Final tally: (67/36/3); Ended Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:52:23 (UTC). Unfortunately, this request did not demonstrate that the candidate has achieved a consensus decision by the community to receive the administrative maintenance tool set at this time. The opposition consistently referred to concerns about perceived partiality and a confrontational communication style which they felt would not be appropriate for a someone with the tools at this time. The editor should be heartened by the level of support received, and, if he can internalize the constructive criticism received at this discussion, should be able to volunteer his services as an admin in the not-to-distant future. Closed by Avi
Kingoomieiii (talk·contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you, Kingoomieiii, for the role of sysop. As a user with more than 4,000 edits beginning in March 2006, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, dedication, and civility, Kingoomieiii has truly been a valuable asset to the project these past years. Although he is not one of our most active editors, Kingoomieiii has extensive knowledge of most of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, and is always prepared to help out the new or confused editor. A well-rounded Wikignome, Kingoomieiii not only has a decent number of edits in the article namespace, but also has a respectable amount of experience in multiple administrative fields, notably WP:NPP, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, WP:XFD, as well as WP:AN and it's related subpages. Apart from Wikignoming and constructively adding input to pages such as XFDs and ANI, Kingoomieiii is a prolific talk page stalker. All of his comments are professional, well-rounded, and succinct which leads me to believe that he has the maturity, clue, and experience to make a fantastic sysop.
I think Kingoomieiii has proven himself as a knowledgeable editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this user to Wikipedia's administrative team would be an absolute net-benefit to the project. I hope you will agree with me that Kingoomieiii would do well with the mop and bucket. Sincerely, FASTILY(TALK) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. --King Öomie 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Probably vandal-fighting. I've stagnated in that recently, though perhaps my watchlist just isn't creative enough. I'm sure I could be drafted into other admin-specific tasks, like closing AFDs, CSD work... basically taking to completion all the stuff I've only been able to assist with in the past.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm not entirely sure. There have been a lot of satisfying contributions, but nothing I'd single out as best. I greatly enjoy the investigation and analysis that goes into something like this series of edits, and answering people's problems (generally via talkpage stalking).
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: In the past, I've been driven to extreme stress by one editor in particular ((will find link)) and dealt with it poorly. More recently (QUITE recently), I was able to see I'd become overly vested in an issue (Talk:Genesis creation myth) to the point of cherrypicking policy. I'm now avoiding the topic until I trust myself with it. Obviously, I don't intend to revisit the issue in any administrative capacity should this RFA pass. Beyond the occasional flash-in-the-pan issue, I (perhaps optimistically) consider myself rational and level-headed.
I've never been good with open-ended autobiographical essay prompts. Please, if you have something more specific, ask away. --King Öomie 16:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
A:According to my log, I have created no pages in articlespace. I have 87 deleted revisions, but for the life of me I can't remember from where. Perhaps an admin can clarify that.
I don't recall defending an article I'd edited at AFD. --King Öomie 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news
A:I see you were the sole Keep !vote on that. I can only answer honestly, and hope this isn't a trap :P.
In my opinion, the cross-userspace redirects are not required. There are faster ways of linking to templates that don't require typing out 'Template'- such as making use of ((tl)) and ((tlx)). WP:REDIRECT specifically takes cross-namespace redirects to task, saying that in general they should be deleted.
Obviously, that policy also calls "usefulness" a reason to NOT delete, but as this applies to probably 99% of redirects created (who creates a redirect they don't find useful, except as vandalism), I would consider it significantly less important.
In the face of your other options per linking to that template, and the general consensus of posters at that RFD, I agree with the close- though I certainly would have informed you of your other options. I would say I would have let it run longer, but I see a week passed between the last comment and the close. --King Öomie 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. The oppose below that has generated the most discussion thus far concerns your userbox that declares those who are theists are "profoundly irrational". Do you think you would be influenced by your personal beliefs when dealing with non-Atheists as an administrator? Or is this box simply reflective of an opinion you hold and one that does not influence how you treat those with whom you disagree?
A: Full disclosure, that userbox appeared as User:Infinoid/UBX/Antitheist when he posted that oppose. The current revision is the result of my editing it. I'd been meaning to do it, but I'd actually forgotten it was on my userpage.
Anyway. I have no issue working with non-atheists (or the world would be a very quiet place). I can work collaboratively with even fundamentalists as well, provided their arguments are rooted in reality (this caveat has been the source of the recent issues). I actively avoid discussing the efficacy or logical basis of religion when debating people who feel differently about it than I do, especially when actually trying to get something done. Insulting someone's God will put the brakes on a collaboration harder than a train bearing down on a car, and I'm aware of this. Just as someone's personal view of gay marriage shouldn't inhibit their ability to discuss the reliable sources and content put forward by those with oppositional views, my atheistic convictions (if that's the right word) are immaterial to a discussion of reliable 3rd-party coverage of religious topics- beyond knowing, for example, that Answers In Genesis is in no way a mainstream, scientific source.
That said, I've been known to debate such topics from time to time, when appropriate. --King Öomie 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I feel it's important, conceptually, but in some ways is more of a general Patriot Act in the case of administrative action. I've yet to see it invoked in a content dispute in a way that made me think "Yeah, I can see how that policy can be ignored in this case"- especially given that for every policy/guideline you ignore, you're following at least several clauses from another.
A:I hadn't seen that until now. I'll expand this once I get a chance to read through it. Read through it just now. Given my answer below, I suppose I implicitly support this petition, though I wish it weren't required. If you can't justify an administrative action, maybe you shouldn't take it.
9. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?
A: Extenuating circumstances only- and most of the ones I can think of are covered (tool-assisted vandalism, libel/BLP violations, etc). I suppose this would include blocks for which the explanation ends with "feel free to unblock"- and I don't take issue with many of those.
In my own case, I can't see a situation wherein I actually type "WP:IAR" into an action summary. I'd have to find something more specific than that. I feel it's more of a justification to make a judgment call- but not a be-all-end-all explanation for the decision.
A: I don't have an exceptionally stong opinion on the subject one way or the other. I haven't actually been witness to the circumstances that would seem to necessitate it, eg an admin seen as unfit, but unlikely to be sanctioned or de-mopped by Arbcom. Without that framework, I'm left wondering if it's really needed, but I'm not actually opposed. I doubt I'll be !voting one way or the other.
A:This is a plot to trick me into reading 85k of text, right? :P I'll be back shortly. It would appear to consist mainly TenOfAllTrades laying down some flaws in the proposal, and Tryptofish's rebuttal, followed by lots of votes. There would appear to be a misunderstanding of the proposal itself, but on who's part I'm uncertain.
12. How would you improve the proposal?
A: Couldn't tell you. I'm unfamiliar with the blueprints at this point. I'd need to have a sitdown with the engineers. Again, this is a topic of almost complete disinterest for me- I haven't been following it at all. --King Öomie 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Have you added significant content to any articles and if so what are your best contributions?
A: No, not really. As I stated above, essay prompts are not my strength. I occasionally fix references, typos, revert bad edits, etc, but in terms of adding sections or bringing an article to GA/FA, no.
14. Would you use the admin tools to close AfDs and make blocks in the area of religion and atheism. Do you think you would impose any limits on yourself?
A: I would likely leave AFD discussions in the area to other administrators, especially if I expected allegations of abuse. Obviously I would never close an AFD (or page move, etc) I was directly involved in. I fully intend to avoid blocking anyone in relevant areas, except in cases of blatant vandalism (as defined by WP:VAND, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I take administrative abuse of power very seriously, as I've stated above and below.
Edit summary usage for Kingoomieiii can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kingoomieiii before commenting.
Full Fledged Support. Kingoomieii has been a great editor who has been a great editor since the time we met. From fighting the genre warriors to always keeping me laughing or in spirits when I felt like giving up on this project, King is a great friend and would make a better admin.--SKATERSpeak. 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will make an excellent admin. Tan | 39 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my dealings with Kingoomieiii have been good ones, and he'll make a decent, level-headed admin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support myself and Kingoomieiii have had our disagreements in the past (I'm not going to go into specifics), however, in those disagreements I have always admired the way that Kingoomieiii kept a level head, a polite demeanor, and above all an open mind. If he wants the tools to aid him in patrolling CAT:CSD and the recent changes then why not? He's sure to use the tools with insight and we need more steady admins in those areas. Kingoomieiii is among the most reasonable editors I have had the pleasure to meet on wikipedia. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the lack of glaring issues. (Although the vocabulary in the oppose section is incomprehensible at the moment.) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trustworthy and helpful; will be a benefit to the project to have as an admin. Ioeth (talkcontribstwinklefriendly) 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never ran across you knowingly, but you seem to be competent. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has been around since March 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from neutral. I was initially worried by the rather short answers, but he seems to sum things up concisely and I think that's a good trait for an admin to have. He seems to be competent and I see others trust him. ceranthor 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate! Warrah (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Based on personal experience I know that this editor has competence both with content creation matters and behind-the-scenes work, has a calm demeanor, and has a sufficient amount of clue. -- Atama頭 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine to me. fetchcomms☛ 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen you around and always had a positive impression of you. I think you'll be a great admin. —Soap— 22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – absolutement! – B.hotep •talk• 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poking out of retirement to support me? I'm humbled. --King Öomie 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he also poked out of retirement to report me as a suspected Sockpuppet at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi Ha! Well, good luck with that. Is it such an alien concept that I might support someone I've never interacted with out of principle? Instead it's assumed that I must really be him... Mojoworker (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place. --King Öomie 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me start my saying.. forget it, you're not worth it. B.hotep (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no obvious or jarring issues. Communication is good and concise, and work is perfectly satisfactory. —LedgendGamer 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Being a regular editor at a handful of articles to which King Oomie contributes I've seen him diffuse tense situations and add quite a bit of value. I've seen him self correct when he gets a bit worked up and that level of self-awareness and respect for civility and AGF are fantastic traits for an admin. He has a strong grasp of policy (not only in word but in spirit). Nefariousski (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA as candidate has six barnstars on his userpage and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Willing to get involved with controversial topic. Is appropriately skeptical. We need more admins like this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, experienced, trustworthy. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support— great spread of experience in wikispace incident/discussion areas, and respect for the bold use of an incident analysis as an example of one's best contributions. The whole recent Genesis thing might be poor timing and not somewhere I'd venture, but after looking it over, past a few pointed words in caps in edit summaries the edits weren't actually that horrendously irrational. Certainly not destructive, maybe a little stubborn, but the two pulling a NPOV view out are fair. I'll AGF and trust the candidate knows that ever using tools on that article or any editors involved with it would subject him/herself to a swift desysop (or worse). Signing for certification since I very obviously forgot. ♪daTheisen(talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of relevant experience and plenty of knowledge. I'm happy that the candidate will not abuse admin tools. I'm also impressed that he is so open about what he considers his failings. As for the Creation Myth thing, I think it is reasonable if some religious believers are a little disturbed by that (and by the user box), but I note that the candidate has clearly stated he will keep his mop clear of any areas in which he has a personal interest, and I see no reason to doubt that - and I think it should be noted that he was actually on the side of the consensus. -- Boing!said Zebedee 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful. Even imply that consensus has been reached there and you'll get your head bitten off. --King Öomie 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thanks for the warning - on the side of the eventual decision, then -- Boing!said Zebedee 05:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Enigmamsg 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see any problems, and the user appears willing to dive into difficult areas and try defusing conflicts. But for Pete's sake man, use some edit summaries! --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. King Öomie has a good head on his shoulders and I have no doubt that giving him a mop will bring about a net benefit to the project. Ben (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – i've seen many manifestations of his good judgement. Sssoul (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course. User is undoubtedly an asset to the project and, I am sure, will provide Wikipedia with the administrative support that it requires. Per nom, basically. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, among other things quite explicitly because of the self-reflection in Q3 about the edit warring. Trivial side note, I don't agree with your answer to Q7; IAR asks for improvements to Wikipedia, which in the end is only judged by consensus (Of course whether the consensus system is the best solution is a very different question). It's not an out, and doesn't allow to ignore policy at one's whim. Amalthea 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent knowledge of Wiki-process/policy. A cool head in any debate. Always neutral. Wiki libs (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one remark: please use edit summaries a bit more. We're not all great at using informative ones, but having only the section title on a lot of your edits is less than helpful when scanning through them. That having been said, I saw nothing in your edits to concern me. RayTalk 17:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm impressed by the honest answers to Q11 and Q12. Many folks (myself probably included) would have been unable to resist the temptation to pull something out of the hat. Better to admit that a good answer would require more work than you're willing to do, given your interest in the topic. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support after much consideration. This candidate will be a net benefit to the project, and I am sure that they will take into account the concerns raised here by some. Their responses and editing pattern show a willingness to discuss, and they seem willing to help out in times of backlog across other areas which is always welcome, especially as they show they would be cautious when wielding the mop in unfamiliar areas. Whilst a few comments in their edit history could have been softened and feel less like "badgering", none are of significant enough concern to me to lead me to oppose. Anyway, I won't write an essay here, best of luck to you and thanks again for answering my comments in the neutral section. --Taelus (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on answers to questions (particularly 6, 11, 12, and the taelus question in neutral). Seems to have his/her head screwed on the right (or do I mean wrong?) way! Can't see any particular reason to oppose. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Coldplay Expert and Keepscases. – iridescent 21:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok once I can see, but twice? ok... where's the hidden camera? Nefariousski (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) user Iridescent clarified on talk page. Nefariousski (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cautious Support - funny that I have never come across King Oomie (?) - anyway, succinct and straightforward answers are a plus. I am concerned about lack of mainspace contribs, but we do have a process (i.e. arbcom) to deal with problematic use of tools. On the balance of things, worth a try. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Badger Drink and Iridescent. :) GlassCobra 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support My Magic 8 Ball says no. But that thing's always wrong anyway. I see no problems with user's contribs. -Atmoz (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs more antitheist administrators. In fact everywhere needs more antitheists. --MalleusFatuorum 01:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your point of view, Malleus, fine. But I don't think a person's religion (or lack thereof) is reason enough to promote someone for adminship. Do you really think that Kingoomieii meets your traditional content creation requirements? (Please forgive me if I am confusing someone else's voting history with yours) NW(Talk) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per coldplay expert's diffs, this person shows clue. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um..you know it's getting a bit stupid that your all saying per CE. Just to let you know.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. Cut it out people. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. This needs to go for everyone - both opposers and supporters. -FASTILY(TALK) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I wouldn't comment on the RFA itself to avoid an argument brewing on this page and derailing the RFA, but just a brief explanation as these supports seem to be confusing people; in my case (and I assume Badger Drink, GlassCobra et al as well), "Support per opposes by User:Foo and User:Bar" is shorthand with which I know all the closing 'crats will be familiar. To clarify, it means "I have read the diffs/links/whatever provided by users Foo and Bar, and having reviewed them I believe the candidate took the correct course of action in these cases; consequently in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing being provided in which I agree that the candidate was in the wrong, I feel the candidate warrants an AGF support". Or, if you want a shorter version, "if that's the worst anyone can find about him he must be doing OK". – iridescent 10:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what your saying now. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh. I get that my diffs can show another opinion. But 3 per CE's is a bit too much don;t you all think?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, opposing and supporting "per" someone is an exceedingly common occurrence in RfAs. GlassCobra 06:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'll be a fine admin. They seem level headed, reasonable and trustworthy. Swarm(Talk) 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Controversial editing does not necessarily equal evidence that someone is willing to abuse the tools to push a POV. This editor's work seems like a net positive to me, and I would AGF that the trend will extend to adminship. Also, If religious Wikipedians can express their faith on their userpages, everyone else is perfectly free to express their irreligious sentiments. Steven Walling 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is s good choice...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong positives with no evident concerns. Per Badger and Iridescent. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good contribs, interesting attitude, I see a positive addition to admin ranks. Have faith, people. :) --StaniStani 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This term might seem a little bit out-of-place here, but I'm AGF-ing this. Hopefully Kingoomieiii would make a good admin. BejinhanTalk 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user has promised to not use his admin tools when dealing with the controversial subject, and per his other actions, I see reason to believe this. NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems as though s/he will use the tools well and I have no concerns about POV issues, based on what I read here. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Saw firsthand how this user dealt with conflict at the debate over the term "creation myth". Hope that my numerical presence will help make him an admin. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see any serious problems here, given that the user has promised not to use their tools to further a POV. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support While the opposition makes good points, the user will ultimately benefit the project with the tools, especially if the criticism below is taken constructively and if a heartfelt effort is made to improve in areas of concern. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The existence of deity lacks even the most scant evidence. Were it not for millenia of oppression at the hands of oligarchical religionists who's lack of scientific curiosity led to such high water marks as human sacrifice, crusades, jihads, suicide bombers, and other such nonsense, no encyclopedia on this planet would take seriously the concept of deity as an objective reality. There is no evidence for a higher power, and thus a higher power has no place in an encyclopedia if an article on said subject even so much as suggests a legitimate existence of deity. No evidence, no article. Hiberniantears (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with a request for adminship? Or has this become a referenda on Wikipedia and Religion? --Taelus (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with being an administrator on a project that claims to pursue NPOV, and this editor has received a number of oppose votes simply for taking a position that points out how many religious views are based on a striking lack of evidence. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: I think we have been we have been a little harsh on our ungodly candidate. He is a good editor and will be a net asset to Wikipedia. Being a Godlesspagan should not stop anyone from being an Admin, as long as he is a neutral Godless pagan. Merely having different views is not a cause for concern; but rather, how they come out while editing is what is of concern. If you work on this issue and broaden your experience, you can count on my full support next time. May I also suggest you contact J04n(talk page). He went from being a failed candidate to 100% support in the most spectactular brilliant Ressurection event since Jes in along time. I have faith every reason to believe you will be successful next time. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC) G.R.O.E.[reply]
Support I agree with the considered sentiments expressed by Dloh, so as this RFA is relatively close I am adding my support Ajbpearce (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edits look fine, and I have been following the Creation Myth mess. I don't see the terror that he has unleashed, according to some. Too bad he was forceful in his opinion and stance on policy there; had it been deleting BLP stuff, that would be "good". Seems too many want Admins to be strong when they agree, and to step back when they disagree. Keep doing what you are doing - at least we know where you stand. King Pickle (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good candidate, ϢereSpielChequers 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support some experince on policy building. overall solid record. Adding support for this candidate overall net benefit and I feel will not abuse tools to push beliefs. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes I have concerns about this candidate. I don't like the lack of content building and think that this needs addressing. However I think I can trust kingoomieiii but I know this RfA is now likely to fail so this is now a moral support. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looking back through some of the candidate's talk page archives, I'm noticing a wee bit too much dogmatic editing. I'm not sure if this user is fit for adminship at this time. Bad feeling, sorry. Wisdom89(T / C) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have time to post any examples that you find dogmatic?--otherlleft 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To possibly assuage concerns, I consider the boundary between personal content involvement and administrative action sacrosanct. --King Öomie 17:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried, take note that intend to keep personal issues (content, talkpage debate, etc) entirely separate from administrative action- closing threads I've !voted in, blocking oppositional voices, etc., all verboten.Elucidate Clarify- I have a bad habit of stringing 10-character words together in nested clauses. --King Öomie 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your responses. To address the issue of specific examples, I suppose I can post some diffs, however, this is more of a general impression/feeling I get from reading your talk page and various other threads. However, I recognize that it is unhelpful without examples. I will provide some later on when I get home from work. I will also take your promise into consideration. Cheers. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but my oppose still stands. In light of some of the links provided below, my uneasy feeling about your "overly tenacious" editing is cemented. Wisdom89(T / C) 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean 'tenacious' or 'tendentious'? --King Öomie 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tenacious, but when it's excessively persistent it borders on being tendentious I guess. Wisdom89(T / C) 16:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Antitheist" userbox is intentionally disrespectful towards persons of faith. Keepscases (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only insofar as the term 'creation science' deliberately belittles practitioners of the natural sciences.. On the whole, I disagree, and my intention was certainly not to offend. In hindsight, I'll make a minor alteration to soften it. --King Öomie 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There we are. It's somewhat neutered now, but perhaps it's best to not display my convictions so prominently on my sleeve. --King Öomie 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Keepscases. How is it relevant to whether the candidate would be a good admin, or not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can see his point. If that appeared to him to be a passive-aggressive jab, then perhaps this person doesn't have the right attitude to trust with the power to block people. I disagree with his analysis, but I see his point. If someone sported a ubx stating "Atheists are self-deluded liars" was up for RFA, I too would give pause to supporting expanding their access level. --King Öomie 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe administrators should possess sound judgment and be respectful towards others' beliefs. Incidentally, Connormah, the Keepscases you have been working with on Wikimedia Commons is not me. Do you believe that person is trying to impersonate me? Keepscases (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It crossed my mind for a moment, but it then became quite evident it was not you. Impersonate you? Who know? The user was blocked as a sock, but Im not sure what to think about whether it was an impersonation. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that we should respect each others' beliefs (or lack thereof), but that is why I do not want to oppose him because of his userbox. I was baptized and attended a Catholic school. I have taught at Methodist and Brethren schools. I have been friends off Wikipedia with men, women, whites, Asians, blacks, straight, homosexual, overweight people, thin people, Christians, Atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, you name it. I cannot stand intolerance. Yet, even so, I tend to ignore userboxes that just declare what someone is. Now, if he had a box that said "Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron" or something, then that could be problematic, but I do not think this one is much different than someone declaring they are a believer? I suppose "profoundly irrational" does imply as much, yet, I have and will continue to deal with people who have beliefs I consider absurd, but it does not color how I deal with them. The question is more a matter of whether or not the candidate will be prejudiced against non-Atheist editors. Do you suppose that to be the case or merely that non-Atheists will be offended? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your oppose, you are entitled to your opinion, but I am also going to disagree with your comment that it was 'intentionally' disrepectful, which, IMO is not assumed good faith. You could have left a note on the candidate's talk, not opposed. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Keepcases' original statement Whatever Kingoomie's personal opinions may be I have never seen them over-ride his approach to building/improving Wikipedia. In the times that he and I have crossed paths I have had nothing but positive input from him... and I am a Christian Conservative. For the betterment of Wikipedia... we get along admirably. Wiki libs (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose POV pushing and/or edit waring [1], [2], [3] are NOT the quatilies that I like to see in an admin. We do not need to have another editor over at Genesis creation myth that can push his own views because he's an admin. Also, I don't like that this reply basically states that you are "outsourcing the decision because I [you] refuse to argue it". The fact that Kingoomieiii has a userbox that litteraly says "This user is an antitheist, and finds belief in supernatural beings profoundly irrational." and his 200+ edits to Talk:Genesis creation myth is proof that he is here to make his views known to the world. This is the last thing that Wikipedia needs, another POV-pushing, edit-waring admin who can now get his point across because he has the buttons to control those in his way.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to your opinion, but if that's your conclusion from what you see, I really question your judgment. Even leaving aside the religious issue (covered above) I've stated multple times that I have no intention of using the tools in a content dispute, or for 'revenge', or any such nonsense, and I expect any admins doing so to have their mop removed. Do you just not believe me? Based on what? --King Öomie 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Call me crazy but I don't belive that we need to be handing out mops to people who edit war and POV push a few days before they go up for an RFA. And based off of those diffs, I really question your judgement as well.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To call that "POV pushing" is a stretch, tbh. Looks like King Oomie cited a lengthy discussion/consensus at the talkpage which apparently supports inclusion of the term "myth". Following consensus is opposite of the nature of a "POV pusher". JamieS93❤ 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cited", "Consensus"? are you kidding? He litteraly said, (and I quote) "outsourcing the decision because I [you] refuse to argue it". Yeah, thats Consensus at work all right.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outsourcing decisions to avoid arguments sounds like a pretty good definition of dispute resolution to me. That's the context in which I interpreted his remark. Obviously you see it differently, but I thought I'd mention it. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to this, you only have 776 edits to articles. Yet you have 1600 to User talk spaces and over 800 to article talk spaces. Something is going on here. You only major contributions seem to be at Creation related articles and yet you seem to be POV pushing here. Hmmm 2+2=..... Now how does that make my judgement "questionable"?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My articlespace edits consist mainly of reverting, or fixing, bad edits. As I stated above, open prompts are not a strength of mine, and the patience to sit down and write an article eludes me. I'm more interested in the meta aspects of Wikipedia; so sue me. And the edit you're referring to, if you'd read in context, says nothing of the kind. A WP:SOAPBOX thread was archived, and unarchived, and archived again, and brought back - and this wasn't me and some other guy. In the end I left it unarchived and requested it be closed by a third party, because I wasn't interested in arguing what kind of argument an argument was, with someone who had previously infuriated me by not grasping what kind of argument an argument was. What is unreasonable about this? --King Öomie 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, something is wrong when there are 23 supports for a candidate that has less than 5,000 edits and only 776 to articles and yet, several of them are to POV push and edit war. Look you can argue with me all you want but my Oppose will stand. Citeing policy is one thing, acually following it is another.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something going on between 23 people? Like some kind of conspiracy, or collusion, or meatpuppetry, or canvassing? I will attest that there is absolutely nothing of the kind going on. And to your last point, my empty block log fully agrees with you. --King Öomie 03:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably totally oblivious here, but could someone please link the "edit war" being discussed for me? Thanks, FASTILY(TALK) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your all out to get me! No, I mean that something is wrong when 23 people support a guy that has 776 edits to articles and edit wars on a very contraversial topic. As well as haveing a personal agenda against it. Not the best RFA candidate IMHO. And I gave you three diffs at the top of my oppose Fastily.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conspiracy, we (as voters) just have different opinions. You're free to have yours, too, though others (myself included) may disagree with the strong labels and slightly overreactive presentation of evidence. Indeed, what some see as a "dogmatic, pushy attitude" (or "lack of mainspace edits, focuses too much on arguments") might be a non-issue to others. *shrug* Let's let each other's opinions speak for themselves. JamieS93❤ 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I feel that I need to explain my support, but generally I don't care that an editor is a stellar article creator if they want to be an administrator (though it's certainly a plus). I'll oppose a candidate who has little-to-no experience with article content, because I think that it's important to know what content creators are doing. King Oomie shows enough for my purposes, furthermore I've been involved in discussions at Talk:World of Warcraft where their input was helpful. By the way, if you look at the edit counter, and look at the top 10 edited articles, you don't see anything related to religion or creationism until the 10th article. As for talk pages, Talk:Genesis creation myth is the one with the most participation but there are many other talk pages showing significant participation (and again, I know King Oomie from areas outside of creationism topics). I don't think this fits the pattern of someone on Wikipedia only to push a particular POV. I understand that you've had bad experiences with King Oomie, and it is certainly your right (and understandable) to oppose based on those experiences, but that doesn't give you the right to cast doubt on people who want to give their support. -- Atama頭 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not cast[ing] doubt on people who want to give their support. I understand why you all have supported. After all, there are several reasons to support. Yet IMHO, those reasons do not outweigh the reason to oppose. Sorry.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not satisfy my criterion for relevant XfD experience. For the second question the candidate offers WP:REDIRECT as a stronger alternative to WP:CROSS which would be more compelling absent any other essays or guidelines touching on the issue but there are others so this seems selective if understandable citation of Wikipedia help files. Also the dismissal of the usefulness criterion seems groundless. The usefulness criterion was given as much space as the cross-namespace item. If it only applies in 1% of cases what is it then? A sop? A bone to be handed out to quell worries of naive inexperienced XfD participants before the upcoming article execution? What is that 1% theoretical case where it would qualify as a legitimate reason to keep? To answer the candidate's question: Is the question trappy? Yes. But it is a tricky real example selected with a purpose. As a real example there are other dimensions to the episode to consider. In your answer to question 2 you say investigation and analysis is a strength of yours. I was hoping to see an example of it in this case. Lambanog (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a keep criteria applies in 100% of non-vandalism cases, what then? Delete nothing? How then was the general consensus to delete cross-namespace redirects reached? And I intentionally prioritized WP:REDIRECT, the guideline, over WP:CROSS, the essay. --King Öomie 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Logical guideline vs. essay argument noted. Oppose based on second question criterion changed to neutral. Unfortunately candidate still does not meet first question criterion. Lambanog (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that the Delete criteria is 'given as much space' as the corresponding delete- this is a non-argument as far as importance is concerned. A clause is to be explained until it has been explained sufficiently that readers understand it- and the length of the description does not necessarily correspond to the importance of the text itself. Based on this, I could only judge importance based on the content of said text, and analysis of its connotations. Again, if we aren't to delete things that at least one person finds useful, what, besides vandalism, can be expected to pass RFD? I took it to mean exceptionally useful, as in a group of people frequently using the redirect. In the case of the creator being the sole user, I just don't see justification to prioritize the Keep criteria over Delete. If I created WP:KOIII as a link to my own user talk, as a shortened link to give people, should I realistically expect that to survive RFD? Absolutely not. --King Öomie
I noticed in your previous comment that you were presenting a false dichotomy between a virtual keep all or delete all but I ignored it, but I see you are doing so again. I trust we are talking in terms of extremes to clarify the issues and that you would show appreciation for nuance if you should become an admin. Therefore I must ask where did you get the idea of "exceptionally useful" from? From what I recall "exceptional" usefulness or words to that effect isn't mentioned in any of the help files associated with the issue. Even granting for the sake of argument that a great deal of usefulness is required, it also raises the issue of your qualifications to judge the level of usefulness of the redirect. If I were to say it is exceptionally useful when wikignoming multiple references at once, what qualifies you to say it isn't? You seem to be using number of editors currently using it as a proxy measure for usefulness but that brings up WP:DEMOLISH. Extending that rationale would you also accept the reasoning that an article not getting many hits is a legitimate reason to delete said article? As for your WP:KOIII example, without knowing what the theoretical WP:KOIII is for, I don't see how one can begin to judge its merits for keeping or deleting. No need to go down this road, however, little chance of changing my mind this way. Lambanog (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionally useful, in this case, including to more than one person. Your example immediately after the DEMOLISH link is flawed (and the answer is no). This is more akin to a single person placing a non-article in articlespace, and transcluding it as though it were a template, for the sake of convenience. (In that case, I would support moving it to either template space or a subpage of their userpage.) What gives me the right to decide in this hypothetical situation? Well, that would be the fact that I'm (hypothetically) the closing admin, and it's the creator versus everyone else. Obviously little chance of changing your mind- I still disagree with you. I regret that that's really your criteria. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the result of the RFD. I'm not the only person that agrees with the original close. --King Öomie 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say your authority in making the decision would stem from your being an admin. I would prefer that such authority in the situation stem from being an editor who has edited multiple references and found there to be no net benefit. The situation essentially boils down to one where you are reviewing a tool the main usefulness of which is for a task it seems you do not perform. Strong and clear policy interpretation might make up the gap but saying there is consensus on this topic when the help files are ambiguous at best and even contradict the assertion does not inspire confidence. Consensus it seems is formed at XfDs, not found in help files or created at the village pump. Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is then instead found at the XFD discussion itself, which I would be, as a closing administrator, expected to uphold. If the policy is ambiguous, then the !voters have the final say. So, still Delete. --King Öomie 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical scenario: A relatively new user asks you for help on RfDs, they are ignorant of what they are and how they work and want to know more about them. What help files would you suggest they look at? Lambanog (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How then would you reconcile your statements above regarding exceptional usefulness with WP:RFD#KEEP #5? Would you be in favor of deleting the 200 portal redirects shown here if they were nominated? Also do you see anything possibly problematic in the consensus you are basing your decision on? Lambanog (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That text is exactly the same as at WP:REDIRECT, so I've already reconciled that. I disagree that usefulness to a single individual qualifies as sufficient reason to close an RFD as Keep in the face of other editors arguing against it, as I said before. As for problematic statements, Amalthea says something about being disruptive to the encyclopedia, which I simply don't see in your four redirects, but that's about all. I have no significant opinion on those portal redirects, as I don't know how they're used. I'd have to see the discussion at RFD unfold to really get a sense. If one guy made them all, and linked to all to the pages, and created all the shortcut boxes, and he's the only one who uses them, sure. If a large number of users habitually use the redirects as search terms (as you did), then no. --King Öomie 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sampled five at random and looked at their history. Five different creators. In my opinion their potential usefulness to the project are not close to the ones deleted. If the rest are similar I would suggest that if they were all nominated at the same time that might be 200 keep votes. As for the other point, you're missing a detail. Everyone else I have posed the question to has too so you're not alone. Lambanog (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course you wouldn't think that, the ones deleted were yours, and you're human. Would that missing detail be that you suspect the RFD was part of a plot to harass you? --King Öomie 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your opinion is? Lambanog (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it with diffs to the closing admin and you'll have a case to take to Deletion Review (abuse of process). I don't expect it to be undeleted, but that's me. If you meant you wanted me to go investigate the other user, I respectfully decline. --King Öomie 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need only have treated it as a hypothetical case of how you would deal with the situation. Conducting a deep investigation is not really required to determine if there is preliminary cause for such suspicion and in this case I think it would be relatively easy to determine. But you seem to me to have too much of a default to delete position to make me comfortable. I'd like to see admins in XfDs who are more automatically aware of the ways the system can be abused. Concerns have been raised and your response is still basically "deal with it", even though you are the blunt instrument by which punitive action is being taken. I was open to changing my vote to neutral even despite my experience reservations since I'm somewhat embarrassed for having taken up so much of your time with questions if only I could see evidence of an ability to be flexible. But I get the impression you are a little too eager to determine right and wrong and lay down the law and once you make up your mind there seems little chance of you changing it even with changed circumstances. Any chance of my vote changing I think is now closed. Sorry for taking up your time. Lambanog (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Lambanog, I think you should seriously consider letting this one go and find broader criteria to evaluate candidates on. The closing admin didn't change his mind, DRV didn't bring them back, and I don't know that you've convinced anyone to agree with you. Sure, they were useful for you, and it's incredibly aggravating to you to not have them anymore, but what's done is done. Are you just trying to prove a point by bringing this up at every RfA?--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I have developed is a result of my experience with the project. I realize the perspective I have may differ from those of others but I think it is a perfectly valid one. Admins represent a disproportionate amount of the voters at RfAs, and from what I can tell that has resulted in undue weight towards the views of non-content creators because content creation isn't considered necessarily admin related activity and that simply participating in admin areas is sufficient. I disagree. I think my experience in this case example highlights that. There is in my view material breakdown in the safeguards at XfDs and if this is the way they are being run then it diverges from the principles of the process as explained in the help files. If you disagree then you are free to vote in support of the candidate. At least in this forum there are sufficient participants to get a reasonably accurate gauge of consensus. In XfDs 2 vandals could conceivably overturn the wishes of and irritate a much larger body of Wikipedians if they pick their targets. From what I see many admin candidates without content creation experience seem oblivious to this and are too confident and gung ho in their readiness to delete stuff because they supposedly have "experience" in admin areas. I'd prefer more wariness and circumspection. My observation is that those who do not possess such experience in admin areas seem to use more careful language. Lambanog (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per editwar on and about Feb 15th 2010, while self disclosed in nomination it is too recent for me to support. -- RP459Talk/Contributions 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Partly but not entirely, per Coldplay Expert. I can deal with you expressing your opinions on your userpage. To a certain extent, it's what it's there for, but for someone with those beliefs, or lack thereof (and, for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with them), it concerns me that your only significant edits are to "Genesis creation myth" (or the talk page thereof). You also seem to have a habit of badgering those who disagree with you- I was willing to discount it in this RfA because RfA is tough, but it's exemplified by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain Hertz, though I realise it was 5 months ago, to which you racked up forty edits, most of which were arguments with keep !voters. It also concerns me that you have less than 800 edits (~18%) tot he mainspace and almost 1700 (~40%) to user talk pages, though that is not, in itself, a valid oppose rationale. I hate to oppose an RfA, especially for an obviously good, long term contributor so I promise I'll reevaluate before it closes. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 10:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In King Oomie's defense, that was a contentious AfD. The "keep" voters were engaging in meatpuppetry, which the closing administrator noted when the article was closed as "delete". While I don't like to see a lot of badgering at AfDs or really any other discussion on Wikipedia, it was somewhat warranted in this case. When votestacking is going on you have to make that known. -- Atama頭 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose combination of things: you've only got 700-odd article edits and one third of them are to the same contentious topic Genesis creation myth and many to other related topics. You don't seem to have been the most impartial editor there, and using your userpage to parade your POV and disparage others kills it for me. All told, not someone I want admining on a project committed to NPOV, which has more than enough people grinding axes. Show me you can edit uncontentiously, and indeed show me a commitment to editing against your POV and try again later.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide some sort of clarification King's edits have been in line with current consensus and policy and also have been in line with the latest RFC and past two RMs. Being in favor of one side of a discussion when that side of the discussion is upheld with policy, RFC etc... is hardly POV. Nefariousski (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not impressive. If you are committed to NPOV you leave your views at the door - and I should barely know which "side" you favour. The fact that you jump to his support, and I look and am not surprised to find you boast the same POV userboxed proudly declaring your views on the "Creation" issue, doesn't help. Show me someone who doesn't share that POV who has been impressed by his impartiality and I might change my mind. We've enough cartels and cabals operating in these areas (which is why I personally don't edit such articles).--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If King Oomie's personal viewpoints happen to be supported by policy, reliable sources on a topic and on said topic he has been reasonable and has contributed to the closure of issues and improvement of the article (FAQs, further research, finding sources etc...) then why do his vies or my own for that matter have any weight in this issue and how does his personal viewpoint skew NPOV? If the side he supported was continually shown to be against policies, not have the support of reliable sources etc... and he kept fighting the good fight that would be another issue indeed. I wouldn't wish it in my worst enemy but if you are so inclined feel free to read through the archives and you'll see a good number of instances where he "crossed the aisle" to calm people down or help others understand the particular NPOV policy you now question him of possibly not being committed to. Nefariousski (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed the religious issue above, at the behest of A Nobody. If you feel that's insufficient, that's fine. I wish you luck in locating RFA candidates that don't have opinions. Perhaps a Sea sponge :D. By all means, point me at a discussion where the religious/fringe (not synonyms, I know) side isn't unfairly demanding preferential treatment, or coverage in violation of WP:DUE. Show me a debate where the secular/science-minded side isn't clearly in the right, and I'll support whichever side is backed by policy. --King Öomie 19:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I think you just made my point for me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the general thread of 'controversy' on religiously-entwined articles follows this trend, my responses will continue to look like this. And when it DOES happen someone calls religion in general crazy nutso, I will tell them to cut it out. --King Öomie 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I love how what a person belives (or does'nt belive in) are now "supported by policy". Yet WP:ALLATHEISTSARECORRECT remains a red link....hmmm. Regardless of who was correct in that debate, King (almost) violated 3RR and in the process, added in an alleged POV statment as well as argue over and over with several people. As for the comments about his edits not being POV or even edit-waring. Look, If you have yet to see his edits to Talk:Genesis creation myth or have seen them but throw them aside as a fluke, I question your judgement. As for the Support - per Coldplay....I understand what you mean but if you actually support per my diffs and evidence (and belive that he was being bold) then you have little or no respect for several of Wikipedia's policies.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've covered this extensively in your own post. I'm talking to someone else now. And NOW you're directly attacking my supporters. You've said a few times that you weren't, but now, that's what you're doing. --King Öomie 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not out to get you or anything. And I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying that "support - per CE imflamatory and quite frankly rude. I apologize if it appears that I'm attacking you or anyone else. Despite my oppose it appears that you'll pass anyway so with that in mind, I wish you the best of luck.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 11:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was supposed to retire from really editing wikipedia (I still use a watchlist as a news feed), but I wanted to say something here that I hope is helpful - if I were the only 'oppose' vote I probably would have stayed quiet, but since there are others concerned, I wanted to make sure to also present my perspective. Overall, of the people involved in the genre warrior/vandal-fighting cabal (the identities of whom are fairly obvious from a look at the listing of unfounded personal attacks here: [4]), King may be, IMHO, the one I agree with the most. In fact, King is very close to being worthy of being an admin - I think there are only a few issues that King needs to work on:
I believe that, despite what others say, he does have temper issues (and is very confrontational).
I feel he is too willing to trust certain users and too eager to pounce on 'new vandals' without necessarily proving anything (maybe he buys in a little too strongly into the "us vs them" mentality, and does seem to enjoy stopping 'vandals' too much for my taste). In other words King sometimes errs on the side of presuming he is correct going into a discussion.
King (as others have suggested) does tend to attempt to badger people when discussing things.
King seems to subscribe to a belief that "the ends justifies the means".
I would feel bad saying all this, because I don't have anything against King, but I feel that adding admin responsibilities for King would not really help anyone at all, and could result in some uncomfortable situations. King is perfectly able to contribute to wikipedia without admin rights. I am also weary of the apparent claims here that King will behave differently as an admin than as a user - this seems like a strange claim. I think that King should be a shining example of a user before becoming an admin.
Some examples:
Over at the sockpuppet investigation for Wiki Libs, King did not keep a neutral stance and continuously argued that Libs could not be suckpuppeting, despite evidence to the contrary[5]. He also tried to dissuade the filer from filing the report[6]. Upon seeing that Libs was in fact sockpuppeting, King still kept an absolutely positive demeanor with respect to Libs, which I don't think is entirely appropriate for an admin.
When another editor attempted to OUT me, King did in fact defend me at first, but then let his temper get the better of him and said some pretty condescending things to me, such as here: [7] (there are quite a few more)
Continued with the snide comments after my semi-retirement - apparently resentful of my desire to try and stay involved in wikipedia even just a little bit: [8]
People deny the cabals, but here we have evidence that there was some sort of conspiring going on via email: [9]
At the lengthy discussion here [10], a lot of questionable things were going on in terms of violating wiki policies, many of which I was unaware of - including attempts at OUTing and accusations of sockpuppetry to sway a debate without a proper SPI. King, if not actively involved, did nothing to dispel it.
Allowed Libs to manipulate him (and Skater) into filing AFD reports on pages I created, so that it would be harder to trace Libs' vendetta response to several of my WQAs on him[11], and did not realize that this tactic of Libs' would amount to votestacking, since if an AfD would be filed, this could be seen as canvassing
Even while this RfA is going on, King elsewhere presents what I think is a blatant misinterpretation of AGF[12], and on the same day complains that someone else should AGF with respect to King on this very RfA[13].
Makes accusations of sockpuppetry without a completed SPI: [14][15]
These are obviously only some of the ones I was most directly involved with, but I feel they are representative, not atypical - and this is obviously only my interpretation of these diffs (as someone, most will say, who has a vested interest in what went on in many of those diffs), which is why the diffs are more useful than anything I say. Luminifer (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage anyone interested to read every diff posted here. To rebut solely your last bullet point, there is no double-standard. I said that Sumbuddi's block evasion could genuinely have been an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Calling me self-important and pompous does not assume the same. The rest speak for themselves once visited. --King Öomie 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very constructive response. It reflects the attitude that others have accused you of. I'd advise you to refrain from such comments lest be it affects your RfA. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored. --King Öomie 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that. Thank you kindly Wisdom89(T / C) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did qualify my entire comment with the phrase 'this is my interpretation', and others are invited to make their own interpretations - I tried to pick diffs for which the context was not that important. Also, it is probably not a good idea to remove comments you made in this RfA (that some say indicate the attitude people are trying to discuss here) when someone points it out to you, like you did here:[16]. It may just be me, but I think given the circumstances at the very least a strike-through would have been more appropriate. Luminifer (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do explain to me as to how asking him to AFD one thing because I was at a computer without twinkle is anything other then that Luminifer. I'm am in absolute awe that you would consider that in your reasons to oppose.--SKATERSpeak. 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to respond, but I feel that it would further clutter this debate. Does any somewhat neutral party think it would be helpful? (Although, Skater, you seem confused - I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you were both asked to file AfDs, and each of you filed one). Luminifer (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all those diffs, and I have to say I don't see anything obviously wrong in any of them -- Boing!said Zebedee 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems too partisan and aggressive contrary to NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Coldplay Expert. I don't feel comfortable supporting. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always concerned when I see that the editor has more edits to 5 article talk pages than any of the articles he has contributed it. It makes me even more uncomfortable that you have more edits to Talk:Genesis creation myth that your top ten articles combined. I realize that you have done some good work in admin areas (and I thank you indeed for your help at SPI). However, I would like to see a bit more content creation before I feel comfortable supporting. NW(Talk) 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contentiousness and partisanship are concerning, but not compelling in and of themselves. The lack of article creation work, antagonistic userboxen (since removed? Fine, they were still there recently), and badgering of opposers just give me an overall bad feeling about this candidate. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough experience. I also have concerns after reading the difs above. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 05:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sum of all the concerns above gives me pause. The initial response to oppose #8 (now amended) tipped the scales in your disfavor. Sorry. decltype (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Almost there, but I get the feeling candidate is bit too confrontational, per Colonel Warden. Some more content work wouldn't hurt, Lord Spongefrog,(I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Scott Mac, not confident in this candidate's track record. Christopher Parham(talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally oppose candidates who advertise divisive beliefs on their userpages. I also note the concerns about the candidate's confrontativeness, above. Sandstein 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well said by others here. Taken together too many negatives. Sorry. JodyBtalk 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "confrontativeness" really a recognised word? If it is, then it ought to be expunged immediately as yet another ugly Americanism. --MalleusFatuorum 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant to anything? Wisdom89(T / C) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you I think that accusing another editor of something that doesn't exist is important, yes. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, of course. --MalleusFatuorum 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a real word, though some authors have attempted to use it as a very awkward neologism.[17][18] I believe the real term that applies would be aggression. -- Atama頭 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no Malleus. That's not what you were criticizing, you were merely talking semantics. However, if that indeed was your intention, to disagree with calling another editor something that "does not exist", learn how to express yourself better. Thanks. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you check up on the meaning of the word "semantics" before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than you already do. --MalleusFatuorum 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest all you want, but your ruse isn't working. Just admit that your initial comment was sarcastic word-mincing nonsense. It's patently obvious that you weren't defending the candidate. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, next time try responding to the correct !vote. 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's not do this here. --King Öomie 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was geared up to !vote neutral based on limited edits to article space until I came across the following conversation regarding another editors adminship (referring to Fundamentalist Christianity as one of the crank articles). This gives me doubts on whether you can put aside your POV which is very evident from your edits or if you will become "hotheaded" at times and misuse the tools. However, saying all that, I haven't seen any uncivility towards other editors. → AA(talk) — 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose Inadequate background of work on either articles or policy. An admin will necessarily be judging newly-created articles, and the candidate admits he has never written one himself. This may not absolutely prevent an understanding of the problems such articles and their creators pose, but it makes it much less likely. Nor is there any substantial writing elsewhere: the article most edited Dane Cook and ShiTzu the editing is almost entirely the reversion of vandalism--that's valuable, but it shouldn't be all there is. The concentration of discussion edits are on a single article is also very troublesome--an admin will -- indeed should -- deal with a range of matters outside his speciality--that's one of the ways we keep ourself neutral in disputes. As a secondary matter, the actual contributions at Talk:Genesis creation myth are, taken as a whole, somewhat disturbing. They show a lack of willingness to understand other people's position, amounting to a general failure to Assume Good Faith. (A good deal of the other discussion at that page also does not AGF, but that isn't relevant to this RfA.) that these edits overlapped the very consideration of this RfA is exceptionally. Most people would have known to stop participating in an argument some while before they submitted an application, not even continued it while the application was pending. What I suggest is another few thousand substantial edits to content , and to major policy discussions. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "very strong oppose" carry any more weight than "oppose"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in counting, it doesn't. I changed it from plain "Oppose" to indicate my increased certainty on the basis of his statement below. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger, but I'm an admin and I don't deal with new articles. I'd also disagree with a few thousand more content edits; yes, more would be nice, but a few thousand? Just my thoughts; I'm not voting, just browsing. Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 07:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [[19]] Seems a little arguementful to me. The low amount of article work and the tone used in diagreeing with opposers are enough for an oppose. Per Coldplay Expert and Doc as well. RxS (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not fit for adminship. Needs more experience in writing articles, constructive edits, and become more willing to understand other people's position. Over the years I have met many Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus and not all of us are "profoundly irrational". An admin must be respectful to those editors with whom he disagrees.- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant the belief itself. Many intelligent people hold a belief in a higher power that they simply can't explain, and that's the part I find irrational. Not the people. --King Öomie 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to differentiate between describing belief in a higher power as irrational, and describing people as irrational. Maintaining that religious belief is irrational cannot in itself be a bar to adminship on Wikipedia. There's no evidence that this candidate will misuse the tools to suit his point of view - let's not forget to assume good faith. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the belief is "unbelievably irrational" then you obviously think that those people who have the belief have an unbelievably irrational belief. Fine, I have no problem with that but advertising this on your wikipedia userpage and then spending much of your wikiepdia time on the talkpages of articles defending this position rather than adding content is unhealthy. Polargeo (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. If they hold a belief I find irrational, then I find them to hold an irrational belief. I said I didn't think they were (necessarily) irrational people in general. And my primary care physician has found nothing of note in any of my recent physicals. --King Öomie 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the the candidate has done nothing else substantial on Wikipedia than try to ensure that one particular article suited his point of view, leads me to think it not unlikely that he would do similarly as an administrator. (and I could mention that many people have a belief in a higher power that they can perfectly well explain, sometimes with sufficient logical and rhetorical power that you or I would not come off very well were we to debate them). But this is a secondary point. the real point is that the candidate has not just very little, but very narrow experience. even were it less dogmatic. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that many "religious" people and many "anti-religious" have trouble listening to others. They simply write off opposing views as "Satanic" or "profoundly irrational". One third of your edits are to the same contentious topic Genesis creation myth or to related topics. You don't seem to be an impartial editor , and your userpage is very POV. Admins must be committed to NPOV. In the area of religion there are too many editors grinding axes. Show me a commitment to editing against your POV and you will get my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Concerns about temperament, and lack of experience. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just rather worried about the emphasis you have towards the Genesis creation myth. I find myself agreeing with DGG and Wisdom, to an extent. "Show me a debate where the secular/science-minded side isn't clearly in the right" just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting. —Dark 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concerns about breadth of experience, temperament and dogmatism as raised above. EyeSerenetalk 11:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've had another look at this and your behaviour regarding POV just leaves me unable to vote any other way. Sorry. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just seeing too much argumentative behavior.Hobit (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A few too little mainspace edits for my liking, and over all lack of experience. Pepper∙piggle 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully. Unfortunately, I see too little activity as far as mainspace is concerned, which is needed for admins to make informed decisions on things. I also don't see much either with regards to other things such as deletions, vandalism, etc. Try to discuss a little less and work a little more on building some decent articles. Participating in XFDs will also help you get a feel about the deletion process, and combating vandalism will help you as far as what to expect when blocking vandals is concerned. Finally, I will add that merely having different views is not a cause for concern; but rather, how they come out while editing is what is of concern. Try not to have whatever views you may have come out and affect your judgment (which according to the other opposers may well be the case) while editing a this, a neutral encyclopedia. –MuZemike 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. I'd need to see significant article creation or improvement work. I have NPOV issues as some people above do. Gosox(55)(55) 02:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per recent edit warring, and POV pushing. He/she also has some incivility. December21st2012FreakTalk to me at 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unproductive combat. Townlake (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty much per everyone above. I have concerns about temperament and would like to see a bit more experience. Airplanemantalk 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not concerned with the userbox or the examples of alleged "POV pushing" someone posted above, but with only 4k edits and a general lack of experience, this user does not meet my basic criteria. Suggest you take MuZemike's advice and perhaps come back in six months. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly due to lack of experience. At the least, I would like to see a few months go by without any bad POV experiences. ThemFromSpace 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree that the edit warring a POV pushing is something that we dont want in a admin. Frozenevolution (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would be prepared to support just because of Keepcases' oppose over a userbox, but the lack of article creation work as voiced by DGG is a serious concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure here. Question answers look a little hasty to me. ceranthor 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate further questions. --King Öomie 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. You seem to be a person who doesn't really need to drag things out, which is certainly a good quality. I think you seem competent so there's no reason for me to be here. ceranthor 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I knew I'd seen this editor before and then I realised at a WQA which I had been reported at. I felt at the time he had been a little too judgemental and high handed in his comments without properly grasping the situation. Not enough to oppose and not good for me to oppose on as I was involved but it puts me as neutral until I see something that sways me. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This thread. I stand by my involvement in that thread, but the second comment was overly sarcastic. --King Öomie 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all concerned with slightly sarcastic comments. It was your judgemental comment "the problem is that you two are basically ganging up to insult this user as though he was an SPA troll ..." I think this was judgemental and completely misread the situation. I dislike WQA alerts anyway but I don't think it is helped by judgmental mediation. As this seems to be one of your major contributing areas to wikipedia with over 150148 WQA edits I don't feel encouraged to support. I also don't like the idea of threats to send people to WQA as you did with this recent edit. To me it sounds like "do it again and I'll tell the teacher". Not enough for me to oppose but neutral yes. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to characterize that as "If you move an edit of mine for the FIFTH time[20][21][22][23], we'll go and discuss this somewhere else." --King Öomie 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case somewhere else maybe. As a frequent contributor to WQA it is of concern that you did not realise that this is not what WQA is for. Polargeo (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for sake of argument, where would you suggest that go instead? --King Öomie 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many avenues to deal with this situation and threatening to report to WQA is not one of them at any level. Friendly notices on the user's talkpage for example are a start. Also why did you insist on bullet pointing your talkpage comments? It seems like a rather poor tactic to give them more apparent importance. Whilst I would not refactor them personally I would find them mildly annoying and pompous if engaged in the discussion. Polargeo (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. For the bullets, I initially followed the example set by otherleft's response to Wisdom89's oppose. I have little experience at RFA, and was attempting to follow what appeared to be a convention. It had nothing to do with being self-important or pompous. I'm at a loss as to why that's the very first assumption. --King Öomie 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry a misunderstanding I was not talking about this RfA but the refactored comments you threatened to take User:History2007 to WQA for. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. On that page, I didn't care about the bullets, they're just how I typed it out- a bulleted response to a bulleted statement. I objected to History2007 moving comments to a different section. --King Öomie 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the answers to my questions. Q14 was answered well and would sway me towards support. Q13 was answered honestly. I don't think I can move to support as I don't like the idea of an admin with no significant content building and there are still several other minor concerns. Polargeo (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now.Moved to Support I don't quite know why, but I went to support several times but ended up clicking back and looking over again... I don't want to ask a formal question, but perhaps a quick reply here would clarify my little doubt: Firstly, do you think you would close RfDs when they become backlogged? Secondly, to what extent would you factor your opinion on a topic into your closure of an XfD, such as in the example of a cross namespace template redirect? --Taelus (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's possible. I probably wouldn't jump right into that. I don't have RFD watchlisted at the moment, actually, so I don't know much about the atmosphere there, if that makes any sense. Sort of the difference between seeing the road as a passenger and as a driver- how bold can I be getting in and out of those lanes. When actually closing a deletion discussion, my own opinion should only factor if it's a really tough call from the other !votes and relevant discussion. If it's a landslide with only the OP (of either the XFD or the subject thereof) dissenting, there's no issue- but if my own opinion on the subject is diametrically opposed to the consensus, I'd probably leave it to someone else to close, chalking it up to a complete misunderstanding of the issues in play (on my part). --King Öomie 00:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One extra, my apologies for being so difficult! If there is no apparant consensus in a discussion, in a scenario where strong points are made by both sides, yet you feel your viewpoint/interpretation on the matter would tilt it towards either keep/delete etc, what would you do in terms of closing (or not closing) the discussion? What comments (if any) would you leave in the XfD? --Taelus (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would very much depend on circumstance- and it would certainly depend on where my viewpoint was rooted. For sake of argument, 10 people posting policy links and quotes from sections, and analysis thereof, versus 10 people arguing semantic views and philosophical deconstruction of WP:IAR, I'd almost certainly close in favor of the former (unless their arguments were terrible). Wow... without a specific example, I'm somewhat at a loss. Two sides with equally sound arguments? I might even close as no consensus, default keep. --King Öomie 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks for replying to me anyway and humouring my probably confusing questions, I think I will review this again tomorrow after a good nights sleep. Best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This editor has a pretty good track record and I love the fact that he or she is in on many noticeboards. I do have a few concerns though. First one has already been pointed out, but the Creation talk amounts to 231 (or 5.3%) of the users edits. Admins need to have a neutral view abroad on Wikipedia to show that they aren't going to favor to a certain area of articles or possibly inserting a non-NPOV. Also, this editor has only four redirects created, no pages, under a thousand edits in the article space, ~50% of his or her edits are talkpage related without explanation (my problem holds to WP:NOT Socail networking section), and only one RFA vote. I don't know what editors or admins think here, but I try and keep major points of view out of Wikipedia. (ie relegion which I do have a viewpoint on) Good editor over all, just have some concern. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you're not the first to point out my lack of specific edit summaries. I would like to point out, though, that the vast majority of my Talk and User Talk edits are Wikipedia-related. --King Öomie 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure I like the tone you've used around here, but it's not enough for a straightforward oppose vote and I'm not comfortable supporting. Sorry. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've been very much on the fence about supporting you King Öomie. On the one hand, you seem to be a straight shooter (and civil in our discussions re:Sumbuddi), but I find myself concerned about the company you keep. It looks like I've stepped into the middle of a disagreement between User:Sumbuddi and User:Wiki libs which appears to have resulted in the action by Bubba hotep (see my comment above under hotep's Support vote) of listing me as a Sockpuppet at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi and an edit to my user page (with "Request by Libs" as the summary) by another editor (who I won't mention since he apologized). So, I guess neutral for now... Mojoworker (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does it for me. A sock of Sumbuddi wouldn't be anywhere NEAR this generous. I expect Checkuser will clear you of suspicion. --King Öomie 21:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While neither the userbox nor the limited article space contributions would be enough on their own to oppose, they can't be considered plusses either. Given his contentious involvement at Genesis creation myth I can't bring myself to support at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (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.