Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

KumiokoCleanStart[edit]

Final (14/46/24); ended 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: 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 AfD RFA. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question is ridiculous, we don't send candidates to take test, and did we forget how to format RfA questions ? (re. Q 6-9) Mlpearc (powwow) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was

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[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • 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 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[edit]
  1. 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]
  2. Support no, you won't get the bit. However, you don't need to get buried. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
    Oh ok, thank you for the clarification. The way it was worded it seemed like it was directed at me. I apologize for jumping to that concluson. Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it. :-) Kurtis (talk) 20:26, 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. Support I do not believe that giving Kumioko the tools would adversely impact the website.--MONGO 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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 this AfDRfA may rub other editors the wrong way sometimes, I believe that it is done often with the best of intentions. If the subject of this AfDRfA 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]
  14. 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[edit]
  1. 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]
  2. [1] and [2] 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. [3] 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]
    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]
  3. 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]
  4. Oppose Per the general disruptive and incivil nature mentioned above. Canuck89 (chat with me) 05:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Initial edit comment is a misstep.[4] 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]
  6. 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]
    Really? Just because I said in joking way what everyone here knows to be true. Ok no problem. Kumioko (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you didn't read it properly. That was not the only reason I opposed. Rschen7754 makes it very clear. smtchahal(talk) 12:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
    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]
  9. 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]
  10. Oppose per most of the above and the personal attack he was blocked for. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
    "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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Oppose per BWilkins and all above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
    [5] --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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. Strong oppose. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
    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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. Oppose. Generally a good content contributor but far too confrontational. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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]
    "based" ---> "bases"... Carrite (talk) 17:06, 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]
  41. Sorry. Fantastic contributor but I don't feel the attitude would do any favours. — foxj 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. Oppose Previous dramas at meta and 3 previous accounts just remove the trust here. JguyTalkDone 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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]
  46. 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[edit]
  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]

  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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-violent pretty bad conflicts. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
    Thank you; few people at RfA would be so principled. — Scott • talk 07:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/KumiokoCleanStart&oldid=1144427024"