Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 2

Edit count for KWW
run on 05 Apr 2009 at 23:24UTC

General user info Username: Kww

User groups: rollbacker

First edit: Jan 09, 2007 22:28:26

Unique articles edited: 7,248

Average edits per page: 3.40

Total edits (including deleted): 24,660

Deleted edits: 1,234

Live edits: 23,426

Namespace totals

Article 13001 55.50%

Talk 2183 9.32%

User 123 0.53%

User talk 4644 19.82% Wikipedia 2601 11.10%

Wikipedia talk 764 3.26%

File 33 0.14% Template 69 0.29%

Template talk 6 0.03%

Portal 1 0.00%

Portal talk 1 0.00%

Month counts

2007/01 10 2007/02 19 2007/03 21 2007/04 47 2007/05 129 2007/06 176 2007/07 193 2007/08 199 2007/09 159 2007/10 282 2007/11 430 2007/12 695 2008/01 911 2008/02 641 2008/03 1057 2008/04 1196 2008/05 767 2008/06 724 2008/07 1018 2008/08 1286 2008/09 1824 2008/10 1721 2008/11 3432 2008/12 2120 2009/01 1506 2009/02 1220 2009/03 1442 2009/04 201 Logs Pages moved: 53

Files uploaded: 15

- Top edited articles -

Article 222 - Identified 177 - Raven-Symoné 136 - Natalee_Holloway 126 - Drake_&_Josh 108 - Ashley_Tisdale 104 - Miley_Cyrus 101 - Aruba 99 - Sacagawea 98 - Headstrong_(album) 90 - Lindsay_Lohan

Talk 338 - What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? 165 - Natalee_Holloway 145 - Jonas_Brothers 130 - Miley_Cyrus 95 - Lil_Wayne 66 - Lindsay_Lohan 64 - Demi_Lovato 54 - Zac_Efron 47 - Britney_Spears 42 - Ashley_Tisdale

User 15 - Kww 9 - Kww/chartproposal 5 - 4.129.70.150 5 - Kww/redirects 4 - Kww/chart1 4 - C.Fred 4 - SummerPhD 4 - Benjiboi/Platinum_Blonde_(Paris_Hilton_album) 3 - Jack_Merridew 3 - 219.77.177.171

User talk 56 - Kikkokalabud 50 - AuburnPilot 48 - Kww/04022009 44 - Ericorbit 28 - Pedro_João 28 - Jayron32 27 - Voices4ever 26 - C.Fred 26 - FisherQueen 25 - Wehwalt

Wikipedia 401 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 224 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 86 - Requests_for_page_protection 83 - Administrators'_noticeboard 68 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Albums_and_songs 58 - Record_charts/sourcing_guide 47 - Village_pump_(policy) 38 - Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot/Workshop 37 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcemen... 31 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Wikipedia talk 267 - Notability_(fiction) 108 - Record_charts 79 - Notability 44 - Notability_(Geographic_locations) 31 - Notability/RFC:compromise 24 - Civility 19 - What_Wikipedia_is_not 19 - Articles_for_deletion 19 - Television_episodes 13 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

File 2 - Hot_Lilo.jpg 2 - Rwdobrotenrful.jpg 2 - 1932_018tsbful.jpg 2 - Say_OK_Hudgens.jpg 2 - The_pussycat_dolls_doll_domination.jpg 1 - Item-ps-250-(plectrum-special)-1458_lg.jpg 1 - Item-tenor-guitar-503_lg.jpg 1 - Prmntmbful.jpg 1 - Item-it-250f-(irish-tenor)-1419_lg.jpg 1 - LyonsHealeyTenorReplica.jpg

Template 15 - Vanessa_Hudgens 11 - Britney_Spears 3 - Ashley_Tisdale 3 - The_Cheetah_Girls 3 - Corbin_Bleu 3 - Katy_Perry 2 - Jack_Johnson 2 - Nicole_Wray 2 - Country_data_Sint_Maarten 2 - Jessica_Simpson

Template talk 4 - Convert 1 - Britney_Spears 1 - Outlying_territories_of_European_countries

Portal 1 - Caribbean/Did_you_know/54

Portal talk 1 - Featured_content

Question on question protocol?
Hey, while I have commented in many RfAs, I have not usually asked questions. So, if we want to ask a follow up question to one of our questions, do we format a new question or just have a threaded interaction within the existing question? I have asked two questions and wanted to ask for sort of clarifications, but am not sure how it would be most appropriate to go about doing that. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen it done both ways. I think threaded is clearer. If you try to get it going for too long, people will move the discussion to the talk page, anyway. Please bear in mind that the question section is for questions, not statements.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess my follow ups are just along the lines of: 1) regarding question 8, why not pledge to avoid the fiction AFD closes? I don't see DGG or Casliber close them as keep.  By contrast and why I have reservations here is that I do see those who are by admission of the deletionist leaning in these discussion close as delete (see for example Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock)) when there does not seem to be any decisive consensus to delete and in such instances without even supplying a reason why the discussion was interpreted as a delete (I can list numerous examples where there is no clear consensus one way or the other and it somehow is closed as delete by someone who pretty much always argues to delete these types of articles and who doesn't even explain how the closure was reached).  I strongly believe that admins who close AfDs should not come out strongly in regards to AfD stances, i.e. I find that neutral admins like Mbisanz and JulianColton usually make pretty objective closes.  I certainly do not always agree with them, but I don't have to wonder if they are being biased.  Now, I would have no objections to you closing in cases of WP:SNOW.  For example, see Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends).  If you were to close that as delete, neither I nor probably anyone would reasonably challenge it, but in the case of say the Static Shock character above where it's really on the fence, wouldn't it be best for a totally neutral admin to handle the close?  And 2) you say you won't be vindicative, which is encouraging, but when you say upheld by the community, could you clarify?  Now again, citing say a DGG as an inclusionist admin, he does not seem to block those on the deletionist side of discussions.  Don't worry, I have no plans of running for adminishop, but I would say straight up that were I an admin, I would absolutely not block you or anyone else on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum even in an instance of blatant incivility where I think people would agree with me.  It seems a bad idea for editors who have had past disputes to block each other.  As such, could you say that should we, or you and say Pixelface, come into future dispute (and to be honest despite my ardent opposition in this RfA, I truly do always hold out hope that some reconciliation could happen), you would defer to someone else whether at ANI or what have you?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the campaign promise thing, that was something I decided when I saw all the furor over the "admins subject to recall" thing: admins had made a promise during their RFA, reneged on it later, and there was absolutely nothing anyone could do about it. A pledge that someone can't be held to is worthless. I opposed Everyking at his RFA because I ignored his pledge to avoid AFDs, and I didn't trust him to follow policies, guidelines, and consensus when evaluating the results. Moral consistency demands that I don't make such promises either. That said, I don't enjoy pounding my head against brick walls, either: any AFD I close as a "delete" is going to get taken to DRV by someone simply because of my reputation, so I probably won't make a habit of doing so. Still, the question you need to ask yourself is whether I am an honest man ... I've repeatedly argued that people should follow guidelines and policies, and those say that admins are to evaluate consensus at an AFD and follow it. If you believe that I will evaluate the consensus at an AFD and follow it, my exclusionistic tendencies are only going to affect close calls, and supporting my adminship is probably reasonable. If you think that I'm a dishonest man, you shouldn't support my adminship regardless of any promises I make.
 * As for you and Pixelface, certainly there are practices of yours that I strongly disagree with, and I've called you on them before. Edit summaries that I consider to be consciously deceptive come to mind as the most recent example. You can expect me to continue to campaign that practices like that are worthy of blocking, and hopefully I will eventually prevail. But, if I can not generate a consensus that they are worthy of blocking, I won't block. If I can generate that consensus, I won't need to block the first time the discussion comes up: some other admin will do it for me. If one of you repeats the action after such a consensus has been reached, I would then have to evaluate the situation per WP:INVOLVED: the stronger the consensus that the behaviour in question is block-worthy, the more flexibility I have. The best I can promise you is that I recognise and understand that WP:INVOLVED applies to our interactions, and that I have to evaluate my use of admin tools in ways that work to your detriment very carefully before proceeding.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I am not sure whether or not I can trust you and that really comes down to a sort of impression of your judgment. Now, obviously I believe you are wrong on the inclusion debates.  But as it is a belief, there is subjectivity involved, i.e. we have different opinions, so who is right and wrong is subject to interpretations.  By contrast I know you are wrong about me in the sense that in multiple areas I have seen mischaracteriztions of my edits.  Now, the first admin to have originally blocked me subsequently unblocked me.  She would not have done so if she were convinced I had no value to the project.  As this tool shows, the two alternate accounts of mine that I created and which were confirmed never commented in the same AfDs as each other or as my main account and again only two accounts were "confimed" as mine.  These accounts did not have any other blocks on them beyond being confirmed as my alternates.  Now a third account, which again, never edited in the same deletion discussions as my main account was deemed "likely" me.  So, after four checkusers, two accounts were mine and one considered likely.  If I had others, you can rest assured that in one of those several checkusers these would have turned up.  Regarding the third account, I am not willing to out anyone just to clear myself, but anyway, none of these accounts were used to say harass editors as is the case with someone else on the opposite end of the inclusion debate who you sometimes mention in the same breath as me.  Nor were they used for vandalism.  And after discussion with the original admin who blocked me, I was unblocked.  Oh believe me, I am not proud of all of my edits here and am sure I have made mistakes, but a tremendous deal of what has been alleged against me has been either wrong, blown out of proportion, distorted, etc.  Yet, my concern with you is that you seem to fall for the totally inaccurate mischaracterization of me.  It's like believing the "big lie" or the mythical version without stepping back and thinking, wait a minute, this doesn't add up.  Now regarding edit summaries, I have explained that to you previously, i.e. I disregarded TTN's unilateral and against consensus redirects, which I considered pointed and which I didn't believe merited acknowledgment.  Given that that editor hasn't edited in months, it's no longer an issue anyway.  Please note my user and talk pages; I am a Good and DYK contributor who has received numerous barnstars from editors.  We disagree on inclusion criteria, sure, but the bulk of my edits focus on welcoming users and trying to improve content.  Next, regarding my desire to vanish and claims of harassment, I provided a few editors whom I trust with evidence including photographic evidence of what I meant and it went beyond just on wiki stuff and even off-wiki attack sites.  As such, these editors do stand up for me when necessary.  They would not do so if my claims were unpersuasive, but for what should be obvious reasons I can't just post this stuff on wiki and nor can I just share it with everyone.  Given that even Ecoleetage, an editor who was always friendly to me, called the principal of an editor, I would be a fool to post such evidence on wiki or widely disseminate it.  You may ask, why would I still edit and not stay vanished?  Well, two reasons: 1) I don't like letting bullies win and 2) some things have been unvanished, so either I am totally vanished and stay away, but if I'm only partially, then I might as well still contribute and by and large no editor could honestly and objectively and unbiasedly critique my editing since my rename.  Sure, people can offer good faith suggestions for further improvement and I am open to that, but please see User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, I don't comment in AfDs anywhere near as much as I used to and since I have been renamed every one I have commented in has had a more or less acceptable conclusion.  You should also see that I argue to delete more frequently than a good deal of those who have criticized me argue to keep, which I always found as odd, i.e. being called an "extreme inclusionist" by accounts that practically never argue to keep.  Sure, I made new user mistakes when I started editing, but have grown considerably and have tried getting DYKs as of late, joined welcoming and kindness campaigns, dramatically reduced my time in AfDs, etc.  And despite how mean certain editors are to me, I still by and large make gestures of reconciliation at those who at least don't have histories of harassing other users, which is the one thing I have a hard time forgiving here.  Thus, it comes down to judgment, because I know that your perception of me does not reflect the truthful version of my edit history, it gives me pause for how accurate your perceptions will be of other editors who you could be in the position to block.  It would be one thing if you could read this post and say, you know, maybe he's right, and that would make me reconsider as well, but if anything is most disappointing on Wikipedia it is that once some make up their minds about others, this perception no matter how off base becomes ingrained as the only way in which the others are perceived.  Now again, I am certainly not arrogant enough to suggest all of my edits have been flawless, but much more so than past comments you have made suggest my history has been distorted wildly by those with biases and I won't say more to avoid getting off topic, but a half dozen or so unique editors (now all blocked) played a major role in establishing this false characterization of my history that sadly some have fallen for and refuse to believe otherwise no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented.  If I saw you realize as much, then my trust in your judgment would increase/change, but while I can agree to disagree when it's a matter of simply believing someone is wrong, I cannot do that when it comes to an instance when I know as much.  But anyway, my back is hurting again, so good night.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)