like yesterday that I was going to the local Imax theatre to watch The Return of the King on its opening night. Had to get front row seats, but I actually didn't mind much. It was a long movie, yet it felt like an hour and a half at most. Spoiler alert: It freaked me out when (3... 2... 1...) Gollum bit Frodo's finger off. And now the trilogy is over ten years old... Kurtis (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 was six years ago?!? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of surreal to think about, isn't it? Kurtis (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Michig (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seen them around plenty, not likely to abuse the tools, reasonable and calm in their demeanor, good all around experience. Unquestionably a net positive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support LlamaAl (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Q8 and 8A. Go Phightins! 23:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A clear asset to the project. Manning (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just deleted something he nommed for CSD, stop wasting my time and do it yourself already There are some answers here that strike me as a tad odd, which is why I've held off until now, but diversity in opinion is a valuable thing and I don't need to agree with something to think s/he would make a good sysop. I think Mkdw will overwhelmingly continue to do good work for the project and am happy to see him with more ways to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good candidate for adminship. — Scott • talk 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Answers to the questions look great to me Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problem. Arctic Kangaroo 08:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support .. I was under the impression that s/he is already admin.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well-thought out answers to questions, no concerns, will be a benefit to the Project. GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Full on support! I'm a little too late to co-nominate him, but Mkdw is someone I feel will be an outstanding admin and will contribute much to the project. Like the others, I just assumed that he was already admin- he takes up a lot of the slack and does a lot of the work that admins should do! (BTW, I also think that you deserve a shirt!) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, and it seems reasonable to assume Mkdw will use them responsibly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thunk-he-was. Admirable candor in responding to an excessive degree of questioning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — The candidate seems well-rounded in various admin-related tasks. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose We cannot have admins who confuse "differ" with "defer" or "it's" with "its". Standards must be upheld. --John (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Thanks so much for answering my questions, the answers appear to show that the subject of this RfA is trustworthy of the tools of the Admin. I look forward to good things from this future admin, and hope that the trust we place upon Mkdw is not misplaced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without hesitation - lots of great experience, and a very positive attitude to the project and to its contributors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definite net positive. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I continue to be surprised by the excellent candidates who I've never heard of, no offense intended (of course). Also, the answer to question 15 is very interesting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like what I see, another mop to be given out. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Never interacted with the user before but no reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to walk the walk. Warden (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support !!! Mediran (t • c) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vancouver represent! But srsly, I've seen Mkdw's work, and there's no red flags. Has the best interests of the project at heart. The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great candidate and clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I only know Mkdw from a handful of encounters in talk page discussions, and was unfamiliar with the vast majority of his contributions. Before !voting in this RfA, I wanted to have the opportunity to review his contributions. While I personally believe that 5,300 or so article space edits is on the light side for an administrator candidate, I also respect his hard work and 13,000+ edits in other administrative aspects of the project. Based on his candid answers and track record, I am supporting Mkdw and wish him well in his future efforts as an admin. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen them around, and I think that this is a very strong candidate, no significant problems. I think that the answers to questions were thoughtful and intelligent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As someone who has worked with Mkdw in the past, I can safely say that he is one of the most solid potential administrators on Wikipedia. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seen their work on the Project, now and then, and I'm very satisified. Good luck Mkdw! —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like good admin material to me. -- Marek.69 talk 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sure! Legoktm (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very trusted indeed, and deserves the mop and bucket in every respect. I've added an optional question just in-case he does decide to work at UFAA during his admin career, but still, this is likely to pass, whether he/she gets my optional question wrong or not. Minima© (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good. Michael (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to questions. I haven't found any problems. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No problems here. The two allegedly poor AfD noms are fine; both were improved while at AfD, but the sources used to do so were largely foreign-language and their potential improvement should not have been a given. Chick Bowen 18:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Rzuwig► 20:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Reading the contributions, definitely deserving of the mop. Hakuna matata! ZappaOMati 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've worked with this editor before and interacted with him on IRC. I feel confidant saying that he is fully qualified for the admin tools and will continue to positively contribute to the project. - tucoxn\talk 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well-rounded candidate. No concerns. Stalwart111 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No problems here Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Obvious support is obvious.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prodego talk 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: looks like he has more than enough clue to avoid breaking the encyclopedia. An easy support - more of these, please. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a hell-bound atheist Sodomite admin, I have to say the opposes are rather unconvincing thus far. But, seriously, I've seen Mkdw around and they seem reasonable and sensible. Give 'em a mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was waiting for someone to oppose in the hope that there would be some reason to think deeply about this. But, now that we do have an oppose, I see no reason to strain my brain over this. Slam dunk excellent admin addition. --regentspark (comment) 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I haven't seen anything too unbecoming yet. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Not to jinx ya, but it appears the only question now is if you will hit WP:100. To be more serious, there are an awful lot of editors I respect supporting you. My congrats, and condolences, at being an admin for life. Jusdafax 06:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good egg who'll respect the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate is clearly trustworthy and competent. AGK [•] 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate to become admin. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sadly not going to be the WP:100 !vote, but I would swear I had !voted in support of this candidate years ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to questions. Why not? Robot or no robot I see a trustworthy administrator here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I reviewed this editor according to my own guideline and this user meets my expectations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per WP:99. Wizardman 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hadn't ever noticed him before, but he seems a perfectly fine candidate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per what I've been observing on this whole RfA. smtchahal(talk) 07:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per MONGO. Article edit ratio is perhaps a little low, but i'm not really infected with editcountitis, so no worries. Cheers, LindsayHello 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm impressed, Mkdw. Your demeanor is commendable and fitting for an administrator, as is your cordiality in interactions with other editors and your willingness to take advice and learn from your own mistakes (as you illustrate in Q3). I also like your answers to Q4, Q7, and Q8, in which you show that you take the role of a sysop seriously (but not too seriously so as to let it go to your head), express a desire to delve into the facts before formulating an opinion and display a degree thoughtfulness. By the way, based on your answers themselves, you seem to be very well-spoken and an above average writer in my humble opinion. But, at any rate, I'm confident you'll do very well as a sysop and I'm happy to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per pretty much everyone, above, as well as my criterion for adminship. Excellent candidate, great contributions. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- While I disagree that spelling is part of any "standard", it is important to tell the difference between it's and its. Worse though, is for that same admin who also opposed to spend time reverting good edits. I was hoping for a better answer to 16, and 17 fell in to the normal trap of not reading the question. The question was are any of these three acceptable, and instead of just saying yes, or possibly, (BOBotto), an explanation of what they would do with each was given. 16 b) has now been correctly closed as "moved", something that I would hope anyone going to WP:RM and finding and reading WP:RMCI would be able to determine, without just saying, "to comment on a RM with no experience I think would [be] ill advised for myself, or anyone". That has not stopped countless others, nor should it be a reason in itself. There are no degrees in editing needed to participate in RM discussions, but there is a degree of experience needed to be an admin, which, of course, is a foregone conclusion. Apteva (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your concerns. I read WP:RMCI and it specifically states in the instructions, "the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. I determined that the instructions were very clear and aligned with my views about only experienced sysops and editors (WP:RMNAC) who are familiar with the relavent guidelines and policies should be moderating RMs. I would feel differently about simply participating in the discussions, but that was not the question. Regarding question 17, not everything has a "yes" and "no" answer as was the case in that question. The question lacked some essential information that would have been required for a "yes" or "no" answer. I decided to mention the missing criteria and give my response as to how I obtain and respond with the understanding that my response would be my answer. I appreciate your concerns and fortunately I won't be working in those areas unless I did some more reading into them. I hope you don't take my reluctance as a sign of incompetence, since in the areas I do work I have shown a good and prolific track record. If you do feel that my timidness to explore new areas will fundamentally cause me to misuse or abuse the sysop tools then I understand your objection but it if it's merely a matter of personal preference on how to jump in then I hope you will reconsider. I made the its and it's mistake once or twice but I do know the difference. Please forgive my typos -- admittedly I have been answering some of these questions late at night when I come home from work. Mkdwtalk 02:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 16 a) has now been correctly relisted (1 oppose, 2 support is not a whole lot of participation, and is well worth relisting in the hope that others will participate). Honestly the most difficult part of closing Rm's is not the decision, but the mechanics of cleaning up after a move, which can be rather complex. There is a particularly complex decision coming up, though, in the 2013 Cleveland article. Apteva (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your concerns. I read WP:RMCI and it specifically states in the instructions, "the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. I determined that the instructions were very clear and aligned with my views about only experienced sysops and editors (WP:RMNAC) who are familiar with the relavent guidelines and policies should be moderating RMs. I would feel differently about simply participating in the discussions, but that was not the question. Regarding question 17, not everything has a "yes" and "no" answer as was the case in that question. The question lacked some essential information that would have been required for a "yes" or "no" answer. I decided to mention the missing criteria and give my response as to how I obtain and respond with the understanding that my response would be my answer. I appreciate your concerns and fortunately I won't be working in those areas unless I did some more reading into them. I hope you don't take my reluctance as a sign of incompetence, since in the areas I do work I have shown a good and prolific track record. If you do feel that my timidness to explore new areas will fundamentally cause me to misuse or abuse the sysop tools then I understand your objection but it if it's merely a matter of personal preference on how to jump in then I hope you will reconsider. I made the its and it's mistake once or twice but I do know the difference. Please forgive my typos -- admittedly I have been answering some of these questions late at night when I come home from work. Mkdwtalk 02:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Leaning towards support. Mkdw stated way back in 2007: I'm not an admin. I would like to be one day, but at the moment I am not. Sorry., and then he started acting a bit funny, to my eyes. It seems to me that he was almost acting as if to show that he was worthy of being an admin — he even started citing policies to those who already knew them, which can be annoying. Another incident that caught my eye was when two different users complained that he had been editing their User page, and when they asked him to stop, in both cases, Mkdw cited WP:CIVIL, but as a trick (as in "I know policy and you don't"), to somehow make their complaints seem less valid.[16][17] Granted, that is all very ancient history, and now Mkdw's more recent answers on his Talk page inspire me much more confidence. I do not actually think it has all been an "act" by him to get adminship, but I thought I should express my concerns here anyway. Now, I do see his good interactions with other users, and his very thoughtful replies, which is exactly what I want from an admin. Alas, even though Mkdw characterizes himself as a "below average' writer", his low percentage of edits to articles (only 33%) is still not so good. In any case, Mkdw is obviously a very nice guy, I suspect he will make a fine admin, and I wish him the best, but, for the above reasons, I stay neutral for now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DanielTom, I believe that citation to policies and guidelines is helpful and serves an "educational" purpose. While I recognize that many better informed editors will already know the relevant policies and guidelines, many others will not, including those who read talk page discussions but do not comment. In general discussions such as XfDs, too often participants seem to believe that consensus and outcome decisions are based on a tally of opinions--opinions which are based on the editors' personal feelings rather the relevant policies and guidelines. If we are going to have policies and guidelines, and we are going to try to enforce them in a consistent manner, then the relevant policies and guidelines should be cited, linked and quoted in talk page discussions, as appropriate. Frankly, it speaks well of any editor who does so on a regular basis, regardless of whether he is an admin candidate or not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is when people cite policies not to shed light, but to "score points" in an argument. Citing the WP:CIVIL policy when someone makes a complaint about you is usually just a trick, a hidden way of accusing the other person of being uncivil, and it should be used in very extreme cases only. But again, those are all very old examples. I would like to know how Mkdw handles criticism now, but looking at his more recent contributions, I could find no clues. His edits are practically "perfect". How can that be? How could he not upset anyone after all these years? I think the answer may be that he has been aiming at adminship all along, even if subconsciously. That is why old diffs are important, not to show that a 14 year-old (or whatever the age) said some silly things, but to show what his original motivation/direction was — much like the "decision" of a child to become a chess champion, except that in this case the goal is to become an admin. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, and my interpretation may well be wrong, but given that once he does become an admin he won't have to impress anyone anymore, I have absolutely no idea how he is going to deal with all the drama admins have to put up with. I hope he will manage it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that, if Mkdw has managed to behave like he was worthy of being an admin for six years, it's either effortless and we should give him the tools or we should nominate him for a couple of Olivier Awards. Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember ever saying he was acting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak directly for Ironholds, but I think it's fairly evident that you allude to the possibility that I have been representing myself as something other than my true self. Your concerns that once I have the tools, some other negative side of me will emerge, that I have been suppressing. You actually do mention "acting" or "to be an act" three times above. Over the past 7 years I have been offered an RFA nomination on more than one occasion. If the sysop tools were really my overall objective (consciously or subconsciously), I would have accepted one of those offers opposed to waiting 6 years. I think what you are more likely seeing is a person who in their twenties started recognizing the value of professionalism and diplomacy as I went into my university education and career. I certainly appreciate your sense of long term strategy, you are after all the Portuguese Go Champion, but for what it's worth, I will say directly from me to you, that I believe having the tools puts those who have them under even more scrutiny than ever. I think my positive contributions show hard evidence that I care deeply for this project and that an abuse of power would be an unlikely and damaging endeavour. I thank you for your comments and look forward to you checking in on me now and then so that I may stand behind my statement here today with complete confidence. Mkdwtalk 17:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember ever saying he was acting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that, if Mkdw has managed to behave like he was worthy of being an admin for six years, it's either effortless and we should give him the tools or we should nominate him for a couple of Olivier Awards. Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is when people cite policies not to shed light, but to "score points" in an argument. Citing the WP:CIVIL policy when someone makes a complaint about you is usually just a trick, a hidden way of accusing the other person of being uncivil, and it should be used in very extreme cases only. But again, those are all very old examples. I would like to know how Mkdw handles criticism now, but looking at his more recent contributions, I could find no clues. His edits are practically "perfect". How can that be? How could he not upset anyone after all these years? I think the answer may be that he has been aiming at adminship all along, even if subconsciously. That is why old diffs are important, not to show that a 14 year-old (or whatever the age) said some silly things, but to show what his original motivation/direction was — much like the "decision" of a child to become a chess champion, except that in this case the goal is to become an admin. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, and my interpretation may well be wrong, but given that once he does become an admin he won't have to impress anyone anymore, I have absolutely no idea how he is going to deal with all the drama admins have to put up with. I hope he will manage it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DanielTom, I believe that citation to policies and guidelines is helpful and serves an "educational" purpose. While I recognize that many better informed editors will already know the relevant policies and guidelines, many others will not, including those who read talk page discussions but do not comment. In general discussions such as XfDs, too often participants seem to believe that consensus and outcome decisions are based on a tally of opinions--opinions which are based on the editors' personal feelings rather the relevant policies and guidelines. If we are going to have policies and guidelines, and we are going to try to enforce them in a consistent manner, then the relevant policies and guidelines should be cited, linked and quoted in talk page discussions, as appropriate. Frankly, it speaks well of any editor who does so on a regular basis, regardless of whether he is an admin candidate or not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral
leaning oppose owing to two sets of very concerning AfD nominations.My AfD concerns have been basically satisfied although I do advise the (pretty much inevitable) new administrator to always err on the side of caution when pursuing deletion and to be careful not to squish the baby ducks when driving the tractor... I'll just sit this one out without further comment. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Hmmm...odd...often when I decline a CSD for an article that might be borderline and I cannot readily fix, I will AFD it right away. Some of those end up being kept, some end up being fixed and kept, and some get deleted. I think doing that is a good thing, not a bad thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
KumiokoCleanStart
Final (14/46/24); ended 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
KumiokoCleanStart (talk · contribs) – I've been around for a long time and know the rules pretty well. I am definitely not the editor who is going to gain access to the tools based on popularity but I think most users would agree that I am passionate about the project, know policy, contribute actively and in a positive manner. This will be my third attempt at getting access to the tools. The first was here back in 2008 and the second was here in August of 2012. I have about 420, 000 edits globally including Wiktionary, Simple Wikipedia, Commons and others but the vast majority of my edits have been here on En. I generally favor a conservative approach to blocks and I am frequently outspoken against admin abuses, overzealous blocks, the Arbitration committee and a variety of other things that I feel do more to bring the project down that help it keep going. I admit in advance I don't hold much hope of this RFA passing but I'm going to submit it anyway in the hopes that editors realize I am not going away and am trying to help build an encyclopedia. You may not always like the way I say it or how I treat editors I perceive as bullies and a detriment to the project but I'm not about to go deleting the main page, using the tools for vandalism or using the tools to manipulate discussions or bait other users into blockable situations (which happens more often in the project than many would like). I don't plan on using the block function much but I am not going to agree never to use it if I see obvious active vandalism. Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: The vast majority of the admin work I intend to do will be in the areas of Maintenance. For example this will help me be able to pull in more than 25, 000 articles to AWB, it will allow me to see the restricted visibility reports like unwatched articles, it will also allow me to edit protected pages and templates that currently require me to ask for someone else to implement my changes.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have always though this to be a somewhat silly question. Any positive contribution to the project is good and even little changes improve the project incrementally. I would say that I am very happy with my work building up the Medal of Honor recipient articles and I am also proud of my work restarting WikiProject United States. Although I don't actively govern the WikiProject United States project as I once did I continue to do things to help support the project.
- 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: Absolutely, nearly anyone who edits has been in a conflict in Wikipedia or else they haven't been editing much. The environment in Wikipedia is a sour one and its easy to upset users. I generally treat editors with respect until they don't respect me or act as bully's in the project. There are several that fit into this category and its a real pet peeve of mine when I see an admin or veteran editor act like they own the place and make rude comments or get nasty with other users. Its with these users you are likely to find my comments to be less than gentlemanly on occasion. I have been blocked a couple times for telling a user off but these were after I tried the nice way and usually out of frustration that no one was doing anything about their behavior.
- Additional question from LindsayH
- 4. Can you explain how your very strong us vs. them attitude with regard to admins will affect your service, or be changed by your service, as an admin?
- A:I must say that is an excellent question and I apologize this will be a bit long but its a complicated question and requires a detailed response. I do, obviously believe there is significant and growing rift between the admin corps and the common editors here in the project and that needs to change. I am not looking to get the tools to be the block/protect/arbcom decision maker. There are some specific tools I would like to get and can make good use of but can't because they are part of the toolset and not available otherwise. My becoming an admin would not change my feelings about the Us and them mentality and would not change my opinions of Arbcom. It would also not remove the "chip" that everyone says I have. I would continue to advocate for admins to be held accountable (including me) rather than being exempt from policy, I would continue to fight to unbundle some or all of the admin tools into modules, I would continue to argue that Arbcom needs to get back to deciding disputes and stop trying to Govern the sight by benign neglect. A large chunk of my work is already admin related, I just cannot implement the change. I do a lot of stuff that deals with templates, I do a lot of work within the Wikipedia namespace and I would like to help out doing more. IMO we need to get back to a mentality of adminship being no big deal and make it easier to give the tools to users and easier to take them away. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am very conservitive when it comes to blocks and probably would rarely be the blocker. I think they are abused and overused especially indef (which should be rare and by exception not the norm as is the trend these days). Since I am critical of Arbcom decision and cases and a lot of that deals with content that has been deleted I have to ask them to see the deleted content. Sometimes they say yes and sometimes no. This would allow me to see the "evidence" so that I can make a better informed decision. Oftentimes I can only comment on what I can see and as I have stated in Arbcom discussions, if I cannot see the evidence, its inadmissible for comment, so I base my comments on what I have available. I hope this helps clarify but please let me know if I need to provide further details.
- Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast
- 5. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?
- A: Good questions. First I think there are couple of groups of articles that have some neutrality issues in addition to the individual problems we see on different articles. The first are the political ones. These tend to get nasty during voting season and each camp can put subtle or not so subtle things in the article. Some are easier to catch than others but a lot of times it pretty obvious if an election is going on and there is a sudden flurry of activity on the article. I think the article needs to be as unbiased as possible but the big problems come out when we have a bunch of sources that show all about the dirt and nothing else. So the article appears one sided because that's the information we can source. I think generally the experienced contributors (including but not limited to admins) generally do a good job at catching this and are generally non POV. I don't think it would have a huge impact on my admin role because that's not the area I am planning on working in frequently. I would have to look at each one case by case and look at the history.
- 6. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Kumioko, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may the effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?
- A: Well I certainly have my faults. Chief amoung them these days is a lack of tact when I probably should be more cautious in what I say. I do not like the double standard between the admins and the editors and the frequent tendency to burn the editors and let admins slide on the same issue. I really don't think it will have much of an effect on me using the tools because as I mentioned I really only need the benign side of things like edit protected, the ability to see deleted content, etc. I thinking blocking and article protection are heavily abused so I don't have much interest in doing that. I'm not going to say never but I am going to say extremely rarely. I think I should be trusted for a couple reasons. First, I'm already doing a lot of admin related work, I just can't implement the cahnge. Second, the general sense and feeling is that I know what I'm doing but the fear is I have the wrong demeanor for the arbitration/mediation role of Admin. Third I think the tools are no big deal and if I break the rules then they can take them away. Its just a check box in the Beauro tool kit. It should be fairly easy to get and easy to take away.
- 7. Ultimately Wikipedia is about presenting neutrally presented, verified to reliable source content about subjects determined to be notable as defined by the various notability guidelines that presently exist. As such please tell us about your article content editing experience. What article content that you created are you proud of? Why? Of the article content that you created what have been elevated to GA and beyond? In editing article content have you ever come into conflict with another editor? If so, please provide examples; specifically, how in dealing with those conflicts do you believe show that you would be considered responsible in handling the admin tools.
- A: I have about a dozen GA articles, about 20 or 30 B class, I have created about 1000 articles in general over the years. I also have a couple of FA's and about 10 featured lists. I tended to submit the FL's more because the process was more allowing. The FA process unfortunately seemed to be dominated at the time by folks from England and preferred British English styling. It was extremely difficult to get an FA passed without removing all or the majority of American english usage. I have had some conflicts in editing but not too many. Nothing significant I can think of when it comes to the development of articles.
- 8. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as an admin.
- A: I manage an office of several people. I have also been in the military in leadership positions there. That's probably evident in my stern and abrasive style for those that have been around the military. I am matter of fact and don't tend to beat around the bush. On the same token I am not the jerk/raving lunatic I am made out to be. Often times the wording in text sounds worse that it is. That's why people who meet me face to face tend to think I am a good guy. I'm pretty outgoing and social but body language is hard to type.
- 9. Please take the test at politicalcompass.org and tell us your results. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?
- A: I'll do the test later on tonight but in general my record should speak for itself on the political opinions. I have little interest in politics here our outside Wiki (perhaps that's part of the problem with my popularity here). I would absolutely recuse myself in COI areas if those were to come up.
- Per request my scores are Economic Left/Right: -2.62 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00. Not sure if that will mean anything to anyone here but there it goes. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if this is a proper place to add a comment not by the questioner or the nominee, but this has bugged me since I first saw it and I feel like I need to say my piece. This is a really inappropriate question in an AfD. We don't need to start having political tests of applicants and basing our assessments here upon nominal political allegiances or self-reported pseudo-quantifications of philosophical views. With all due respect to the questioner, I hope we don't see this question again at
AfDRFA. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if this is a proper place to add a comment not by the questioner or the nominee, but this has bugged me since I first saw it and I feel like I need to say my piece. This is a really inappropriate question in an AfD. We don't need to start having political tests of applicants and basing our assessments here upon nominal political allegiances or self-reported pseudo-quantifications of philosophical views. With all due respect to the questioner, I hope we don't see this question again at
Economic Left/Right: -8.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.64 How'd I do?! Basket Feudalist 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredible score! Agreed, the question is utterly ridiculous, I'm surprised that the candidate even answered it. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Choess
- 10. Could you be more specific about your Featured Articles? I'm having trouble finding the nominations at FAC. Thanks.
- A:I helped with Medal of Honor a long time ago and I had a couple more I withdrew for various reasons. I also had a lot of edits to others that have been submitted by others so although I wasn't the one that submitted it, I did a lot of contributory edits to help get it there. I had a couple more that I worked on but its been so long I can't really remember what they were honestly. Most of my featured content was for featured lists. I didn't submit them personally and most of the FA work was done by Hawkeye but take a look at Kenneth Walker or these that are getting pretty close. Smedley Butler, Michael J. Daly. Michael P. Murphy.
- Additional question from Stalwart111
- 11. Though there is obviously a wider context, I was wondering if you could explain how your view of the project has changed since this comment a couple of months ago. If it hasn't, what would be your "one big change" to WP that might prevent other editors from coming to that same conclusion?
- A:Frankly my attitude hasn't changed much and given the tone of the opposes here I don't think its entirely unjustified. I think people are so quick to find a reason to oppose they are willing to completely ignore the other 400, 000 edits because I got frustrated at the system and some individuals. I'm just trying to continue to edit and help out and I'm being treated like a common vandal. Unfortunately that is an increasing trend in the site and explains why more and more people leave.
General comments
- Links for KumiokoCleanStart: KumiokoCleanStart (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for KumiokoCleanStart can be found here.
- Previous RFAs for this editor include:
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko (April 2008)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko 2 (August 2012)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Not sure if this belongs just here or on the talk page, but i have to think that Question 9 is inappropriate. Last month a candidate was questioned about a communist userbox and another user stated that that userbox made him ineligible for adminship, both points that were rather severely questioned and disputed. Asking Kumioko to take a test and provide the results, with the implication that those results will affect the questioner's vote, is simply wrong. Cheers, LindsayHello 05:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and I have a similar objection to Q6. Those questions are prying. We aren't here to decide whether we approve of people as people, just to decide whether they get the tools. For anyone with enough track record to be considered, we should be able to do that on the basis of their on-wiki record. "By their fruits shall ye know them." --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree as well and I considered not answering them but seeing that a lot of folks here say I have a battleground mentality just for answering questions and concerns, if I didn't answer it someone would undoubtedly oppose because I wasn't answering the questions. Kumioko (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise with that, but FWIW, if you ever decide to subject yourself to another of these, declining inappropriate questions would slightly increase my likelihood of supporting, as it would show you aren't so easy to manipulate. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I have been called a lot of things in these but that's the first time I have ever been called easy to manipulate. Bad questions happen a lot in RFA's. IMO its not a problem with the question or the answers to it but the allowance by the community of allowing such questions to be asked in the first place. I'm not a particularly secretive person so if someone asks a question I am going to answer it. Like I said if I didn't answer I would have gotten opposes for not answering the questions so either way I'm screwed. Kumioko (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise with that, but FWIW, if you ever decide to subject yourself to another of these, declining inappropriate questions would slightly increase my likelihood of supporting, as it would show you aren't so easy to manipulate. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree as well and I considered not answering them but seeing that a lot of folks here say I have a battleground mentality just for answering questions and concerns, if I didn't answer it someone would undoubtedly oppose because I wasn't answering the questions. Kumioko (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and I have a similar objection to Q6. Those questions are prying. We aren't here to decide whether we approve of people as people, just to decide whether they get the tools. For anyone with enough track record to be considered, we should be able to do that on the basis of their on-wiki record. "By their fruits shall ye know them." --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend to continue to ask these questions for all future RfAs. We are trusting Admins with the ability to delete articles, block content, be arbiters in certain situations, and many other abilities; although it is claimed not to be a big deal, the ability to block/ban an editor is a big deal. Asking prospective admins to pledge not to use the admin tools with a political bias or when they have a coi is something I think is entirely appropriate. Also, to know if there is a political imbalance within the admin group we need data, when better to find this out, then when someone is asking to join the admin group? We all trust admins to neutrally use the tools, but how will we know whether they are unless we have some background? Additionally, asking about a prospective admins flaws, I believe is entirely appropriate; perhaps I should also ask for a prospective admins strengths as well to balance the question out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. I've seen Kumioko around here and there and I think he's a good sort. If he behaves badly, he can be subject to the same sanctions as any other user. And if he abuses the tools (including unblocking himself, if that were to happen), ArbCom can perform an emergency desysop. If neither of these are the case, then his access to the toolkit will be a positive for the project. No big deal. — Scott • talk 08:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no, you won't get the bit. However, you don't need to get buried. AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Not a chance in hell of this nomination going through; not quite sure why the effort was even made... That said, this is a person of committed principles and strong opinions who has the best interests of The Project at heart. I am happy to provide this gesture of solidarity. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Doesn't seem so far that it's likely this nomination will succeed, but in the absence of any real will to unbundle the ridiculously conflated admin user rights this is the second-best choice. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I foresee that KumiokoCleanStart will be judicious with his toolkit, setting a good example for others admins, and being committed to positive adminship reform. Given the extent of his editing experience, I take him at his word that the toolkit will facilitate his edits and housekeeping of articles. Italick (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why not? Support by Fred, also known as Aawerffa. Aawerffa123 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Support. I'm for you to be an admin. Vaiehwrio (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Striking obvious sockpuppet votes. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Kurtis (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't really appreciate the insinuation that I was doing it BTW here and at CU. Thanks for showing me how AGF works here! Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not at all what I had intended, and I'm sorry if that's the impression you took away from it. It struck me more as a random troll than an established user, but I still wanted to get it checked out in case there were any other accounts or disruptive activities coming from their IP. I trust you enough not to do something like that. Kurtis (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't really appreciate the insinuation that I was doing it BTW here and at CU. Thanks for showing me how AGF works here! Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its clearly bizarre. I knew something was wrong when I got 2 supports in a row.:-). Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking obvious sockpuppet votes. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Kurtis (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support,Kumioko makes good points. There are issues with a couple of admin/experienced editors (Who shall remain nameless) acting like they own the place. While Kumioko's WP:Battleground mentality is concerning, I still feel that Kumioko would be a true net positive for the encyclopedia with admin tools. I would also urge the candidate to see reason, and realize that we are both going to wind up on the opposite side of consensus on this one, and withdraw the RfA. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Adminship is no big deal, my support is probably irrelevant at this point but a clearly experienced user, who has the improvement of WP as his first goal, and to be honest I'm not surprised he replies how he does after such provocation by BMK. I don't see why he would mis-use the tools and if he did, I'm sure they would be summarily removed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do not believe that giving Kumioko the tools would adversely impact the website.--MONGO 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Easy support. Experienced editor who is very capable. I encourage everyone to look objectively at this candidate. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Kumioko is 'bad boy' but he's not evil or corrupt. Just a self-confessed WP junkie who has the best interests of the project at heart. He moans a lot in the hops that it can improve under some much needed criticism. I agree it's sometimes quite negative, but I understand where he comes from. We're too conservative in appointing our admins, and we should make some of the 'bad boys' admins like teachers often make 'bad boys' monitors in the hopes that they can improve, and strangely enough it often works. For those who are truly concerned with the health of the Good Ship Sysop on WP, they should work harder to reform this 'job-for-life' culture that encourages and breeds abusive and corrupt admins. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate has been hardened through fire; is unafraid to speak out about a culture gone wrong; nothing will ever change without many more voices like his; a meal of a thousand donuts starts with a single bite. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Scot and Ohconfucius. Highlights the need for tool reform. More admin that may be critical of the management process are needed. "A complaint is a gift." Hillbillyholiday talk 15:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, first let me say thanks for answering my questions, even if others do not believe them appropriate. The subject of this
AfDRfA is a net positive to the community and the content within their field of interest. Although I understand that the subject of thisAfDRfA may rub other editors the wrong way sometimes, I believe that it is done often with the best of intentions. If the subject of thisAfDRfA runs afowl of policy then the subject is subject to the same processes we all are; furthermore, the subject has stated that they do not want to receive special treatment because they may receive the admin tools, which is humbling.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Do you mean RFA? Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Yes, that is what I meant, I have changed the above to reflect that. Also looks like there is a move to sanction me for asking questions. Can you believe that? Does that mean we can no longer ask questions at RfAs if they aren't preapproved by someone else?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean RFA? Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the grounds of his willingness to respond to that totally ignorant and unnecessary question (guess which one...) and the fact that, frankly, to call him confrontational here of all places- and by some of the people doing it- is abject hypocrisy. Basket Feudalist 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Candidate was blocked just 3 weeks ago for less-than-optimal behavior, which question 3 does not adequately address.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still dissatisfied with your answer to question 3 with regard to your block. That you took that out on-wiki was your fault. I also strongly don't like your highly POINTy attempt to get yourself locked (see below).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect I didn't attempt anything, I succeeded. I would probably still be editing as an IP if I would have been allowed too. Since I have to have an account though I think I should use my skills and abilities to contribute positively. Since a large percentage of my contributions are in adminish areas, its hard to do that without the tools. If I could do these things without applying for the whole toolset I would. But the general tone is that in order to be able to pull in more than 25000 articles to AB or edit protected templates you must have the whole admin toolset so here we are. Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still dissatisfied with your answer to question 3 with regard to your block. That you took that out on-wiki was your fault. I also strongly don't like your highly POINTy attempt to get yourself locked (see below).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [18] and [19] are just the icing on the cake. --Rschen7754 04:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the second one was my attempt to abandon the Kumioko account and edit as an IP. While editing as an IP however I was targetted as being a sock so I recreated an account. That's where the KumiokoCleanStart comes into play. It quickly became clear I would not be able to use any other name if I wanted to edit at all. I would have been happy to edit as an IP. Now if you don't mind Rschen, please provide some evidence that I would do something damaging to the project. I would be interested to see if there is any evidence that I have Damaged anything other than some feelings. Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a history of incivility (including towards both content contributors and administrators), not knowing the CSD criteria, disruptive behavior, making controversial automated edits, block evasion (including with a bot account), forcing the stewards to lock you by publicly posting your password, disruptive editing on Meta (both of which you conveniently left out of your account above), making serious ungrounded accusations and then taking forever to retract them, etc. You have held a grudge against the U.S. Roads WikiProject for years, and have criticized it whenever you get the opportunity, even in my unrelated actions as an administrator. I could go on. --Rschen7754 04:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, let me take this opportunity to explain some of that. Starting with the US Roads project. That project tried to derail WikiProject United States for years, some of the members haev severe POV and article ownership issues and claim ownership of article by forcibly removing other projects banners, showing up in flash mobs on other WikiProjects talk pages and forcing them to change the scope of the project, they even have a subsection of the project thats devoted to derailing other projects and subprojects relating to US roads so they will have all the power regarding US roads issues. So yes I absolutely do have a problem with that project even though they do a great job of generating a lot of good content. On the socking issue I explaind that already so I;m not going to rehash that again. On the bot issue I left 2 comments to other users that I was blocked after an overzealous admin blocked me for thinking I might violate 3RR but then not blocking the user who actually did violate it in 2 separate occassions. Yes I posted my password to my account to get my account blocked because I intended to edit as an IP from that point on. I would still be editing as an IP but thanks to a couple folks I had to create a new account because they wouldn't let me edit as an IP, so here I am. More importantly I do not have a history of incivility. I have a history of treating others like they treat me. I was nice for years and always, always walked away. But in the last couple years I am no longer willing to do that because that is part of the problem that got us to where we are now. I saw the problems building and didn't do anything to stop it or fix it then. I was too passive. As for convroversial automated edits that's pretty much flat bullshit. Any edit is contentious to someone so anytime you run a bot or AWB that touches an article you run the risk of complaints. Any problems that were reported to me were fixed. I am familiar with CSD criteria. What you fail to mention is that I submitted it to CSD and they got deleted by admins. So what you are really saying is you don't trust your fellow admins. I would further add when a couple of those CSD were restored and submitte to MFD they got deleted again. SO the result was the same. I have a 98% approval rate for CSD/AFD/MFD's. I do know policy, you just don't like my edits. Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep digging. --Rschen7754 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko, I suggest you ignore User:Rschen7754. He is obviously just trolling. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing an established contributor of trolling just for expressing their opinion is not particularly collegial either. Kurtis (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats true Kurtis but if Rschen didn't want to get a comment like that, then he should have kept his mouth shut. This is the kind of thing that has been happening, especially here at RFA and why the process and the culture of allowance here in WP needs to change. An admin talks trash to an editor and the editor has to lie there and take it. When someone tells the admin to shove it then they are being combative, incivil and told you can't have the tools. This is not how the process should work. Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kurtis: "established" contributors should know better. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although his language might be a bit inflammatory, it is definitely nothing to complain about. I suggest you review your definition of trolling, because Rschen's comments definitely don't meet the definition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that when you post "inflammatory" comments you are, by definition, trolling. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko told me flat out that Wikipedia would be better off with me gone. [20] He also said that it would be better off with my colleague who has written 15 FAs gone. Kumioko mistreats content contributors and admins. I find my response, while definitely angry, less angry than it could have been. --Rschen7754 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that when you post "inflammatory" comments you are, by definition, trolling. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying Rschen wasn't angry when posting his above comments, just that they do not constitute trolling by any sense of the term, which is defined as posting "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion" Notice how I placed emphasis on the last segment of the sentence; it is the intent that differentiates a troll from a regular commentator. Kurtis (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although his language might be a bit inflammatory, it is definitely nothing to complain about. I suggest you review your definition of trolling, because Rschen's comments definitely don't meet the definition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing an established contributor of trolling just for expressing their opinion is not particularly collegial either. Kurtis (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko, I suggest you ignore User:Rschen7754. He is obviously just trolling. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep digging. --Rschen7754 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, let me take this opportunity to explain some of that. Starting with the US Roads project. That project tried to derail WikiProject United States for years, some of the members haev severe POV and article ownership issues and claim ownership of article by forcibly removing other projects banners, showing up in flash mobs on other WikiProjects talk pages and forcing them to change the scope of the project, they even have a subsection of the project thats devoted to derailing other projects and subprojects relating to US roads so they will have all the power regarding US roads issues. So yes I absolutely do have a problem with that project even though they do a great job of generating a lot of good content. On the socking issue I explaind that already so I;m not going to rehash that again. On the bot issue I left 2 comments to other users that I was blocked after an overzealous admin blocked me for thinking I might violate 3RR but then not blocking the user who actually did violate it in 2 separate occassions. Yes I posted my password to my account to get my account blocked because I intended to edit as an IP from that point on. I would still be editing as an IP but thanks to a couple folks I had to create a new account because they wouldn't let me edit as an IP, so here I am. More importantly I do not have a history of incivility. I have a history of treating others like they treat me. I was nice for years and always, always walked away. But in the last couple years I am no longer willing to do that because that is part of the problem that got us to where we are now. I saw the problems building and didn't do anything to stop it or fix it then. I was too passive. As for convroversial automated edits that's pretty much flat bullshit. Any edit is contentious to someone so anytime you run a bot or AWB that touches an article you run the risk of complaints. Any problems that were reported to me were fixed. I am familiar with CSD criteria. What you fail to mention is that I submitted it to CSD and they got deleted by admins. So what you are really saying is you don't trust your fellow admins. I would further add when a couple of those CSD were restored and submitte to MFD they got deleted again. SO the result was the same. I have a 98% approval rate for CSD/AFD/MFD's. I do know policy, you just don't like my edits. Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a history of incivility (including towards both content contributors and administrators), not knowing the CSD criteria, disruptive behavior, making controversial automated edits, block evasion (including with a bot account), forcing the stewards to lock you by publicly posting your password, disruptive editing on Meta (both of which you conveniently left out of your account above), making serious ungrounded accusations and then taking forever to retract them, etc. You have held a grudge against the U.S. Roads WikiProject for years, and have criticized it whenever you get the opportunity, even in my unrelated actions as an administrator. I could go on. --Rschen7754 04:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the second one was my attempt to abandon the Kumioko account and edit as an IP. While editing as an IP however I was targetted as being a sock so I recreated an account. That's where the KumiokoCleanStart comes into play. It quickly became clear I would not be able to use any other name if I wanted to edit at all. I would have been happy to edit as an IP. Now if you don't mind Rschen, please provide some evidence that I would do something damaging to the project. I would be interested to see if there is any evidence that I have Damaged anything other than some feelings. Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but the chip on the shoulder and the "us and them" mindset make me unwilling to trust this user with adminship. I appreciate the→ good intentions behind the USA WikiProject and do not doubt that the candidate cares about the project, but I saw the extension of that project to absorb state projects leave a lot of sour feelings, which the candidate still seems unwilling to recognize. I fear I cannot give even moral support here. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the general disruptive and incivil nature mentioned above. Canuck89 (chat with me) 05:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Initial edit comment is a misstep.[21] Q1 is OK but thin; it lists benefits of privs but doesn't justify them. Q2 is weak and has odd points ("Although I don't actively govern the WikiProject United States project as I once did"). Q3 is just... I don't know what to say... it does not suggest grace under pressure. Admins should be civil even when the other guy is not. I don't see the appropriate perspective here. Glrx (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I'm definitely human, no doubt about that and I have a low tolerance for bullies and jerks. I'm not looking to be a mediator I'm just looking to help do some of the work. Frankly I'm not even all that active anymore. I do a few edits a day (way down from the hundreds or thousands of edits I did a day a year ago and that's not likely to change). Besides that there are a lot of bad admins and if I screw up the tools can just be taken away. Kumioko (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) Any RfA involves a lot of community effort -- possibly hundreds of man hours as individual editors read the RfA and do their own digging. At this point that effort seems to be pointless, so I recommend a WP:SNOW close. Usually, I'm content to let a candidate go the distance if he wants to, but I do not see much benefit with that approach here. There are more questions for the candidate to answer, there are back and forth comments on several !votes, the candidate expects a negative result, and I fear that there will be much more bad blood in the end. Instead of adding to the dialog here, WP would be better served if we did some edits in article space. Glrx (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments aren't hurting my feelings if your worried about that or bad blood between me and some user. You mention there was a question that needed answering? I think I answered all of them except some survey he wants me to take that I'll do later tonight if this isn't closed. Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) Any RfA involves a lot of community effort -- possibly hundreds of man hours as individual editors read the RfA and do their own digging. At this point that effort seems to be pointless, so I recommend a WP:SNOW close. Usually, I'm content to let a candidate go the distance if he wants to, but I do not see much benefit with that approach here. There are more questions for the candidate to answer, there are back and forth comments on several !votes, the candidate expects a negative result, and I fear that there will be much more bad blood in the end. Instead of adding to the dialog here, WP would be better served if we did some edits in article space. Glrx (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I'm definitely human, no doubt about that and I have a low tolerance for bullies and jerks. I'm not looking to be a mediator I'm just looking to help do some of the work. Frankly I'm not even all that active anymore. I do a few edits a day (way down from the hundreds or thousands of edits I did a day a year ago and that's not likely to change). Besides that there are a lot of bad admins and if I screw up the tools can just be taken away. Kumioko (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above discussion and this. Also, I don't think anyone who got blocked as recently as that can be trusted with the mop. If a user does that when he/she is an admin, they'd immediately get desysopped. smtchahal(talk) 06:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - attitude is wrong for an Admin, unhealthy block log and too much enjoyment in making POINTs. GiantSnowman 08:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This editor has become a free-loader, a dead weight on the project. His recent article edits are practically non-existant, instead he spends all his time bitching and moaning in every corner of Wikipedia and sticking his nose in where he's not wanted, muddying waters and stirring the pot. He's become the poster-boy for the non-productive editor who thinks his opinions are more valuable to the project then improving articles. That he would put himself forward as a potential admin speaks volumes about his fundamental misunderstanding about what the role of an admin is. I can't think of anyone (myself excluded) who is less qualified to be an admin. It is my sincere hope that this failed attempt to become an admin will be a sufficient slap in the face that this editor will come to his senses and realize that he is not destined to be the conscience of Wikipedia, that his self-imposed role as an ombudsmen is a total farce, and that he would best serve the project by actually editing and improving articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the community needs to do to see the type of editor I consider bullyish and inappropriate is to look at your edit history and demeanor to other users. If I have inspired such a response from you that that is encouraging to me that I am doing some good. Kumioko (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko, I'd advise you not to reply to such a statement. Hopefully someone will block BMK shortly for his unnecessarily classless statement. AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I wasn't planning to say more than I did but folks can look at his comments here and on my talk page here for starters to see how this user acts towards me and others. Which is why I no longer treat that editor respectfully because I'm tired of his shenanigans. I also do not hold out hope that an admin will do anything. Unfortunately I have gotten used to a lack of action about that users conduct. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only point I would take issue with is Ken's comment that he cannot think of anyone less qualified to be an Admin. Regrettably I can think of many! Leaky Caldron 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BMK himself has many issues, edit warring being amongst them. It's ironic that such a comment could come from him. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only point I would take issue with is Ken's comment that he cannot think of anyone less qualified to be an Admin. Regrettably I can think of many! Leaky Caldron 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I wasn't planning to say more than I did but folks can look at his comments here and on my talk page here for starters to see how this user acts towards me and others. Which is why I no longer treat that editor respectfully because I'm tired of his shenanigans. I also do not hold out hope that an admin will do anything. Unfortunately I have gotten used to a lack of action about that users conduct. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question that Beyond My Ken is a very abusive user. So much so that I agree with AutomaticStrikeout, he should be blocked. In my opinion, Kumioko is doing us all a favor by standing up to bullies like him. We need more admins willing to do that, but unfortunately there aren't any... ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko, I'd advise you not to reply to such a statement. Hopefully someone will block BMK shortly for his unnecessarily classless statement. AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the community needs to do to see the type of editor I consider bullyish and inappropriate is to look at your edit history and demeanor to other users. If I have inspired such a response from you that that is encouraging to me that I am doing some good. Kumioko (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While adminiship isn't a big deal, and the candidate clearly has dedication to the Foundation's projects, Kumioko's approach to the RfA process makes me concerned. Common sense dictates that people trying to make a case for their trustworthiness will put their best foot forward. Thus, someone's demeanor in a RfA should be considered putting his best foot forward, and that person's demeanor will by definition never be any better than it is during a RfA. I'm not saying that Kumioko's behavior here is poor, but the opening statement seems to indicate that Kumioko doesn't take this process seriously. Additionally, I find Kumioko's response to Q3 to be particularly concerning as it gives the appearance of dissembling and minimizing rather than taking responsibility of past problems. An administrator must be willing to admit to his or her mistakes openly and prominently, and be his or her own worst critic. I just don't see that in this RfA. I originally intended to be Neutral, but these issues combined with the past issues pushed me to oppose. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per most of the above and the personal attack he was blocked for. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This user has become a complete negative for the project, with misguided rants on multiple pages—see WT:ACN for example. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose He/she has an aggressive, battleground approach to editors he/she disagrees with, and he/she goes round with grudges and resentments (or, as he/she prefers to call them, "pet peeves"). He believes that Wikipedia is full of evil conspiracies of groups of evil people such as ArbCom and Administrators: we can do without paranoid conspiracy-theorists being given administrative tools. Right from reading the self-nomination statement I thought "no", and everything I have seen in my further checking has changed that to "NO". Anyone who in their application to be an adminstrator will say things which amount to "I have no intention of stopping being rude and aggressive to editors I disagree with" is never going to make an acceptable administrator, quite apart from numerous other issues, and, looking at Kumioko's I do see numerous other issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since writing the above comment, I have seen the candidate's comment above "If I have inspired such a response from you that that is encouraging to me that I am doing some good." An editor who takes positive relish in provoking other editors, and will even boast about doing so in his/her RfA to be an administrator??? I no longer think "NO", as I said above: I now think NO. The very last thing we want is an administrator who regards provoking other editors as a good thing to do. Is this candidate so out of touch with the community that he/she really thinks that remarks like that are the way to encourage people to support his/her RfA, or is he/she fully aware of the situation, and is only using this RfA to make a disruptive point? Either of those would alone be sufficient reasons why this candidate should not be an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to clarify that my comment was focused at a problem editor with a long history of abusing policy, the system and other users. They are vulger, aggressive, a bully and a detriment to the project. Their general presence makes the project worse. I only wish that an admin would look into that users history instead of telling me I am being mean and hurting his feelings. I'm sorry this is the first occassion we have had to work with each other and that is your impression of me but the feelings me and Ken have for each others work is that of mutual loathing after having had to deal with each other over a period of years, not one or 2 edits. Don't beleive me? Look through his edits and how he talks and deals with other users. He deletes content off his talk page so you can't look at the talk, you have to look at the talk history for starters to see the type of individual I am being blamed for being mean too. Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When you are stuck in a hole, don't keep digging. You really really don't seem to see the nature of what you are doing. Someone who states that he or she feels "loathing" towards other editors, and describes them as "vulger, [sic] aggressive, a bully" (and loads more of the same kind of stuff in other places) is not going to be acceptable as an administrator. If that comment is really honestly intended to be part of your defence, then you are even more out of touch than I realised. And we have more and more of the same: we have, for example, "I no longer treat that editor respectfully". Someone who in his RfA states that he or she has every intention of treating other editors without respect? Any one of these declarations of how contemptuous you are to editors that you don't agree with might be a slip, but surely, surely, surely so many of them must be trolling: you can't really want to become an admin and keep saying things like that over and over again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since writing the above comment, I have seen the candidate's comment above "If I have inspired such a response from you that that is encouraging to me that I am doing some good." An editor who takes positive relish in provoking other editors, and will even boast about doing so in his/her RfA to be an administrator??? I no longer think "NO", as I said above: I now think NO. The very last thing we want is an administrator who regards provoking other editors as a good thing to do. Is this candidate so out of touch with the community that he/she really thinks that remarks like that are the way to encourage people to support his/her RfA, or is he/she fully aware of the situation, and is only using this RfA to make a disruptive point? Either of those would alone be sufficient reasons why this candidate should not be an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Either this account name is a misunderstanding of WP:CLEANSTART or it's WP:POINTY ... either way, an admin candidate should know better. His aggressiveness towards admins as a whole since their last failed RFA shows that there's no way that they have the personal suitability to be given the tools (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, it was designed to be a bit pointy and humorous at the same time. As I mentioned above I was editing as an IP but got accused of socking. I couldn't create another account without identifying this one so its not a clean start, its just a name change. So since I had to use this name anyway, I just added clean start to the end. Additionally, I could not use the Kumioko account because its been locked. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. None of the oppose reasons above can come as a genuine surprise to the candidate and they must have the skin of a Rhinoceros to submit themselves to RfA given their activity since the last attempt. #8 above is a harsh but accurate assessment. Please get back to productive editing which you are good at and leave all the controversial topics alone. Leaky Caldron 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that you feel that I was productive and I still am. The problem is that I am participating in primarily admin related areas without the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly unsuited to working in areas where controversy abounds. Don't worry, you're not alone. Many aspiring candidates will never make it either. Just don't concern yourself about adding value in an area where your temperament does not fit the need. Leaky Caldron 16:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I don't completely agree with that its not what I am trying to get access to the tools for anyway. The problem is the tools I don't need/want are tied to the tools I don't need/want and which seem to be the largest majority of the problem. Peoples comments don't seem to indicate the believe I don't know how to edit, they seem to indicate that they don't want me to be able to block. Which would be fine if they could give me everything except that but they can't so I have to apply for the whole set, get declined and try again in a few months. In fact it inclines me to dig deeper into admin related areas to prove the need. Right now I have gotten by without the tools so there is some valid argument to not needing it. If I am in it and around it all day every day and show I know what I am doing then that changes the perception. In theory. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't just not want you to be able to block: I don't think you are suitable for any of the admin tools, and what is more it looks to me as though many others think the same. Are you and I reading the same page? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I don't completely agree with that its not what I am trying to get access to the tools for anyway. The problem is the tools I don't need/want are tied to the tools I don't need/want and which seem to be the largest majority of the problem. Peoples comments don't seem to indicate the believe I don't know how to edit, they seem to indicate that they don't want me to be able to block. Which would be fine if they could give me everything except that but they can't so I have to apply for the whole set, get declined and try again in a few months. In fact it inclines me to dig deeper into admin related areas to prove the need. Right now I have gotten by without the tools so there is some valid argument to not needing it. If I am in it and around it all day every day and show I know what I am doing then that changes the perception. In theory. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly unsuited to working in areas where controversy abounds. Don't worry, you're not alone. Many aspiring candidates will never make it either. Just don't concern yourself about adding value in an area where your temperament does not fit the need. Leaky Caldron 16:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that you feel that I was productive and I still am. The problem is that I am participating in primarily admin related areas without the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per the above, primarily Leaky Caldron. The candidate is indeed a good content contributor - it's just the other bits that disqualify him. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. You don't need the tools to bitch and moan about perceived injustices or to obsess about how evil Beyond my Ken is, which is all the candidate seems to be doing these days.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to all: I do not mind the criticism but lets be civil ok? If you don't like me fine, if you have comments that's great, but telling me I am not doing anything but bitching and moaning shows that you haven't looked at my contributions and don't understand what's going on. So lets continue the roast but stay professional in doing so ok. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a suggestion, but have you considered that the tone of the criticism you're getting reflects how you deal with others? Looking through your interactions with other, this sort of thing doesn't suggest you're civil to others. You seem to acknowledge this in your nomination statement: "You may not always like the way I say it". So why did you expect them to be civil to you? Do unto others and all that... WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right of course and that's how I acted for a long time. But if editors are going to be shitty to me and no one wants to do anything about it, I don't think I need to be a proper gentleman anymore. I admit that isn't the perfect attitude to have but I can also say that everyone has their limits and I have even seen you lose your bearing on a user once or twice. If someone comes to my talk page and is civil I will be civil to them. But if they show up asking my if I am Fucking insane or something along those lines, then I am liable to hurt their feelings. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of sounding trite, isn't that a vicious cycle? Tit for tat might be a good theoretical strategy, but the death spiral here means that nobody would be civil until someone else is civil. The measure of a gentleman is acting the part even when others aren't. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right of course and that's how I acted for a long time. But if editors are going to be shitty to me and no one wants to do anything about it, I don't think I need to be a proper gentleman anymore. I admit that isn't the perfect attitude to have but I can also say that everyone has their limits and I have even seen you lose your bearing on a user once or twice. If someone comes to my talk page and is civil I will be civil to them. But if they show up asking my if I am Fucking insane or something along those lines, then I am liable to hurt their feelings. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lets be civil ok"???? Coming from You? The really depressing thing is that I get the impression that you really don't see the absurdity of comments like that. JamesBWatson (talk)
- James and Amory, I don't think I have ever even worked with you 2 so I'm not sure where this deep rooted hatred has come from. It seems as though you are simply piling on and don't know the history (such as the years of back and forth between me and BMK). Aside from that I'm not sure where you are coming from. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was my last comment here, but I will just answer this one, and then I won't even look here again. I do not have any "deep rooted hatred", nor even a mild personal dislike. I simply see things from you that are totally inconsistent with what I regard as suitable for an administrator, and also I see an amazing degree of lack of self-awareness. You ask someone else to be civil, when that person has never come within a thousand miles of the amount of incivility that you have shown, and you really don't seem to be aware of the fact. You see "deep rooted hatred" where there is none, just as you see evil conspiracies of admins & ArbCom members where there is none. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that clarification. Just as my actions and comments led you to make a conclusion about me, that explanation was enlightening to me. It shows me in part that you aren't familiar with the incivility of that individual and that you aren't that familiar with Arbcom. Neither is a crime nor required of administrators but it is helpful if you are going to tell another editor who fully understands both that they are crazy and making it up. There is absolutely a problem with Arbcom and with Admins being above the rules. It needs to stop. I am aware I can't change it and that it may never change. But if it doesn't change no one will say they didn't know about it or that I didn't try and change it. They will only be able to say something like "That Kumioko said the flood was coming and we made fun of the Ark, I sure wish this rain would sto...(bubble, bubble, bubble) Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was my last comment here, but I will just answer this one, and then I won't even look here again. I do not have any "deep rooted hatred", nor even a mild personal dislike. I simply see things from you that are totally inconsistent with what I regard as suitable for an administrator, and also I see an amazing degree of lack of self-awareness. You ask someone else to be civil, when that person has never come within a thousand miles of the amount of incivility that you have shown, and you really don't seem to be aware of the fact. You see "deep rooted hatred" where there is none, just as you see evil conspiracies of admins & ArbCom members where there is none. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James and Amory, I don't think I have ever even worked with you 2 so I'm not sure where this deep rooted hatred has come from. It seems as though you are simply piling on and don't know the history (such as the years of back and forth between me and BMK). Aside from that I'm not sure where you are coming from. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to all: I do not mind the criticism but lets be civil ok? If you don't like me fine, if you have comments that's great, but telling me I am not doing anything but bitching and moaning shows that you haven't looked at my contributions and don't understand what's going on. So lets continue the roast but stay professional in doing so ok. Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm sorry, but this user's behavior and attitude does not instill confidence, I just wouldn't trust him with the additional toolset. Lettik (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry. You've undoubtedly made some very positive contributions to the project, but there's no way I could support anyone at RfA less than a month after a block. Be on your best behavior for as long as possible, and hopefully all of us can put this nastiness behind us someday. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, at least for now (As BDD says,) sorry, Kumioko. The temperament thing is whatever, but what brings me to oppose is the somewhat cavalier attitude towards deletion. I know that the CSD criteria are subjective, but they're not that subjective. I understand all too well the frustration when you can't just CSD (or delete outright) an article whose deletion seems perfectly obvious, but "absolutely shitty article" isn't a CSD criterion for a reason, even when it's true. I know you said that you would refrain from CSD as a result of that conversation, which was all right, and I don't want to sound too "YOU MUST CONFORM" about this, but I do worry a little bit about giving the deletion tools because of that. After all, slapping a PROD tag on an article is just as easy as slapping a CSD tag on it, and Wikipedia is big enough and has enough crappy articles that keeping one more around for seven days on the off-chance that it could become okay isn't going to break anything. Maybe you were just fed up with that conversation, though, and it wasn't representative of your actual views; I'll admit that I haven't gone through your CSD record myself, so maybe even if it is your opinion, you don't let it influence your actual behavior much. If so, I'd be willing to strike my oppose (though that seems an empty gesture at this point...), though I think the temperament issues would still prevent me from supporting outright. Again, sorry; I don't take pleasure in bringing up what may be a sore point for you, but it's the salient point in my mind with regard to adminship. (And yes, it's another excellent reason to unbundle the tools.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I do want to clarify one thing here though. I would never submit an article to CSD, AFD, etc. and then delete it or just up and delete it. Its meant to be a 2 party system. One submits, another reviews and deletes or removes the tag as applicable. Some admins do it and get away with it but it has always been meant to be a 2 party system. So to clarify, even if I had the tools I wouldn't have just deleted them of my own accord. I would have submitted mine for someone else's review and possibly deleted someone else's they had submitted, particularly in the case of an AFD or MFD that had clear consensus for deletion. I hope that clarifies my intent. As a side note that was less about my ability to spot a crappy article as another users excuse to rake me over the coals. Please by all means review my record. You'll undoubtedly find a few gray area items and I have had some declines for various reasons but the vast majority were deleted as requested. Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good thing indeed to hear, but just FYI: I actually started out with that exact same mindset of CSD being a two-party process, but after a while I started slipping into "Well, this is a blatant G10 attack page, so lemme just delete it", then "Well, this is obviously a G12 copyvio, so I'll skip the middleman", then to a point where the author of an article I had deleted as a G3 hoax had to bring me to task about not giving his article enough of a chance. That sobered me up and renewed my commitment to using the two-party process, but it's...surprisingly tempting. (Probably reflects poorly on me, and I don't want to project my own failings onto you, but still: it is a real phenomenon.) Your intent is definitely good as far as that is concerned, and I'll look through your record later today (don't have enough time at the moment) with an eye for at least moving to neutral. I'm sorry about the rake over the coals; I hope and trust that you know it's not my intention to contribute to that feeling, neither then nor now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've gone through through the edits of this account (just KumiokoCleanStart, not the old accounts, for brevity's sake), and I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay in "oppose", at least for now. This was my methodology: first, I went through your contribution list, noting all the edit summaries in article space using the phrase "requesting speedy deletion", which indicates that you asked for a speedy deletion that wasn't deleted. I found 29 of these. I went through them all, looking at the revision you nominated to see what it was you tagged. I judged that 20 of these were truly mistaken, 3 were marginal (where I still think you made the wrong choice but it was a judgement call, so I can't knock you for it), and the last 6 were fine. I then went to your deleted contributions and counted the number of edit summaries there that included "requesting speedy deletion", as that would give me an indication of how many CSD tags you placed that ended up being deleted (note that this wasn't filtered by namespace or anything like that). I found 149 of those. So, using the most favorable calculation of those (that is, (149+9)/(149+29), meaning that everything except the 20 truly mistaken is considered correct), I get an 88.7% success rate. Now, I hesitate to say what, if any, number is "good enough", but I have seen 90-95% suggested. But more importantly, I found the 20 that you got wrong to be pretty significantly wrong. Many of them were tagged as a G2 test page when there was no real reason to think that they were test pages; it seemed like a kind of "there' no tag that really fits, so I'm going to put this one on it and hope nobody notices". A few A7s applied to schools and the like, things that are specifically excluded from A7 (and in the case of schools, explicitly excluded). A few that had no criterion at all, and just your own written-in version (though some of these were legitimate, such as the CSD tag you used on something that ended up being oversighted; that's totally understandable.) It just seems like there's too much "ends justify the means" in it, if you see what I'm saying, and it seems to me that that kind of thing is what drives a lot of the "admin vs. regular editor" distinction. I'll keep thinking about this, though; I'm still not set in stone, and I may go back to your old accounts to look at them, too. Committing to the two-party system as you have takes care of a lot of that concern, but not all of it; there are always going to be other people who tag (or even act on a tag) poorly, so the two-party system isn't as solid a safeguard as we might wish unless we rigorously screen the only end of it we have control over--the admin end. It's a shame that the tools are bundled together like this, so that you have to excel in all fields to get the tools that you only want to use in one field, and there seems to be an inordinate amount of community inertia against fixing that through unbundling the tools. But that's the hand that has been dealt to us, unfortunately, and I have to play it the best I can. Lots of respect for you, Kumioko; I suspect you're more valuable to Wikipedia (admin or not) than I'll ever be, which is true for most, if not all, heavy-hitting content producers. Sometimes we admins forget that, while wearing our admin hats, we're just the supporting cast and crew to the content-producers. I try not to forget that, and I don't think that saying you're not quite fit to be a behind-the-scenes crewman reflects on your qualities as a lead performer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I do want to clarify one thing here though. I would never submit an article to CSD, AFD, etc. and then delete it or just up and delete it. Its meant to be a 2 party system. One submits, another reviews and deletes or removes the tag as applicable. Some admins do it and get away with it but it has always been meant to be a 2 party system. So to clarify, even if I had the tools I wouldn't have just deleted them of my own accord. I would have submitted mine for someone else's review and possibly deleted someone else's they had submitted, particularly in the case of an AFD or MFD that had clear consensus for deletion. I hope that clarifies my intent. As a side note that was less about my ability to spot a crappy article as another users excuse to rake me over the coals. Please by all means review my record. You'll undoubtedly find a few gray area items and I have had some declines for various reasons but the vast majority were deleted as requested. Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This Rfa appears to me to be a violation of WP:POINT and should be closed asap via WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 18:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree its not likely to pass but I would appreciate leaving it a while longer before closing it. I don't think its pointy although I admit I doubted it would pass when I submitted it. Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(moved to neutral) Having literally gone through this process moments ago I deeply sympathize with your situation. While mine went well, I fully expected it to not. I certainly understand why you would put your request despite your likely assessment on how it would turn out. I wanted to convey that it was brought up that "[administrators] are held accountable to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct". Some times it means taking the high road even if they do not deserve it. I think if you can manage to do that I would happy support your next RFA. Mkdwtalk 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Hey wait a minute didn't I just vote for you? Man that's cold. Just kidding. Sorry a little joke there. Anyway, I truly hate to seem argumentative here but I do not agree at all that "[administrators] are held accountable to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct". They should be, or at least equal to users, but they aren't. Often times an admin who does something wrong is merely told to stop where an editor who does that same thing is blocked or banned (baiting, trolling, reverting their own block, reverting their bots block, etc.) I find this morally reprehensible and have stated that repeatedly for some time. I think that's partly for 2 reasons. First its because there is this feeling in the community that being an admin is the Wikipedia version of heavenly ascension and their decisions are above repriach. Second Arbcom is the only ones that can desysop an admin once they get the tools. Thirdly I think there is a feeling by some that if they block an admin it sends a bad message. Further since the admin can simply undo their block (and it happens) it will just cause more drama. So its better to not block them, AGF and move on. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No not at all. I was worried about my oppose was seemingly ungrateful. We are certainly on the same page for a lot of points. Fundamentally, I dislike the pattern in the leniency and lack of accountability editors with the sysop tools are granted when they misuse their tools. That said, I do not believe in allowing less accountability in their conduct will solve that issue. There are other reasons too but that being the main one. I always push for more accountability all around. Mkdwtalk 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no longer true that "Arbcom is the only ones that can desysop an admin once they get the tools"; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No not at all. I was worried about my oppose was seemingly ungrateful. We are certainly on the same page for a lot of points. Fundamentally, I dislike the pattern in the leniency and lack of accountability editors with the sysop tools are granted when they misuse their tools. That said, I do not believe in allowing less accountability in their conduct will solve that issue. There are other reasons too but that being the main one. I always push for more accountability all around. Mkdwtalk 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey wait a minute didn't I just vote for you? Man that's cold. Just kidding. Sorry a little joke there. Anyway, I truly hate to seem argumentative here but I do not agree at all that "[administrators] are held accountable to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct". They should be, or at least equal to users, but they aren't. Often times an admin who does something wrong is merely told to stop where an editor who does that same thing is blocked or banned (baiting, trolling, reverting their own block, reverting their bots block, etc.) I find this morally reprehensible and have stated that repeatedly for some time. I think that's partly for 2 reasons. First its because there is this feeling in the community that being an admin is the Wikipedia version of heavenly ascension and their decisions are above repriach. Second Arbcom is the only ones that can desysop an admin once they get the tools. Thirdly I think there is a feeling by some that if they block an admin it sends a bad message. Further since the admin can simply undo their block (and it happens) it will just cause more drama. So its better to not block them, AGF and move on. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No Based on moltov coctail throwing behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796#deletion of my remarks, the subsequent pestering on my talk page, the WPUS dustup, trying to stir up trouble for annother editor at Wikipedia talk:AFC#I hope someone steps up about this, retiring and attempting to clean start away from the stigma of their name, it is clear in my mind that this user is not prepared to take the keys and use them responsibly and with temperance. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—the nominee and I have not always had the smoothest of relationships, and while I believe he feels he has the best interests of the project at heart, his actions do not demonstrate them. All too often he has taken a battleground mentality towards areas of disagreement, he's taken POINT-y actions, and he's failed to demonstrate both a need for the tools and mentality requisite of an administrator on what is one of the top 10 websites on the Internet. The sockpuppetry, block evasion, and ragequit this year alone bode ill for this candidacy. Other comments above about the nominee's understanding of policies and procedures also give me great pause, and this nomination should be closed WP:SNOW forthwith. Imzadi 1979 → 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per BWilkins and all above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A sockpuppet made in evasion of a global lock placed for cross-wiki vandalism. Need I say more? Snowolf How can I help? 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, {{cn}}? When was Kumioko globally locked? I seem to remember that they self-requested a global lock, but it never actually happened. The new account here was made with the blessing of the (local) blocking admin, I know. I mean, I'm in the oppose column too (for different reasons), but I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to call them a (b)lock-evading sockpuppet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko self-requested a lock, and then was persistent when the request was denied, even vandalizing the page. He was given a few short-term blocks on Meta. Following this, he posted his SUL password for all to see and forced the stewards to lock him. --Rschen7754 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Where can the logs for that be found? I looked quickly on Meta and found the short-term blocks, but not the lock. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The global block was done only after I posted my password. I intended to edit as an IP and got blocked as a sock, so then I created an account in an attempt to start over and was called a sock again. Then I knew that there was no other way to edit so I created the KumiokoCleanStart account. Somewhat poking fun at the whole Clean start rule, garbage as it is. So although I was globally locked, it was because I was intent on getting it locked, not because I did something horrible. Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [22] --Rschen7754 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected, had forgotten the exact details. Yeah, he vandalized meta but not elsewhere. I find the whole affair obviously incredibly childish and obviously a person who published their password to make a point and get their way when policies and practices did not allow them to obtain it is not exactly who we should be entrusting with any rights. I should note that indeed, he was not locked because he wanted to, but because he chose to turn his account into a by all effect shared one by publishing its password, hence in open violations of our rules. It should be obvious that this user is wholly unfit for holding any right required of trust anywhere on Wikimedia and that this request is merely one more bit of trolling from him. Snowolf How can I help? 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may call it childish if you wish but I tried to get it blocked and that was the only way. I truly had the intent of editing as an IP and would be doing that if I was allowed to do so without being told I am socking because I have good computer security and my IP changes. I do however take offense at the claim that I am trolling with this RFA. That is complete bullshit and is a ridiculous accusation. If you to wish to oppose that's ok. But to say that I am going to use the tools inappropriately is complete horseshit. But I'm used to that at this point. We give the tools to the users who go along and get along and don't stand out or speak up and that's why the project is where it is. A toxic cesspool of negative editing. Commons is little more than a porn site and Wikipedia degrades more by the day. Because we continue to fight and tell experienced users who want to contribute positively to F off, we don't need or want your help. I submitted this RFA in good faith and yes I pretty much knew it was going to fail. Partially because Wiki never forgets and partially because RFA is a broken and terrible process and everyone from Jimbo down knows it. Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko self-requested a lock, and then was persistent when the request was denied, even vandalizing the page. He was given a few short-term blocks on Meta. Following this, he posted his SUL password for all to see and forced the stewards to lock him. --Rschen7754 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, {{cn}}? When was Kumioko globally locked? I seem to remember that they self-requested a global lock, but it never actually happened. The new account here was made with the blessing of the (local) blocking admin, I know. I mean, I'm in the oppose column too (for different reasons), but I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to call them a (b)lock-evading sockpuppet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The user seems to misunderstand how WP:CLEANSTART is supposed to work. The previous actions from the user (a bit of a temper and impulsiveness) would be enough for me to oppose, most likely. But even his actions here at the RFA are concerning. This is an RFA that the user likely knows was going to fail, and there's nothing wrong with trying to pass anyway, but he seems very defensive and argumentative in a situation where the user really needs to be doing everything opposite of what he's actually doing. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit I find it mildly amusing that I am trying to respond to comments made but am being told that I am being defensive and argumentative. I'm just trying to explain the circumstances...just in case anyone cares. Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you say things like, "Now if you don't mind Rschen, please provide some evidence that I would do something damaging to the project", "I do know policy, you just don't like my edits", "Really? Just because I said in joking way what everyone here knows to be true. Ok no problem." Those are just 3 examples. In those quotes right there, you've done more than just responding; you're being defensive and argumentative, not just explaining the circumstances. If you wanted Rschen to provide evidence, you didn't need the "Now if you don't mind"; you didn't need the "Ok no problem". You may not see it, but all of those quick little quips show (at least from my perspective) that you're being defensive and want to argue--not that you just want to explain. I may be wrong on your intentions, but that's how it comes across. And ultimately, with an admin, it doesn't matter what the intentions are; it matters how it comes across to the community. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit I find it mildly amusing that I am trying to respond to comments made but am being told that I am being defensive and argumentative. I'm just trying to explain the circumstances...just in case anyone cares. Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The editor's major activity on the project appears to be sniping at admins. Somehow, I doubt that promoting Kumioko to admin would change this. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, thought I'd already participated. Last time I supported because I thought this user was already an administrator. Now, I'm opposing because I subsequently realized why his last RfA failed. Kumioko is way too divisive to be granted the added toolset. Kurtis (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In my opinion going for adminship after a recent block is just poor timing and a lack of patience. Minima© (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify I asked for that block after I made a comment on Beyond My Ken's talk page after putting up with an increasing amount of his crap. No one was going to block me but I felt it was the right thing to do. Kumioko (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying because I (later) added the same reason. I did notice. But still; if you cannot maintain civility (even though it's none of your fault and the other party is even worse when it comes to civility) and you thought you had to be blocked for that reason, why do you think you are ready to handle the responsibility of becoming an administrator so soon? smtchahal(talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not soon, I have been here for years. I just had a disagreement with an editor that should have been banned a long time ago. Civility has its limits though which isn't being addressed here. It should have never been allowed to escalate to that point but the other admins who are more "trusted" than I am let Ken continue to be a nuisance to the project. If they had acted instead of blocking me or letting it get to that point then it wouldn't have happened at all. I think its ironic that so much focus in the RFA is being focused on that situation when the 650+ trusted admins on this site should have intervened. But we need to find some reason to oppose to a user trying to contribute right? With that said I want to clarify that I am too involved with that user so even if I had the tools I wouldn't be able to do anything about it eventhough WP:Involved and WP:Harassment doesn't extend to admins I wouldn't be comfortable doing anything about that user and would still have to let someone else deal with the problem or let the problem continue. Kumioko (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By saying you had applied for adminship so soon, I didn't mean you were a new user on Wikipedia (I did read your self-nomination introduction), but that it was only a few weeks ago that you had that disagreement and requested a successful block (which you should've mentioned in your answer to Q3). Yes, probably there are some sysops who would have failed an RfA had they just applied now, chiefly because admin requirements are stricter than they ever were before (I recently went through a lot of old RfA discussions). Well, you could try RFC on them if you think they're not behaving the way they should as sysops, but any admin candidates who apply now (who even may be "better" than some existent sysops), sadly, need to fulfil the current requirements of adminship. The point is, even if all the admins didn't behave the way they were supposed to and it all wasn't fair with you, you should have behaved well. That's what the community apparently expects from administrators these days.
- As for your what appears to be a big reason for applying for adminship: if your major contribution to Wikipedia involves the use of administrator-related tools, you can do it without being a sysop yourself (some even prefer this way). Though it's (much) slower, it at least makes sure you're never the one to be blamed. If some people (especially the ones you never had disputes or even interacted with before) think that you do not have a good understanding of using the admin tools, you should not ignore them. Also, your tit-for-tat policy regarding treating other users does not appear to be a good one for admins. Treat other users according to what they do, not according to how they treat you. Seek dispute resolution in case of disagreements, try RFC if you think that's not working, but do not shout just because they shouted at you. This RfA is not going to pass, but I'm sure that your second (or rather fourth?) one will if you could address a few issues I (and other legitimate opposers, obviously excluding Ken) see. There always will be haters since you've had disputes in the past (not considering the case that they get blocked, which seems quite likely; or that they undergo a transformation), but I'm sure the majority of opposers here will change their vote if you could do it. smtchahal(talk) 11:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not soon, I have been here for years. I just had a disagreement with an editor that should have been banned a long time ago. Civility has its limits though which isn't being addressed here. It should have never been allowed to escalate to that point but the other admins who are more "trusted" than I am let Ken continue to be a nuisance to the project. If they had acted instead of blocking me or letting it get to that point then it wouldn't have happened at all. I think its ironic that so much focus in the RFA is being focused on that situation when the 650+ trusted admins on this site should have intervened. But we need to find some reason to oppose to a user trying to contribute right? With that said I want to clarify that I am too involved with that user so even if I had the tools I wouldn't be able to do anything about it eventhough WP:Involved and WP:Harassment doesn't extend to admins I wouldn't be comfortable doing anything about that user and would still have to let someone else deal with the problem or let the problem continue. Kumioko (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying because I (later) added the same reason. I did notice. But still; if you cannot maintain civility (even though it's none of your fault and the other party is even worse when it comes to civility) and you thought you had to be blocked for that reason, why do you think you are ready to handle the responsibility of becoming an administrator so soon? smtchahal(talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify I asked for that block after I made a comment on Beyond My Ken's talk page after putting up with an increasing amount of his crap. No one was going to block me but I felt it was the right thing to do. Kumioko (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per Oppose 1. It seems ridiculous to do an RfA when you were blocked just 3 weeks ago, moreover for your behaviour on Wikipedia. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Jasper Deng. A recent block is a major red flag for a admin candidate. SpencerT♦C 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry but you built this box, and I don't see a way out. First, I do agree with you that, as a project, we must not allow a class distinction between admins and non-admins other than the trivial, factual distinction. I share your concern (though with not the fervency), that the rules are not always applied the same way. However, on the narrow issue of whether you should be an admin, you cannot use a name such as KumiokoCleanStart, which appears to be an implicit request to ignore some prior behavior, yet expect us to include consideration of prior constructive behavior. I count myself on an extreme in believing that people can improve, that people ought to have second, and third chances, but I'm presented with a candidate who has three months of experience and only 129 edits to article space. Of course you have more, but again, it is unfair of you to want me to count the past experience in terms of knowledge of policies, yet ignore that experience when it comes to interactions. Frankly, I think you would be better off asking for special exceptions to gain access to the tools you really need.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User was recently blocked for harassment. Recent blocks are red-flags. I understand that your character can change with time so you can try again for adminship another time. On a side note to all, the opposes are supposed to have constructive criticism, not a place for trolling and incivility. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 14:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You have to be kidding me. Fast becoming one of the people I would list as an example of someone who shouldn't be an admin. Trolls around just looking to cause trouble. Has gotten himself blocked a number of times. Abused his bot flag. Can't handle criticism. Personally some days I question his ability to even edit here, nevermind be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DJSasso, do you really think I am just trolling to cause trouble? If so you aregravely mistaken. I am trying to point out and correct deficiencies in the process, in the culture and in the mentality that admins are above the rules and can treat editors howeve they like. I am trying to get Arbcom to lead by example and make some decent decision instead of ones like Forcing Doncram to go through ARC for all his article creations and then the AFC folks get inundated by articles that get approved in 100% of the cases. They block the editor and pat the admin on the wrist for doing things that would not only cause them to not get the tools in an RFA but would often lead to a block. And you have the gaul to tell me I'm trolling. If voicing my opinion about the toxic culture and making a try at changing it so that the flood of editors leaving this place will stop then I guess that makes me a troll. Just please don't stick me on the end of a pencil and spin it back and forth until my hair stands up...I get motion sick. :-)Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing Kumioko is that voicing your opinion and trolling are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It isn't so much what you say but how you say it. You come out swinging right off the bat instead of trying with honey. You also tend to use unrelated discussions to voice your opinions on a completely unrelated topic which comes across as a pot shot. So there are two ways someone can take this. Either as a you intentionally trolling or making a pointy statements or that you have absolutely zero tact. Neither of which are desirable in an admin. I am sure away from the wiki you are a great person, but we aren't here to judge you as a person but just to judge your actions on the wiki to decide if we can trust you with the tools. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DJSasso, do you really think I am just trolling to cause trouble? If so you aregravely mistaken. I am trying to point out and correct deficiencies in the process, in the culture and in the mentality that admins are above the rules and can treat editors howeve they like. I am trying to get Arbcom to lead by example and make some decent decision instead of ones like Forcing Doncram to go through ARC for all his article creations and then the AFC folks get inundated by articles that get approved in 100% of the cases. They block the editor and pat the admin on the wrist for doing things that would not only cause them to not get the tools in an RFA but would often lead to a block. And you have the gaul to tell me I'm trolling. If voicing my opinion about the toxic culture and making a try at changing it so that the flood of editors leaving this place will stop then I guess that makes me a troll. Just please don't stick me on the end of a pencil and spin it back and forth until my hair stands up...I get motion sick. :-)Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. I'd like to quote your edit summary here: " let's have some fun and give everyone an opportunity to tell me how much they hate me.....again :-))" With you being an editor with scores of edits and lots of experience, I consider your edit summary and by extension this nomination to be an insult to other well meaning editors. If you wanted to entertain yourself by engaging your "haters", RFA isn't the place for it. I am appalled that you would even let this play out just for listening to what your "haters" would say here, at the expense of other editors who genuinely spend time going through a candidate's contribs to state their opinion. And if you happen to rebuke by stating that you thought your edit summary was sarcasm or even a bad attempt at being funny, then still no, it was no good. To be frank, I haven't gone through your contributions and I have based this vote on your edit summary alone. Withdrawing this nom to prevent wasting other editors' time would be my suggestion. Suraj T 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to say this as nicely as I can because I do not want it to sound bad. If you do not know anything about the candidate and are basing your strong oppose on an edit summary, then that frankly is a pretty weak reason to oppose. Some may say I am not being nice for saying that but there it is. I recommend if you are going to vote on an RFA in the future, Support, oppose or neutral, you should look into the contributions of the editor and not base your decision on a mere edit summary. Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for trying to be nice to me. I really appreciate that you didn't choose foul language to belittle my !vote. And I am sorry, but, I choose not to follow your advice regarding basing my opinion on edit summaries without looking at contribs. If I see a similar edit summary for posting the rfa that says that the candidate wants to give a chance to everyone to say why they hate the candidate, it'd be a strong oppose from me always as it clearly demonstrates the candidate's attitude as not fitting to administer this project. I'd also like to differ from your opinion that basing a !vote just on an edit summary is weak. An edit summary such as yours that IMO clearly demonstrates the lack of an attitude suitable for an admin candidate, can be used as an argument and I stand by my belief that it is indeed a strong oppose. Btw, I am starting to go through yours contributions here, I see the tons of good work you have done. But still, hundreds of thousands of edits, years of experience, experience in critical areas of the project, love for the project =/= automatic qualification for adminship, absent the right attitude. I am sorry if I seemed like I was intentionally rude. English is not my first language and I tried my best to politely put across my points and no sarcasm intended in my comments here. Suraj T 15:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to say this as nicely as I can because I do not want it to sound bad. If you do not know anything about the candidate and are basing your strong oppose on an edit summary, then that frankly is a pretty weak reason to oppose. Some may say I am not being nice for saying that but there it is. I recommend if you are going to vote on an RFA in the future, Support, oppose or neutral, you should look into the contributions of the editor and not base your decision on a mere edit summary. Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I dislike pile on opposes, but this case warrants one. Kumioko is volatile, handles criticism worse than almost anyone else I know of, and has a spite complex that causes him to troll certain areas of the Wikipedia namespace. Kumioko was a respectable user once, but has gone so far downhill over the past year that I could see myself supporting a siteban for him before I could see myself supporting adminship for him. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest with you Sven. Banning me from the project still will not stop me from working my based to change the toxic culture and us and them mentality. It will just mean I have to do it outside the community rather than work within it. I still believe in the purpose of the project. I have just become incresaingly frustrated at the backwards broken processes and increasingly negative culture that we are building here. It needs to change. It will change faster with your help and the help of others. I cannot do it by myself. Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents: If you want to avoid the "backwards broken processes and increasingly negative culture" that definitely plagues this wiki, you have two options: (i) just stop editing; or (ii) stop the talking, start making content, and forget about talk pages unless necessary. Both things work. They worked for me. — ΛΧΣ21 03:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right of course both options are available but I am no longer willing to stick my head in the sand and ignore the problems like I did in the past because I'm afraid of getting blocked, hurting feelings of those causing the problems or because I'm tired of being the hatchet man. I saw a lot of these problems forming a long time ago and didn't do anything and I reget that now. I could have worked to fix some of this before it became critical. I also admit that at some point I will probably stop editing since the community doesn't want to give me access to the tools to help and so I take that as inferrance that I am not needed or wanted. For now that's fine but your right, at some point I need to accept that and just move on. The other problem with the content suggestion is that the editing environment is getting progressively worse because we keep pushing people out that just want to help. So they take the hint and they come back as sockmasters, vandals or just stop contributing. We need to pull our heads out of our butts and quite eating our own young and allow people to help if they want. If they screw up then we take the tools away, no fuss no muss. But we would rather continue to run people out of the project than allow them to contribute. At some point it won't matter who the admins are because the editing will have dwindled to nothing, the admins will haev run off or become overwhelmed and Wikipedia will end up like AOL and MySpace, dead sites. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents: If you want to avoid the "backwards broken processes and increasingly negative culture" that definitely plagues this wiki, you have two options: (i) just stop editing; or (ii) stop the talking, start making content, and forget about talk pages unless necessary. Both things work. They worked for me. — ΛΧΣ21 03:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things: 1) I never said that you should be banned, only that I'd be more supportive of that prospect than I would be at the prospect of you becoming an admin. I think that that's an important clarification to make. 2) If you're trying to convince people that you're trustworthy enough and of the right temperament enough to serve as an admin, saying that you will flaunt a project ban really isn't going do anything but hurt you. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, Sven, working from outside the community to change it does not necessarily entail flaunting a ban, in the sense of socking or whatever. It could just be pointing out flaws and issues seen in Wikipedia through a venue outside of Wikipedia itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest with you Sven. Banning me from the project still will not stop me from working my based to change the toxic culture and us and them mentality. It will just mean I have to do it outside the community rather than work within it. I still believe in the purpose of the project. I have just become incresaingly frustrated at the backwards broken processes and increasingly negative culture that we are building here. It needs to change. It will change faster with your help and the help of others. I cannot do it by myself. Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I supported in the first RFA, but have to oppose now. See also the immediate assuming bad faith regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aawerffa123 in this RFA, there was no insinuation there. And per the waste of time in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard_Frederich Garion96 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Kumioko's own nomination statement sums it up: "I admit in advance I don't hold much hope of this RFA passing but I'm going to submit it anyway in the hopes that editors realize I am not going away and am trying to help build an encyclopedia." The organization of this sentence tells me that this nomination is more to make a WP:POINT than it is to improve the encyclopedia. Resolute 19:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand, not going away is the sign of a responsible editor who is dedicated to Wikipedia, something backed up with a very long and comprehensive edit history. Not going away means here to stay, not leaving in a huff. Exactly admin material in my view. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Besides, he would be given every reason not to be confrontational because he knows that he would not last a whole week as a confrontational admin. I don't exactly think that one can harass the community into making an adminship appointment. My view is that his criticisms of problems among the admins are not harassment, and further that he has not exactly been scheming an adminship appointment through his recent pattern of criticism. He considers the dialog to be in the interests of the project. Italick (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. This editor has a history of pointy behaviour, block evasion, sockpuppetry, bad faith accusations/casting of aspersions (in this very RFA no less) and harassment. He makes virtually no edits to article space, and while I won't deny there is some value in project tagging on talk pages, one of his most common hobbies on Wikipedia has been to whine about anything he doesn't like, particularly when it is irrelevant to the discussions he interjects himself into. He's spent a fair amount of time grinding his usual axes in this RFA, and when he says he wants to make the point that he isn't going away, that is what I take it to mean based on his past behaviour. Honestly, I would question the judgment of anyone who seriously considers Kumioko to be "exactly admin material", even under the most favourable interpretation of "adminship is no big deal" I can imagine. Resolute 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Resolute you don't do many edits to Article space either. Does that mean you aren't being helpdul? I don't think so. The fact is I haev been doing administrative type activities for the last few years I just don't have the tools to omplement the changes. I have made hundreds of edits to protected templates, I have tried to help clean up a lot of the leftover pages after you and your fellow admins forget to delete the subpages or talk pages of an article you delete. I have helped out in a lot of other aresa too. So if my edits don't show a lot of Article edits it doesn't mean I am not useful. It means I am picking up the slack for the lack of admins. Its time to let me help and stop assumingn bad faith. The socking allegations are pretty much horseshit for trying to edit as an IP. I did try to create another account and then was called out for sockingn because I didn't announce my old one. Its not a clean start if I post my old username. If you don't like how I did it then change the clean start policy so it doesn't require dishonesty from the user in order to do it. And I don't trust the Arbcom so I wasn't about to tell them anything. So in the end all your doing is spinning the same hyperbole your accusing me of. At least I am trying to change the broken processes and negative culture that everyone knows exists. What have you done to change it besides accuse me of being mean? Nuttin' Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly didn't look at his edit history or you would know he is one of the biggest featured content writers on the wiki. Frankly Kumioko your crusade to change things is a joke because all the things you accuse (with a nice broad brush) the admins of you too are guilty of. And imnho in far greater amounts than any admin I have seen. There is a saying, if you want change you have to change the man in the mirror first. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure he is, I just looked at the first couple pages of his contribs, doesn't mean he is using his experience to try and make the project better and more inviting. Its fine if you don't like what and how I say it, but being dishonest in describing the reasoning for the oppose is pretty low. I'm not perfect and I never claimed to be but a lot of what is wrong with me is that I am passionate about changing things to make this place a better place to be and attract more editors that want to stay. The us and them mentality between admins and editors, Arbcom and all their craziness and the general assholery that has rooted itself in the culture here is what I am trying to fix through informing others about the problems. No one seemed to care if they hurt my feelings from 2007 until 2011 when I finally stopped being passive and started to change this place. Now because I am treating those lousy editors and admins how they treat others I am the bad guy. Maybe for once some of the admins should start looking at the history of some of these characters and doing something about it rather than just tell me you don't want me to have the toolset and allow the others to just go ahead and act however they want. BMK, Fram, Rschen, Guerillero and others. I don't really care if they like me anymore. I am trying to make an encylcopedia and make this place into a place where people want to interact and collaborate and help out. Not give up in frustration because a few deep rooted assholes have all the power don't cotton to outsiders. You and others may not like me and that's fine because generally the ones I am not friendly too are the deeply rooted editors who want things to stay the way they are because they have the power and want to keep it. I am exceedingly freindly to new users and folks who are trying to make this place inviting and helping folks to learn our rules like Dennis brown, 28bytes, Sarah Stierch, Dank and a ton of others. Its just the most prolific knuckleheads that don't like me because they are the problem. Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly didn't look at his edit history or you would know he is one of the biggest featured content writers on the wiki. Frankly Kumioko your crusade to change things is a joke because all the things you accuse (with a nice broad brush) the admins of you too are guilty of. And imnho in far greater amounts than any admin I have seen. There is a saying, if you want change you have to change the man in the mirror first. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Resolute you don't do many edits to Article space either. Does that mean you aren't being helpdul? I don't think so. The fact is I haev been doing administrative type activities for the last few years I just don't have the tools to omplement the changes. I have made hundreds of edits to protected templates, I have tried to help clean up a lot of the leftover pages after you and your fellow admins forget to delete the subpages or talk pages of an article you delete. I have helped out in a lot of other aresa too. So if my edits don't show a lot of Article edits it doesn't mean I am not useful. It means I am picking up the slack for the lack of admins. Its time to let me help and stop assumingn bad faith. The socking allegations are pretty much horseshit for trying to edit as an IP. I did try to create another account and then was called out for sockingn because I didn't announce my old one. Its not a clean start if I post my old username. If you don't like how I did it then change the clean start policy so it doesn't require dishonesty from the user in order to do it. And I don't trust the Arbcom so I wasn't about to tell them anything. So in the end all your doing is spinning the same hyperbole your accusing me of. At least I am trying to change the broken processes and negative culture that everyone knows exists. What have you done to change it besides accuse me of being mean? Nuttin' Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. This editor has a history of pointy behaviour, block evasion, sockpuppetry, bad faith accusations/casting of aspersions (in this very RFA no less) and harassment. He makes virtually no edits to article space, and while I won't deny there is some value in project tagging on talk pages, one of his most common hobbies on Wikipedia has been to whine about anything he doesn't like, particularly when it is irrelevant to the discussions he interjects himself into. He's spent a fair amount of time grinding his usual axes in this RFA, and when he says he wants to make the point that he isn't going away, that is what I take it to mean based on his past behaviour. Honestly, I would question the judgment of anyone who seriously considers Kumioko to be "exactly admin material", even under the most favourable interpretation of "adminship is no big deal" I can imagine. Resolute 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Besides, he would be given every reason not to be confrontational because he knows that he would not last a whole week as a confrontational admin. I don't exactly think that one can harass the community into making an adminship appointment. My view is that his criticisms of problems among the admins are not harassment, and further that he has not exactly been scheming an adminship appointment through his recent pattern of criticism. He considers the dialog to be in the interests of the project. Italick (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand, not going away is the sign of a responsible editor who is dedicated to Wikipedia, something backed up with a very long and comprehensive edit history. Not going away means here to stay, not leaving in a huff. Exactly admin material in my view. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Generally a good content contributor but far too confrontational. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose strongest possible, even. First encountered Kumioko in the middle of his "I'm leaving but blatantly editing as an IP and pretending it's not me" tantrum. I thought it was a teenage kid. No, I find he's an adult with the temperament of a petulant teen, which is worse than being a petulant teen. Doesn't have the temperament to deal with admin issues here and cannot communicate clearly with the community, a key part of being an admin. Banning me from the project still will not stop me from working my based to change the toxic culture and us and them mentality This is a point in Wikipedia where you should be communicating at your highest level to show the others why you should be an admin--- and I don't even know what that sentence means. I apologize if it's a question of your not being a native speaker, but I don't think that's the case. StarM 05:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering if based was a typo for best, maybe? --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- StarM, that sentence means that that toxic culture in Wikipedia that is driving editors away and keeping others from joining needs to change and I am going to try and do it whether I am allowed to edit or not. It will be much easier to advocate positive change if I am here and if editors such as yourself are helping to change it. The WMF is under the mistaken belief that they can recruit people and they will stay if we change things like the login page and the talk page to be more like facebook, WRONG, People don't edit and don't stay because we as editors treat each other like shit. I have a major problem with bullies here and if I have been combative to some users then they are probably the bullies who are allowed to continue to edit and be admins for life. Kumioko (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering if based was a typo for best, maybe? --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Fantastic contributor but I don't feel the attitude would do any favours. — foxj 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose got blocked for harassment, sure, but hey, they came right back, apologised, made amends, and moved on with no further problems, right? Right? No, of course not. Within days Kumioko was at it again, whining about the very same user, this time off-topic in an unrelated ANI thread. This looks like a "clean start" that's anything but. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize you are an admin and probably take strong offense to many of my criticisms about the admin us and them culture here in Wikipedia and criticism from you about me is fine Starblind but what irritates me in all of this is that some users like yourself are taking things out of context and not reporting the information facually, exploiting specific pieces of a discussion to suit your oppose. That ANI discussion wasn't enrelated to BMK it was about him. He was specifically mentioned and his actions were inderectly referred to in that discussion. If you don't think I should have the tools that's fine but let's keep the information factual. If I wanted to manipulate the discussion or my editing practices just to get the tools and appease the mob I could do that. But that would mean ignoring my obligation to fix the editing culture here, expose the problems and try and fix them. You can call me a big fat meany like others do but at least you and the others cannot say I jeapordized my integrity just to get access to a button that allows me to see deleted content, edit a protected page or block a vandal who doesn't care about anything other than wasting our time. Kumioko (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose His first opening statement was "I've been around for a long time and know the rules pretty well", if you know the rules why have you been blocked so many times. JayJayWhat did I do? 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Block logs do not tell the whole story: even Jimbo has about 4 or 5 blocks to his credit.....Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be wrong to point out that none of them were serious/legitimate. smtchahal(talk) 15:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, of course it wouldn't, I just wanted to point out that one can be deceived by appearances :). And I think the 1 second block was deserved (I kind of remember it). Lectonar (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if JayJay is basing his oppose entirely on the number of the candidate's blocks, then I quite agree with you; that's not a good basis of judgment. smtchahal(talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not entirely on his block log, he has had 3 previous accounts, what makes you think he will change this time. He has already been blocked not that long ago. I just don't trust him at this point. JayJayWhat did I do? 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if JayJay is basing his oppose entirely on the number of the candidate's blocks, then I quite agree with you; that's not a good basis of judgment. smtchahal(talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, of course it wouldn't, I just wanted to point out that one can be deceived by appearances :). And I think the 1 second block was deserved (I kind of remember it). Lectonar (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be wrong to point out that none of them were serious/legitimate. smtchahal(talk) 15:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Block logs do not tell the whole story: even Jimbo has about 4 or 5 blocks to his credit.....Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Previous dramas at meta and 3 previous accounts just remove the trust here. JguyTalkDone 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You forgot an account --Guerillero | My Talk 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really but I see your surreptitious election to Arbcom is going well since the community said no and then the Arbcom elected you anyway by putting you in AUSC? The system seems to be working really well for you. Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your need to cast aspersions when balked says far more about your lack of fitness than any comment we can make. Resolute 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The condescending attitude here speaks volumes about your attitude in general towards other users who don't agree with you or support you. JguyTalkDone 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No not really but I can see why you feel that way. Its completely inappropriate for the nominee in an RFA to reply to an obvious trolling comment in a way that might indicate that the comment wasn't appreciated or necessary. But no one cares about all the incivil comments here as long as I am not the one that said them. Maybe you need to tell some of these other folks to comment appropriately. I wasn't the only one that thought that Arbcom electing a failed Arbcom candidate to an Arbcom committee was less than appropriate BTW. They just aren't running for RFA. It also seems like I just made a comment a few minutes ago about how I tried to create a new count and edit as an IP when someone who shall remain nameless <cough>Guerillero<cough> kept following me around and blocking me as a sock. We should be advocating people to edit not trying to find a reason to make sure they don't. But its clear to me at this point that no one cares that I want the project to be better, all they want to do is act stupid and make shitty comments and then wonder why I act the same way to them. Geeze I wonder why I would do that. I don't really care if they support, oppose or neutral. That's totally fine. What we don't need to do here is show that RFA is a broken process by being as rude and shitty to the nominee as humanly possible. Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really but I see your surreptitious election to Arbcom is going well since the community said no and then the Arbcom elected you anyway by putting you in AUSC? The system seems to be working really well for you. Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell no per Q11. I was going to stay out of this until I got to that one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. I've met Kumioko and know him to be a dedicated Wikipedian with the best interests of the project at heart. I generally agree with most of what he has to say around the 'pedia, but I'm really just popping in here to put in an appearance and I will be staying in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I think that the candidate is fine as far as contributions are concerned, but his behaviour and blocklog is never going to be like that of an admin. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Yesterday I declined a whole heap of speedy delete nominations for AFC redirects. KumiokoCleanStart responded well and seems to have an appropriate attitude to a difference of ideas with me. I suppose my suggestion may be to see what the consensus is before engaging in a mass change (eg nominating for deletion). ALso if the candidate is interested in unwatched pages, I am willing to hand out the list out of public view. So just ask! Or if there is a desire to know how many watchers there are, non-vandals can ask too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm going to stay neutral, because a lot of this stems from the way we won't trust experienced template experts to edit protected vulnerable templates without running for admin - I think it is absurd that such an ability is admin-only. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Kudpung. A history of conflict should be overlookable for the right candidate----we need sysops who're active in the more fraught areas of the encyclopaedia, but the facts that (1) people oppose candidates they've argued with and (2) any oppose cancels three supports make RFA an extremely conflict-averse venue. It means that we only elect sysops wtih no experience in participating in the real on-wiki arguments, and that's suboptimal.
I applaud the candidate's willingness to be frank about problems he sees with the encyclopaedia. We need more of that. There are block-happy sysops, and it should be okay to discuss that issue in your RFA. Unfortunately, he's torpedoed his own application by being too open and honest. Successful candidates make nomination statements full of starry-eyed optimism, and if there's an acknowledgement that things aren't always ideal, then it's only made in vague terms. Mention specific issues and problems, be cynical or realistic about how this encyclopaedia is run, and you sink your own RFA.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good lord, I've met Kumioko too and you're a great guy in person. Why would you subject yourself to this again, knowing that the post-second-RfA meltdown, sockpuppeting, and global block occurred only a few months ago? Plus, you were blocked for "trolling" only a few weeks ago. You had to know this would go down in flames, so why? :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support Per Kudpung, Boing! and my previous neutral at the last RfA. There is no doubt that Kumioko is dedicated to improving Wikipedia, but that isn't the only consideration when handing out toolkits. This does show why the tools need to be broken up a bit, which is becoming clearer by the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I like you, and I admit that I share some of the ideals you bear with you when you edit Wikipedia. Notwithstanding, your attitude towards some specific topics, and some actions you've done in the past, make me think that although you have the best intentions, you can't be an admin. As an admin myself, I have seen the high levels of pressure we sysops have to go through, and I just think you won't be able to handle the heat. Stick up to editing, and forget about the tools. They are not a big deal, and all the aura of mystery that is set by people who believe that adminship is a magical wand, doesn't exist. — ΛΧΣ21 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and for what its worth its not the pressure I can't handle. Its the frustration of having one hand tied behind my back while I am driving with the other. I'm like a blind man in a mack truck. I'm still going to continue to work in admin areas as I have been. Probably more and more so. They need a lot of help in CCI and AFD so maybe I'll hang out around there for a while. It just means more work for other people and it means I can't be as useful or productive because I haev to involved multiple people in the process. A lot of CCI is admin related so I can't just go and do it. I can't see deleted content so I will have to get people to help me see it. I can't pull in more than 25000 articles to AWB so I have to ask others to spend their valuable time helping me. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral and echoing Dennis Brown's comment about this being another great illustration of why the tools need to be broken up. Intothatdarkness 17:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Primarily because of the big "chip" cited above. Conflict-seeking behavior is not what we need in an admin. With great knowledge and potential to contribute, different choices could result in a much different situation. -- Scray (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Kumioko has good intentions and seeks to improve the wiki at nearly every chance; however, as mentioned above, he has also been blocked and he has engaged into sometimes-
violentpretty bad conflicts. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Neutral - If this were four months ago prior to the initial block, I would have supported without reservation, but the blocking and the socking and the temperament since, though I value what he does here and truly respect his opinions just about everywhere, I just can't justify giving him the tools. I agree with Carrite and Kudpung as well. Go Phightins! 21:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to be blunt: Kumioko, the only thing I know about you is that you perpetually point out how you aren't popular and people don't like your past. If you want people to get over your past, perhaps you should stop bringing it up at every turn. I've got a goldfish's memory for names, and the fact that I totally called your nominating statement before reading it is pretty indicative that perhaps your attitude is getting in your own way (seriously, I saw your name on the RfA chart, went "hmm, I wonder how far into the nom statement his 'people don't like me' comment will be," and bam, second sentence). You simply can't turn over a new leaf while waving the old leaf in peoples' faces. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Kumioko has the experience, but the recent issues and battleground behavior are certainly troublesome. I can see where this is heading. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral My oppose rationale stands but I am horrified by some of the malicious oppose comments and I do not want to even remotely be associated in those sentiments. Mkdwtalk 02:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I've never met Kumioko before but I think he is a good editor; however, there are some conflicts regarding his behavior and got blocked to it. Mediran (t • c) 07:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I had a look at some RFA's from 2005 and 2006, and am kind of appalled in what way the tone at RfA has changed over the years (especially when directly comparing the old ones to recent ones, without looking at the years in between). I can not support because your battleground mentality is too strong now, but I think I just might understand what you are trying to convey by it. I am kind of tempted to trout-whack some of the opposers, this seems just spiteful. Lectonar (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After fence-sitting and wavering in both directions, i have to come down here and say, Neutral. I have no real issues with Kumioko's contributions, and i believe that he could contribute more if we could give him the tools he needs, which i would if i could; they are bundled, however, and we can't. (And, unlike others, i don't see this as a reason to unbundle them ~ contradiction? I am large, i contain multitudes ~ but as a reason to watch to whom we give them.) In the end, i am worried by this quote from above I got frustrated at the system and some individuals and others like it, and the results that frustration leads to. Honestly, i think Kumioko would be a great benefit to the project with the toolset...until something happened to frustrate him, and then we'd regret it. I am sorry. Cheers, LindsayHello 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the candid reply. I'm sorry you feel I would abuse the tools but for what its worth the only time I ever "abused" a tool was when I left a note with my bot account more than 2 years ago in 2 active discussions saying I couldn't comment because I was blocked. It should be no surprise that after I was blocked those discussions died out and resulted in all the time that users invested it them was wasted. It should also be noted that block was an extremely poor decision by an admin who since then has admitted that he didn't know all the background and would have done things differently if they could do it again. But it doesn't really matter what good we do herer frankly. Its not abuot what we have done for the project, or that we have the desire to improve the project. It only matters that we go along, get along and don't make waves. Then you can be an admin and do whatever you want. And no that is not why I am trying to get the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, as you may as well have the right understanding of my view: I agree with MONGO's assessment under Support. I think, for several reasons, not least that you'd be well aware that a lot of eyes would be on you intently, you would be a useful admin. I would not expect you to misuse or abuse the tools; quite the contrary, i'd expect you to do good work with the few you actually want for the work you want to do. My fear, however, is that at one moment you'd become frustrated and lose perspective. When this has happened in the past...well, there's been all sorts of discussion here about what happened. If it were to happen to a tooled-up Kumioko, i'd fear for the Main Page's integrity or the editing ability of your current opponent. I do wish you well; please stay, and stay productive: You have more than 400k edits overall? Heck, make it 500k by the end of the year, all the additions content productive on en-WP. Cheers, LindsayHello 05:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the candid reply. I'm sorry you feel I would abuse the tools but for what its worth the only time I ever "abused" a tool was when I left a note with my bot account more than 2 years ago in 2 active discussions saying I couldn't comment because I was blocked. It should be no surprise that after I was blocked those discussions died out and resulted in all the time that users invested it them was wasted. It should also be noted that block was an extremely poor decision by an admin who since then has admitted that he didn't know all the background and would have done things differently if they could do it again. But it doesn't really matter what good we do herer frankly. Its not abuot what we have done for the project, or that we have the desire to improve the project. It only matters that we go along, get along and don't make waves. Then you can be an admin and do whatever you want. And no that is not why I am trying to get the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral supported last time, neutral as a result of the recent block, my apologies that this RFA does not appear that it will succeed. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions
- Neutral; more of a Moral support really. Kumiko's a great content contributor and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty in the more fraught areas of the project; he's also totally upfront and honest about his opinions, and that earns my respect (even though we disagree on quite a bit). I'm also confident that he wouldn't abuse the tools. Unfortunately there's just too much combative behaviour in his recent history for me to find my way into the support column, which is a bit of a shame; this RFA doesn't deserve to be the landslide failure that it's turning into. Yunshui 雲水 14:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I don't know what to do after watching user's contribution and support-oppose comments. So I'm going neutral--Pratyya (Hello!) 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - based on his response to my question. I was probably leaning oppose; concerned about giving the mop to someone who thought the whole project was too much of a mess to bother doing any mopping. His response didn't alleviate those concerns much, but he does have a valid claim (I think) to respect as a contributor given his extensive edits. Strangely, for an editor with 400k+ edits, I almost feel like citing WP:NOTNOW. I'd like to see an editor more at peace with the project's goals in general and less concerned with the back-room drama. Stalwart111 00:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Kumioko clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, but his various rants and POINTy behaviour is often misguided, and I cannot support his admin candidacy. That said, I value his content contributions too much to pile on in the oppose section. — sparklism hey! 06:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I haven't known this user for long but from what I have seen, I can deduce that he has textbook us-versus-them mentality, behaves imperiously and doesn't play well with others. Not great traits for admins. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.