KumiokoCleanStart (talk | contribs) →Oppose: Reply |
KumiokoCleanStart (talk | contribs) →Oppose: James and Amory, I don't think I've even worked with you too so I don't know where this loathing comes from |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
#::::At the risk of sounding trite, isn't that a vicious cycle? [[Tit for tat#Problems|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. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
#::::At the risk of sounding trite, isn't that a vicious cycle? [[Tit for tat#Problems|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. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
#::"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. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) |
#::"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. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
#'''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. [[User:Lettik|Lettik]] ([[User talk:Lettik|talk]]) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
#'''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. [[User:Lettik|Lettik]] ([[User talk:Lettik|talk]]) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
#'''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. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
#'''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. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:45, 15 May 2013
KumiokoCleanStart
(talk page) (4/19/9); Scheduled to end 04:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
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
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)
- Support no, you won't get the bit. However, you don't need to get buried. AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- [1] and [2] are just the icing on the cake. --Rschen7754 04:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[3] 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- Oppose per above discussion and this. smtchahal(talk) 06:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - attitude is wrong for an Admin, unhealthy block log and too much enjoyment in making POINTs. GiantSnowman 08:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose per most of the above and the personal attack he was blocked for. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)