Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart 2


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

KumiokoCleanStart 2
[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page) 'Final (4/12/2); ended 04:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn — :)'' John Cline (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– I've been around since 2007 and have done over 410, 000 edits to Wikipedia not counting the sister projects. I generally favor a conservative approach to blocks and I am frequently outspoken against admin abuses, overzealous blocks, Visual Editor, the Arbitration committee and a variety of other things that I feel do more to bring the project down than help it keep going. I am passionate about the project and I hope that editors will set aside their personal feelings and realize I am trying to help build an encyclopedia. You may not always like the way I say things 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. This will be my fourth attempt at getting access to the tools. The 1st was here back in 2008, the 2nd was here in August of 2012 adn the third was in May 2013 here. Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The vast majority of the admin work I intend to do will be in the areas of Maintenance. For example this will help me be able to pull in more than 25, 000 articles to AWB, it will allow me to see the restricted visibility reports like unwatched articles, it will also allow me to edit protected pages and templates that currently require me to ask for someone else to implement my changes. It will also help me to assist in some of the backlogs at CCI which are way backed up and virtually require the toolset.


 * 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. I am fairly active in several different WikiProjects including WikiProject United States and the projects it supports and WikiProject Military history.


 * 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.

General comments
RfAs for this user: 


 * Links for KumiokoCleanStart:
 * Edit summary usage for KumiokoCleanStart can be found here.

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

Discussion
I'd just like to point out that Special:UnwatchedPages is worthless. I'll email you the contents if you want, but the list is a cached copy of a select 500-1000 articles; ergo, worthless. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit stats posted on the talk page.  Rcsprinter   (talkin' to me?)  @ 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI that the stats posted on the talk page only reflect from March 2013. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support I first got to know this editor when we had a difference of opinion and I learned of the thorough thought process, motivation to improve Wikipedia and expertise behind their opinion.  I learned that they are an editor with immense experience and knowledge, with a desire to help make Wikipedia a better place, and an understanding that we need to do that.  Regarding rough edges, they may have a few, but I sort of like refreshingly blunt rather than the clever vicious stuff that Wikipedia is full of and which I don't see in Kumioko's record.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Easy support. Experienced editor who is very capable. I encourage everyone to look objectively at this candidate. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'd be happy to give this editor the tools, as in my experience he says what needs to be said.  While this RfA is going to go down in flames, I for one think giving the tools would be a WP:NETPOS.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Tazerdadog, I wish you could have waited at least until December though. Secret account 03:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose - Your last RFA was a disaster, and from the looks of it, you still have not learned what you needed to learn about not being argumentative and getting into fights. The way to respond to an AN/I discussion about yourself is not to tell the person, "that is the biggest crock of shit that I have ever read", especially if you're going to be an admin.  From that AN/I and your talk page, it's pretty clear that you haven't improved in the areas that you needed improvement from back in May.  Plus, the fact that you self-nominated yourself after having the result of the last RFA isn't giving any sense that the community wants to see you as an admin.  My suggestion would be to hold off on the RFAs for at least a year, probably longer. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Only 3 months since last RfA which closed 14/46/24. Nom seems combative rather than constructive and presupposes defeat. Nom mentions 3 previous RfAs but does not address growth or problems raised in prior runs. Not going away is not a reason to support a nomination, and it is not kind of argument admins should make. I do not get the sense that the candidate understands the role. Q1 does say why the bit would be useful. Q2 is not silly because it involves a comparative; not all good things are best.  Q3 misses the point of the question. I do not view this request as a serious one. Glrx (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its too bad you don't consider this nomination a serious one but I don't think I have done anything combative. You are right though, I do assume this RFA will fail. I hope to be proven wrong though. There are a lot of things I could do with the tools and a lot of places where I could help out and where help is needed. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the candidate's behavior at WP:CUOS2013 recently. To me it just doesn't give the impression I would want from an adminship candidate.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - The last time I ran into you was reading through various users' comments at the Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments. Your behavior there was completely unacceptable—accusing an editor of acting "rashly and innaproprately towards other editors," but refusing to provide any diffs. When you were asked to provide diffs, you became combative and accused people of hounding. You eventually provided a list of actions, citing seven-year-old blocks, and using Rschen's affiliation with WikiProject U.S. Roads, "A WikiProject widely known to act aggressively to non members of the project who work or try and do anything with or too articles in that project.", to condemn him. This odd list of evidence was placed among several comments railing against Arbcom, and also included the statement, "Especially when I don't have access to the Admin tools to do the job properly because I am not allowed to help the project and knuckleheads like Rschen are." Although I don't doubt that you are trying to help the project, your temperament towards others is really just not suitable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am really not going to respond to every oppose but I feel I need to respond to these 2 above. I went to the CUOS appointments page with a simple oppose and stated I didn't trust the user. I even stated in the discussion I had no interest in turning it into a circus. Because I saw that coming. Instead though, I was incesently hounded by several Arbs because I opposed. No one was asking for clarification from the supports but because I opposed, I was the monster. That is not how the process is supposed to work. In hindsight though I should have just ignored the requests and let it go. But if I earned your oppose because I voted my conscience on a user I do not trust to have access to those tools, then that is completely ok with me. I find it unfortunate, but its ok and I am not mad about that. Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Providing diffs to support a candidate is often difficult, as a lot of the supports are in the "I have not found any evidence of poor judgment from this user" vein—a hard thing to prove with diffs, unless you want to cite their entire contributions history as not containing negative behavior. I think it's reasonable to request more evidence when you accuse a user of negative behavior. Anyhow, this !oppose was not because you "voted your conscience on a user I do not trust"—whether you voted for or against Rschen makes no difference to me here. My oppose is because you accused an editor of bad behavior, refused to respond to requests to provide further evidence of this behavior, provided a set of evidence that you very well knew wouldn't fly, and attacked another user. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - You have an AN/I incident from this month, you're self-nominating for RfA very quickly after a disastrous attempt (14/46/24), and your answer to Q3 completely misses the point. It's a multi-part question; saying that you've had conflicts without saying how you dealt with it in the past, how you currently deal with such things, and how you plan to in the future. This is the main one for me; somebody who's going to be an admin has to keep a level head when dealing with editors that cause them stress, and if you don't tell me how you deal with them or how you plan on dealing with them, I cannot support. Try again in a year. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with a sense of tired sadness. Kumioko consistently means the best for the project, but he continues to fall into the same behavioral patterns that have been causing him trouble at RFA for more than a year: a pronounced tendency to assume bad faith, and often conspiracy, of anyone who questions his edits, judgment, or policy positions. Technical expertise is a highly useful skill in an administrator, but the ability to engage calmly and neutrally on issues - even when you feel like you're being attacked, even when you care just that much, even when you're sure that you have the solution and no one else is listening - is just as, if not more, important to the job, and it's there that Kumioko continues to lag behind. Until he's able to move away from the attitude that "Few editors who are still allowed to edit are more despised than I" and that everything that happens around him is motivated by that conspiracy of malice, I just can't see a way that he could function constructively as an administrator. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per the above, though Fluffernutter comes closest to my thoughts on the candidate. Kumioko is a skilled editor in many areas, but I have no confidence in his ability to interact calmly with editors who question his actions. And as an admin, editors will question his actions. I would be happy to support if we see evidence, over the long term, that Kumioko has mellowed out and learned how to interact productively with other editors. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Kumioko, you've got loads of competence, but if you're feeling generally despised here, you're not going to be an effective admin here. Why not focus on people and projects (on and off Wikipedia) who do appreciate what you're offering? - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Kumioko has a great deal of clue, but per GW and Fluffernutter's statements, I express concern with their ability to handle conflict in a productive manner. As Brambleberry described, in Q3, it is extremely important to provide detail on, because it is important that editors be able to explain how they have handled themselves in conflict and why they believe their behavior in those situations, even when tense, are appropriate.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I for one do not despise Kumioko, but I also don't think they are admin material. There's nothing wrong with that, it is not a job everyone is suited for. The way they acted after their last failed RFA demonstrated a temperment utterly unsuited for administrative work. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose There is a fundamental problem when an editor who has been given lots of feedback cannot grasp that their appoach is not suitable for an admin (as a matter of fact, it's often just not suitable). Q1 suggests an admin bit is needed for maintenance, yet the nomination speaks about blocks and admin abuses (is that when editors abuse an admin who defends the encyclopedia?). Is this nomination lack of clue or POINT? Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. This editor too often takes the attitude of "my way or the highway". If given greater authority, the potential for abuse will be far too great. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) In fact, I'm going to watchlist the next RFA—Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart 3—so I will be notified when it goes live. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Again, I sit here. This RfA comes way too close to the previous one. To make an example, last time I ran was February, and I wouldn't submit another RfA until at least a year had passed. You should do the same, Kumioko, specially since this is your fourth request. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your probably right I should have waited but I see a lot of backlogs and work that needs to be done and a lot of the admins don't want or know how to do it. Its ok if I don't get the tools though. Its just extra work for me anyway. I just thought I would give it a shot. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what you mean, but my biggest concern is that running so close, and running so close after how your previous attempt went through, was not a good idea. One of the most needed skills in any administrator is not knowing when to do things, but when not to do them. That is what makes the difference between a successful nomination –or any action in general– and an unsuccessful one. — ΛΧΣ  21  21:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean. I have no intentions of being a mediator or the guy who is welcoming new users. I am more the technical guy. The problem is the tools to do the technical stuff are grouped. So this is the only way to get them. Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like to pile-on oppose, but I also don't see any indication that Kumioko has addressed the concerns brought up at the previous RfA. Given that, I couldn't be comfortable giving the tools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.