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

Kumioko[edit]

Final (47/33/20); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko (talk · contribs) - I have been making edits to Wikipedia since 4 June 2007 and since then I believe I have acted in the best interests of the Wikipedia project since then. I have, since June accumulated over 30,000 edits. Although, I was granted access to use AWB late in 2007, I had over 15000 edits before that request was approved. I am currently a momber of several different wikiprojects and have tried to support them to the best of my abilities. I believe that my best work has been to build up and add to the Medal of Honor recipient pages including getting 1, Smedley Butler to Good Article status and 1, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima to Featured List status. To answer another question I have on numorous occassions been stressed by editors for several reasons, particulary in acts of ownership over editing articles and what is and is not notible (particularly regarding military operations). In some of these cases I simply stopped editing those articles and moved on to others, in some cases I worked through it and continued on editing. I have also found myself somewhat disappointed at some of the conflicting rules within Wikipedia regarding what is and is not appropriate formatting for a Featured Article. In particular my recent submission of List of Medal of Honor recipients for featured list status. In this case there are rules in wikipedia which allow forking, however this technique is not allowed for a featured article. This debate rages on and is in fact one of the reasons I am applying for this RFA. I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept.--Kumioko (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to continue to edit and add to the articles on wikipedia and to guard against vandalism, and to help clarify the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions are my edits and additions to the Medal of Honor recipient pages, especially Smedley Butler which was promoted to Good article status and List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima which was promoted to Featured List status.
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: Yes, but I believe I have learned from them and I continue to grow as an editor. I have tried to deal with them in a clear level headed manner and will continue to do so in the future.
Questions for the candidate from User:DanBealeCocks
4. A new editor, called User:1089297PaloirK creates 3 articles, "Janice A Jenkins", "Paul Todd Jr" and "Martin Michael McDonald-Jones". These articles are each about a screenful long, reasonably well written, and do not contain any obvious BLP concerns. It's pretty clear that User:1089297PaloirK is either one of these people, or works with them. Someone points out the user to you. What do you do? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:As long as the articles do not violate any privacy act rules, have POV content, theres nothing racial or derogetory, they are adequately referenced and the people in question are significantly noteworthy as to rate their own article I would likely leave them alone and watch them to see if they morph into something evil. Otherwise if the article fails any of the above I would place the appropriate tag (likely a speedy delete, with request for rebuttal) to give the users adaquate time to fix it. If they don't I would delete it. If you would like me to clarify more let me know but to me its a fairly broad question that could go a lot of ways depending on the credibility and referencing of the article.--Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no BLP or copy vio. The people and the company they work for are completely non-notable. The work of a boring afternoon in the office - a light hearted article on your colleagues. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.


5. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A-First as I understand it the Arb com doesn't need to get involved unless the user requests arbitration. But, I personnaly would not use an indefinate block without first giving the user do course and allowing them to "change their ways".--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- Honestly I would probably ask for assistance from some of my fellow admins. Determining sockpuppets/meatpuppets can be tedious and dificult and the results are not 100%. If after being reviewed by my peers and myself we still couldn't determine I would go with the majority vote, even if my gut says its wrong. My gut can't vote.--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-No, but I believe the time should be limited. The request shouldn't sit out there forever with no action.--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-I deal with far more stress in my day job than I am ever going to deal with here. I believe I can manage myself accordingly without loosing my temper if thats what your asking.--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A-In this case I would respect the admin and ArbCom's decisions.--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-Honestly, I think too many editors spend spend too much time voting on things like this that lends no value to the Pedia itself. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an online compendium of human knowledge, not a pool of endless votes and voters. Just look at how much time has been spent on this RFA alone, how many articles could have been created and edited in the time everyone, including myself has been spent on this. Additioanlly, I have seen a lot of folks commenting about how I am a great editor but I lack the admin experience. I offer you all a thought, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a gathering place for a bunch of admins looking for a purpose. You are an editor 1st not as a hobby or part time thing, so if you have in the past been choosing admins becuase they were running around answering questions and generating projects, then in my opinion you were voting them in for the wrong reasons. Additionally, I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Please choose a question from User:Filll/AGF Challenge, and give an answer, including your reasoning, below. Thanks, and good luck. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I chose question #1 about the Wife being the coathour and I chose that we definately should report that if thats what all the references dictate. I suspect that threats are relayed to the wikipedia HQ frequently but as long as we stick the facts and use verifiable sources we are valid in our point. Plus most of the other questions are similar circumstances, trying to force or coerce their opinions based on little or circumstantial evidence or resources that contradict the majority opinion and or references. Basically, again if we stick to what we can verify then we are in good shape.--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's annoying that there are now multiple choice answers possible, I hadn't realized Filll had added those. Do you in fact agree fully with that multiple choice option, or would you prefer a somewhat different approach? For instance, had you considered going to the person and confronting them with the discrepancy? Perhaps they'd tell you an interesting story! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) See also under: User_talk:Filll#User:_Durova_interviews_me_about_the_User:Filll.2FAGF_Challenge, which also covers this RFA. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from barneca
12. Sorry to add to the question-palooza here, but this is pertinent to my decision. You’ve basically agreed with those saying you don’t have much admin-related experience. Please help me support you anyway by:
(a) Explaining briefly how you plan to handle it when you run into a situation where you need to use the tools and aren’t familiar with the applicable policy/procedure.
I believe that most of the policies I will encounter are well documented and I would have to read up on them case by case as they come up. If I get access to these tools I am not going to take off and start using them willy nilly throughout just arbitrarily doing admin stuff. I intend to start slow and go from there. I will probably start with Antivandalism since thats obviously a big problem. Aside from that I will likely ask for help. I have asked questions of several admins in the past and I believe I have a good report with them.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Explaining briefly how you will handle it when someone tells you you used your admin tools wrong/unfairly
I will ask them to explain why they think I used them unfairly and go from there. Likely, if they aregue the point and its remotely valid I will err on the side of good faith and undo it. Since there are so many possible cases its hard to say exactly what I would do.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(c) The really important bit: Can you point me to any discussions you’ve been in where someone has convinced you that your approach/opinion/philosophy was wrong? I have had some issues in the past where my edits made using AWB where wrong and I fixed those. I have also recently been engaged in discussions regarding wikipedia policy on why forking should or should not be used in a featured article. The juries still out on that one and I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong when I am given evidence that its wrong. All too often people just say its wrong and offer nothing in return as to why.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to cheerfully admit mistakes and fix them, and cheerfully accepts constructive criticism, then learning on the job is perfectly OK. Please help me convince myself you are such a person.
A.
Optional Questions from Bpeps
13: In your current article space would having sysop tools make a difference?
Yes I believe they would, As I mentioned I am interested in fighting vandalism which seems to be excalating on the military related articles (perhaps based on the issues in Iraq and such). But I am also interested in relieving some of the pressure from the Admins that work in the same areas I do. It often seems to take them some time to respond to questions because they are so busy dueing other more trivial tasks. I don't pretend that I will instantly be all knowing and be able to handle every situation immediately but I would be an extension of the admin communities wingspan and thereby hopefully eleviate some of the pressure of the little tasks.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14: Being a sysop makes you liable to "asking the other parent" how would you deal with an editor contacting you about a situation you haven't been involved in before?
Well on this I would say that it is doubtful that I would overturn the decision of another admin without at least consulting them first. If its just a matter of a user/editor asking a question, there is enough policy and guidlines out there that spell things out I doubt there will be too many circumstances where there isn't at least some literature. Basically, I would likely go with the standards that have previously been established and if the other admins do the same thing then the response should be about the same.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question

14 7 What is your stance on Beans?
I believe in assuming good faith. People are faced with decisions like this every day and typically most make an effort to do the right thing. With that said our prisons are full of people that have shown, we'll say lapses in judgement. But they were given the opportunity to do the right thing and they chose not too. In a nutshell we can't go rounding up all the people in wikipedia that we think MIGHT be prone to doing something wrong and then ban them before they can do anything destructive. To me that would be counter to the very principle that wikipedia is built on. With that said if they make the decision to screw something up, they should pay the price wether that means they are blocked from editing or their admin tools are revoked depends on what they do wrong. I hope this helps but please let me know if you need me to calrify further.--Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The user that originally left this question has been blocked from editing for the next 24 hours due to disruptive editing. Although the question seems reasonable, I will leave it to someone else to decide if this question should be removed.--Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kumioko before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Several people here seem to oppose because Kumioko has little admin experience?

Well, apparently on RFA talk, people have been saying they'd likely support anyone who gave good answers to questions like question 15 above (the very tough Filll's AGF challenge questions that is). Several others state that they'd likely have to hand in their bit if anyone actually tried asking them one of those questions, so I figure it's a pretty decent test. For the sake of trying to start a useful tradition, I'll support if a good answer to question 15 is provided.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify since its come up a couple times, I'm a he.;-)--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point Gonzo. This user has demonstrated his civility, deliberative abilities, and Wiki-related skills. We can see that he will approach admin decisions with careful thought, thus the possibility of any misdeeds is near zero. In fact, in all likelihood, this user will make few admin actions. However, if he just once makes a good admin action, then we, the Encyclopedia, have gained. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people think the answer doesn't show any real need for the tools. While I'm not sure why this too is a big issue by itself, some continue to interpret that as the candidate not truly understanding what adminship is about, which is certainly a valid interpretation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. 30k edits, a good article, a featured list, here for ten months, never been blocked? Certainly. Majorly (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per majorly. Sorry this isn't going well, but you seem to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I find it highly unlikely that you would become the topic of debate as far as misused/abused tools, and therefore I'm happy to support. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Majorly. Looks like a great editor. Acalamari 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support per Majorly. SpencerT♦C 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Naerii 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - It'd be nice to have an admin who actually works on articles as well as instead of creating drama. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)I really should read the preview more carefully. :-([reply]
  8. Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I note that Kumioko has made a number of mistakes in communication in this RFA but the opposition at present is not a balanced view of the candidates suitability for admin so I am going to support. SunCreator (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - not going to misuse the tools, what's the big deal? George The Dragon (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Auto-support for being asked too many questions. Granted, the lack of projectspace experience is concerning, but I trust that the user will remain where they are experienced. Plus, I thought we wanted more article-writing admins :P Since the questions have been dealt with, I'll strike that part but keep my support. Wizardman 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean you'll support everyone I ask the whole [2]? Woot! Rock on! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically I guess I would. Unless that was your plan the whole time ;) Wizardman 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should the number of questions asked have anything to do with your decision to support or oppose a candidate? Unless this is some sort of counteraction to what may be perceived as the "cookie-cutter" oppose that Kurt uses on self-nominations, I don't understand it. —  scetoaux (T|C)19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's how I see questions. If someone is on the fence, then asking one or two questions to get a feel for the candidate makes sense. Bombarding the candidate with 20 questions immediately, many of which are worthless (unless I'm completely missing the value in them), makes it look like the people asking them are trying to find a reason to oppose them, which goes against WP:AGF. No one needs 20 extra questions to judge a candidate's worth, and I will support a candidate that has to go through something like this withour reservation. Wizardman 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but the candidate doesn't really have to answer any of the questions asked, although now that I think about it, many people are likely to oppose on this basis alone. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, a question-count criterion? Let's not look at what the questions say, just count the number answered. (like we do with everything else. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) that was sarcasm, btw ;-)[reply]
    My feeling: if a user can't be bothered to answer a bunch of questions in a one-time nominating process, how are they going to deal with the basic workload of an active and useful admin, let alone the necessities of communication and availability? What's more, it's very important for the "little guy" at Wikipedia to be able to get in on the admin-selection process in a way that goes beyond casting a simple !vote - and questions are crucial to this democratization. I have started asking a standard question based on an issue which I feel is very important to the future health of the encyclopedia, but I don't make a litmus test out of it. I simply want to gauge where a candidate stands before I can speak for or against them. I'm not a single-issue !voter. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - He may not know exactly what he is going to do with the tools, we are not given that much evidence how he'll handle them, but somehow I trust that he'll be doing something useful with them without sinking the ship. Nothings is likely to change in six months anyway, if he is more the training-on-the-job type. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - User is highly unlikely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. However, this user's record as an editor is excellent, and there is no reason to believe that Kumioko would abuse the tools. We have seen successful nominations of users with little mainspace experience, and there's no reason we can't have an administrator with the opposite issue, as long as we have faith that the person can learn and handle the required tasks while on the job. Given Kumioko's long history as a good-faith editor, there is no reason to stand on formality and deny the opportunity to learn administrative skills on the job. Unless, of course, you think adminship is a big, big deal. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I think this candidate has solid potential to become an excellent project administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per answers to questions 2, 15, and 21. Meets User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA Criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference sake, the actual link is: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. Useight (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Common sense support. · AndonicO Engage. 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Won't cause problems, has my trust, also per answer to question 21. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Kumioko has changed my mind. As noted in my original oppose vote, I was reluctant to oppose based on general agreement with Majorly. I did not get the impression that you really knew why you were here (in the RfA, not Wikipedia generally). Since my original vote, you have convinced me that you'll be fine by addressing the ridiculous number of questions posed to you in a knowledgeable manner. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Switch to support Like the aplomb with which has handled 25 bleeding questions in the face of an unsuccessful RfA. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, I would have nominated this user myself. MrPrada (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Isn't it natural that good editors can grow up to be good admins? The candidate's answers to the questions show integrity. He (?) has said several times that when he is in over his head, he'll defer to a more experienced admin. Knowing your limits is a good thing, being able to ask for help, once you've reached those limits, is a better thing. While looking at the candidates userpage, I get the distinct feeling that Wikipedia stress won't be anything worse than he has already handled in Real Life. And lastly, and not leastly, I've seen admin candidates with low project (non-article, mainspace) edits who were not torn up like this. I just feel no particular reason to oppose. Yngvarr (c) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support The answer to question #24 did it for me, it was perfect! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support. I was a little underwhelmed by the answer to my question, but Jesus, there's like 25 fucking questions right now, I can't expect him to write a book on mine. I think we should be more open to the idea of learning on the job. We just need to be convinced of (a) the editor's good intentions to the project (I am) and (b) their willingness to go slow, accept criticism/correction gracefully, and learn from mistakes (I mostly am). The slightly aggressive tone in some of the responses in this RfA make it a "weak" support, but I think an RfA is more stressful than day-to-day adminning, and I'm willing to cut some slack for that. If given the tools I think Kumioko would be a net positive. --barneca (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Per Majorly. Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. There is no indication that this editor will abuse the tools. Valtoras (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I don't see any serious problems, nor do I honestly believe that you'd abuse / misuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I'd like to see Kumioko become an admin after reading his answers to the questions and reviewing his contributions. Level-headed. Darkspots (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. weak support The edits are good but I see low namespace and admin related edits (AIV - AFD). Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <small>!vote not signed, thus indented. I've notified the person who made the original !vote asking him to come by and confirm his supportBalloonman (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks! - Signed Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, not the strongest candidate ever, but the intentions are good, and I consider it unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Support/ Yes, candidate seems worthy, despite opposition. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Despite the answer to Q1, and after looking over everything since I made my orignal comment in the discussion section, I am willing to give this candidate the benefit of the doubt. ArcAngel (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, since I see no risk for abuse, and I am hopeful that the candidate will contribute positively to Wikipedia with the tools. --Abrech (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Don't see that he would abuse the tools, and we need more content-related admins. Also impressed with the way he dealt with all those, er, questions. Black Kite 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support because if he was a dangerous wingnut, he wouldn't have answered all the questions. I wouldn't have, in his place. Avruch T 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Why the hell not? I like your answers to the stupendous amounts of questions. henrik•talk 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - basically meets my standards, although is weak on the WP space work. May be a valuable vandal-fighter. No concerns; lot of edits. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Likely that Kumioko wouldn't abuse them and can use on article space. Editor is unlikely to step into situations he isn't conversant with so move from neutral to support. BpEps - t@lk 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Moral Support for a good editor with many excellent article contributions (not to mention an honourable record of service to his country, more than most of us can say of ourselves). This probably won't pass, and more experience would be better before becoming an admin, but the answers to the questions reveal sound common sense. I am sure his next RfA will pass, and I will certainly support it. WaltonOne 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support -- good editor with an good record and I record a support vote on that basis. Further, nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me that this user shouldn't be given the tools. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good answers, especially for number #10.--Bedford 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; not much project space experience before this RfA, but the barrage of questions allowed Kumioko to demonstrate how to do lots of work fast and carefully while under pressure. — Coren (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Level-headed candidate with remarkable tolerance and civility, as demonstrated by answering all the questions. Don't see how we could go wrong with this one. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Whatever--Langloisrg (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as per majorly. preschooler@heart 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good track record of encyclopedia contributions. He could make use of the tools and is unlikely to abuse them. However I would point out that policy formulation and discussion is open to all editors, not just admins, and always will be. the wub "?!" 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. At this point I think it will only be moral support, but nonetheless I hope that you won't be too discouraged by this RfA and hope that you will take the suggestions (read:criticism) that you have received to heart and use it as a guide to preparing for a new RfA four or five months down the road. Trusilver 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an administrator given your answer to question 1, and the last line in your self nom. Being an admin does not give one any authority over anything, and especially not on pages against other editors, say, in a debate or edit war. Also, you lack experience in the project space - out of 30,000 edits, only 94? Sorry, must oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand but just as a note, I may not do many edits in the Project namespaces per say I do a lot under that project. For instance as a member of the Biogrpahy and Military history projects I have worked diligently to clean up, expand and add to the articles in those categories. Just because I am not adding conversations arbitrarily to every project I am a member of does not mean I don't participate in them.--Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By project space, he means Wikipedia: space. You've fallen into a common trap there. *Adds to cheatsheet*. Majorly (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as Majorly has indicated, I was referring to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm not entirely sure what Majorly means by you falling into a "trap", but, please allow me to further clarify my position. As an administrator, one becomes endowed with a few new buttons that could potentially cause harm to the project if used by an editor who 1.)Lacks vital experience in admin-related areas, or areas where administrators perform their duties and 2.)Seems to have a distorted picture about the fundamental role of an administrator. Does this mean you are unfit for adminship? Not entirely, it just means that now your promotion would not have a net positive effect. Do I encourage you to reapply in the future? Absolutely. There is not a doubt in my mind that with, say 10-12 weeks, you could garner the necessary experience. I suggest that you thoroughly read WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK during and after this RfA as a start. Cheers and good luck. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, sorry. Per Wisdom89, per response to Wisdom89, and per edit summary usage below the least acceptable. I may support in the future if you become more involved in admin-oriented tasks, but right now it is clear that you do not understand the roles of an administrator. Húsönd 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (double edit conflict)Oppose. Not enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace, which roughly translates to "not enough admin-like experience". Your answer to Q1 doesn't really make it seem like you'll do a whole lot with the tools, if granted. This is further evidenced by the dominating mainspace edits, not to nitpick, but 95% of your edits are mainspace. I am a big supportor of mainspace work, since that is the whole reason we are here, but if you want to become an admin, you'll need to get experience in admin-like areas (such as AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. Plus you don't do a whole lot of communication, which is a critical skill for admins. Useight (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - You say you want to help "guard against vandalism", but you have less than 2 edits to WP:AIV. Now, I know that isn't the only measure of vandal-fighting, but it is a common one. Useight (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanting to fight vandlism is separate, at least IMO, from AIV. For example, I've literally never posted to AIV myself, and I've been an admin for months. Useight, have you looked at the contribs from this particular user? I personally don't see a strong reason to oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I believe AIV is a part of vandal-fighting. With 30,000 edits, I obviously couldn't take the most in-depth look at the editor's contribs, but I did a little. I am impressed by their amazing amount of mainspace work. However, if you take a look at his last 50 contribs, 40 were via AWB. Of the remaining 10, 7 were to this RFA. Taking this one step further, out of his last 500 edits, 376 were using AWB, if my counting was correct. If you take a look at my RFA standards, you'll see that I frown upon excessive reliance on scripts. Do I completely condemn users of Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc? No. Do I want an editor to do their own work? Yes. I have over 10,000 edits and every single one was completely manual. Additionally, less than 100 edits in the Wikipedia space is a big indicator of lack of experience in admin-like fields. My standards list, as linked above, also mentions that I want to see at least 500 edits in that area. Do I sound like I have editcountitis? Maybe, but I can oppose a candidate for any reason I see fit and I'm opposing for lack of Wikipedia namespace experience and far too much reliance on AWB. Useight (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, I also agree that this editor would not misuse the tools on purpose. I just don't see the experience I want to see before giving him the tools. Useight (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean my post to sound like you "weren't allowed" to oppose. Far from it. Thanks for your clarification. FWIW, I personally have never installed any scripts, nor will I anytime in the future, so I agree with you there. That being said, is there anything in this user's script use, or contribs outside of script use, that is leading you to oppose? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's really nothing specific in the AWB contribs that makes me oppose except that there are so many of them. Outside of AWB contribs, what makes me oppose isn't the contribs, but the lack of them in the Wikipedia namespace. Useight (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Somewhat reluctantly. Majorly makes a good argument, but I don't see much evidence that you understand what being an admin entails. You're a very good editor, and I would encourage you to look at some of the opposition above my vote (Useight has some good suggestions). If this doesn't pass, then giving a little attention to the admin related tasks will definitely get you over the hump a few months down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Changing to support based on Kumioko's efforts in this RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant Oppose - it appears as per the last sentence in the self nomination that the user wants adminship so as to have more weight to throw around, which is in my eyes weak but tangible evidence of at least some degree of power hunger. May change my !vote as more information arrives. In any case, I will reassess this later. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit late for a reassessment, but I still stand by my oppose. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Lacks experience in project namespace, what experience the editor has is on the nomination of two articles for featured list status. Seems like an avid (and prolific) contributor but disproportionately small amount of communication. Also per Wisdom, seems to misapprehend the role of admins. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Answer to Q1 indicates the candidate needs to research what the moptools are and why they are used and why they are restricted to certain users. Also answer to Q4 is a little perplexing (privacy act?). I am sure this well-intentioned user can work toward a sucessful candidacy in 6 months or so, if a coaching program or thorough review of the adminship documentation is undertaken. Further experience in the various namespaces would also be important. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, why don't you ever use different wording when you oppose an RfA? You (Kurt Weber) always use the copy-pasted reasons for the oppose, and I would like to see different wording next time, even if the oppose is related to power hunger. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncivil objection removed. · AndonicO Engage. 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored perfectly civil objection. Give me a break. Weber is going to continue to generate detractors as long as he persists in his repetitive opposition votes. Consensus dictates that he is welcome to continue opposing any candidate for any reason; this does not imply that his actions must never be criticized. You may find the discussion tiresome, but Weber's critics should enjoy the same right to be tiresome and repetitive as Weber does.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, why does it matter? And secondly, I'm almost positive Kumioko doesn't appreciate you guys quarling about this on his RfA.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to be uncivil. I was just stating my opinion. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but I'll keep it blanked, because there have been far too many attacks on Kurt's rationale. · AndonicO Engage. 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, many people were opposed to the way Kurt has opposed users, because he has used the exact same oppose comment on self-nom RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have proposed that Mr. Weber subst the template User:Kmweber/Adminship comment and I also think it would be beneficial to create a separate page for each of his objections, e.g. User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale/Kumioko which will contain the substed template and ensuing counter-objections and counter-counter-objections, etc., which will transclude to individual RFAs as well as being listed under separate headings on the centralized page User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale in much the same way as AfDs, FACs, and, indeed, RfAs. That way, we can have a centralized viewing place for the ongoing controversy related to these comments (it is, after all, mostly the same rehashed arguments raised over and over again and this will increase the efficiency of it all). Personal use (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I support Kurt's viewpoint, as I think it's a valid point to raise. As much as possible, given the lack of face-to-face contact, we should know the motivations of anyone we trust with the buttons. My father used to say that anyone that wanted the job, (of US president) should not get it. Can we honesty say that every single admin didn't start out with some sense that it was a promotion and a position of some power? I've been an admin (not here) and it's a royal pain in the neck. You often piss off one side or the other, sometimes both, and the pay is lousy. And damn stressful if you really try to do the right thing all the time. So why would someone want to become an admin? Yes, having the tools to help keep WP going and develop is an obvious answer, and I think the main reason for almost all successful canidates, but I think occasionally, not the only one. But we often only learn that after getting and doing the job (not just here), when we really find out what it's like. If I thought it would do any good at all, I would strongly oppose self noms, and support nomination and seconding before being considered. IMHO. No, this is NOT an oppose opinion for this candidate in any way. — Becksguy (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Only 230 or so edits to user talk space is not enough data for me to get a sufficient understanding as to how the user will interact with others, when under pressure, if user has access to the bit. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Out of 30,000 edits a whole 29,000 or so are mainspace. Not that there's anything bad about being a vigilant editor, but only 94 project edits? Also per Kurt Weber.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry, not enough experience, there are many roles that admins play on wikipedia, you dont need to be one if your only doing the things you mentioned in question 1. Agree with the many points above. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose -- I will reconsider if the answers become longer. At the moment you seem a brilliant editor, I just can't see why you need the tools? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: Not answering the questions takes it from support to neutral, and the last line of your nom shows that you will possibly abuse the tools. Sorry, maybe in a couple of months. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose since self-nominated. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh don't you start as well. Consider the alternatives: after one month on Wikipedia, you RfA yourself into ignominy, or you can stop before you start and build a shining Wikipedic career. Splash - tk 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, this response and this response don't strike me as the attitude someone with admin power should have. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ready yet. I would recommend a very thorough reading of the policies pertaining to blocking and deleting. I would further recommend obtaining a coach and participating in admin related areas under the coach's tutelage. I would not recommend submitting another RfA for another 6 months and 6000 edits. Cheers, and best of luck. Dlohcierekim 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose You do not fully grasp the role of being an administrator. Your answer to #1 scares me. I agree with what Wisdom has said. Maybe try again later? Razorflame (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience.
    Sorry you feel that way. Not everyone makes it the first go. I'm afraid that you currently lack sufficient understanding of admin related policies. The way to remedy that is to gain experience as a non admin by participating at such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK as well as WP:AN/I. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, WP:Admin, the admin reading list. Many current RfA cabalers require a balance between tool related and and article building edits. Also, adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential, thus the desire to see how another participates in community discussions and under stress. Hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it. If I don't have the tools I can't do the job thats the bottom line. I am not going to run around looking for admin related stuff, telling an admin and then by that time it gets handled by someone else.--Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it bluntly, if you're unwilling to do the necessary grunt work it generally takes to become an admin, you won't be one. Sorry, but steadfastly refusing to act on the very reasonable suggestions being given here is hardly a productive attitude to have. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of scarier things than the answer to question 1. Majorly (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. A lot of the experienced-based arguments have some merit, though I wasn't 100% swayed by them (it is possible to get on-the-job experience, after all). I was considering sitting this one out entirely, but Kumioko's comment above of "I don't like to waste my time"... yeah, no, that's absolutely the wrong attitude to have about RfA opposition. Unless its something specifically stupid, like "User has a puppy and I'm more a cat person", then comments in the Oppose section should be considered valuable feedback, and not so readily dismissed. You're turning a deaf ear to feedback when you're an editor, which makes me very, very concerned about how you'd respond to feedback as an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify I completely understand the reasons being given, I just don't agree with them. To say that I can't be an admin because I haven't done any admin stuff is absurd. Also, don't take what I said as having a bad attitude or that I am turning an ear to the arguments. I am hearing everything being said my only point was that I don't waste my time on things so if the majority says I can't be an admin thats fine, I can live with that and I will continue on my merry way editing as I have been. But I will not resubmit in 6 months, a year etc. I have 30000 plus edits and I think that I have done right by wikipedia so far. I just think that most of the reasons being given in opposition are extremely weak (Oppose because self nom, oppose because I don't do enough admin stuff, not enough experience, etc).--Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as though you disagree with every oppose reason, based on this comment, because you have 30,000-plus edits. As one of the oppose votes, I would just like to point out that the general theme isn't that there is anything wrong with your editing. Rather, quantity of edits is not reason enough to automatically grant an additional set of tools to someone. I'm an admin, and I failed my first RfA. Many of us do, but it was anything but a waste of time. My initial reaction, when my first RfA went down was similar to your reaction above. That said, what I learned from the experience allowed me to better grasp not just what people look for in an RfA, but it also allowed me to fully understand what about the mop was important to me. Feel free to look at both: [3], [4] Hiberniantears (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've definitely done right by wikipedia and I don't find the opposes to have very strong arguments either. You're a terrific editor (a lot better than certain useless admins). There is certain amount of herd thinking in RfA, and occasionally a perfectly fine editor is turned down. Just don't be discouraged should this fail, and please consider accepting a nomination in a little while - not doing that would deprive the project of an excellent future admin. henrik•talk 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Sorry i just don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Maybe next time! Also, per Wisdom89. TheProf - T / C 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Re: I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis. You can participate in policy discussion as a regular editor, without the "tools". Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right it doesn't require it but it does lend some credibility.--Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One could also argue that contributions and a good point lend themselves to credibility more so than the mop... not all admins are credible... :P Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, the tools can be very much a hindrance when editing policy. "Senior" editors might be better off without an admin bit. Still, let's see how question 15 gets answered. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Me? chiming in to agree with an oppose? Unheard of! Sacrilege! O:-)[reply]
    Lack of familiarity with Wikipedia processes. EJF (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral after a long period of consideration and per my revised adminship standards. Issues raised by the opposers still concern me however. EJF (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Based on the answers to the questions, I would perhaps have been neutral, due to concerns about the candidate's experience in areas relating to policy and admin work. But based on responses to Oppose comments, I believe the candidate isn't suitable admin material at this time. There is no deadline, and sometimes one will not get recognition or thanks for one's work. That's not why we do it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you list which oppose answers gave you that impression, and why? (or at least one or two of them?) This would help Kumioko improve themselves, so that you'd hopefully be able to support in a future RFA. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Let's see...
    • AfD(Q9). Sufficient editors must offer an opinion if consensus is to be determined. AfD is not a race against time. If after 5 days, one editor says "Delete per nom" and no one else contributes, I would probably relist the AfD, but it seems that Kumioko would always close it as delete, based on the answer given.
    • COI(Q4). Perhaps it was just me that saw this as an "are you aware of WP:COI" question, but I think that the expected answer would mention conflict of interest. Editors with a COI can be either very good or very bad contributors depending on how they're handled, so it's important to take the right approach with them (not wait to see if they morph into something evil).
    • Admin work(Q1). I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with policy to get involved in "clarify[ing] the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory".
    Hope this helps. Needless to say, Kumioko is a great contributor to wikipedia and I hope to see them as an admin one day. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA sorry Kim, I missed the word "oppose" in your post. Hopefully this info is helpful anyway. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thank you. And interesting to hear that you based yourself on the questions. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - No reason to assume there would be abuse, but maybe too many mistakes. I think this user has a little more learning to do before I am willing to hand over the mop. Like Dlohcierekim said, I recommend getting a admin coach. I think your article contributions are wonderful, and like to see a user that is here for what this place is created for, and for that reason I hope that you try again (give it about 3 months). Tiptoety talk 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not ready yet; this user doesn't have enough experience and also lacks edits in the project-space pages (pages that starts with "Wikipedia:", such as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard). Get more experience and be part of the discussion on the project-space pages and I will support you in a few month once you are ready. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Editing experience not varied enough, too tightly focused. Mainspace edit count artifically inflated by trivial semi-automated edits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, as per An administrator on duty has no friends, an administrator is never on or off "duty" and we should strive to be friendly with everybody. This appears to me to be completely the wrong attitude. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand entirely where you're coming from, I believe this is a humorous paraphrase of a military saying. "A Marine on guard duty has no friends", or insert your favorite branch of the service. I personally think that on Question #24 a deadpan-joke response is very much in line, and that said joke doesn't indicate that Kumioko is bitey. Darkspots (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, maybe it's his actual opinion, seeing as how he hasn't said anything about it yet.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out that the user was in the Marine Corps for 13 years (from his user page), so the likelihood is high that he was referring to the military. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkspots is correct, I delt that a moment of levity was appropriate given the bloodbath that my RFA has become. And here I thought I was a good editor.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't catch the reference, (I'm Scottish). I'll assume the best here and switch to neutral. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose for now I think Kumioko would benefit from more admin-related edits and tasks before becoming an admin. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I thought about this one for days. I'm not a big fan of telling a candidate what I believe they should be doing to get my vote, but I'd say my oppose comes from the fact that I am not sure how Kumioko will handle tough admin situations involving lots of drama. More involvement in the project space could be what satisfies me. I may be in the school of editors who throws no big deal to the wind, but I'd like to think of an oppose vote in a situation like this as protecting the community from an unknown, not from the very good editor that Kumioko appears to be. In this RfA, when he had opposition, he responded with diffs like this which really bother me. It looks like heat-of-the-moment editing, no sig, it was bitter and immature. If an editor can't fully respect oppose voters (and shows that they can't), I don't feel comfortable with giving them the ability to block. As I've said before, it is potentially much more damaging to the community to promote inadequate admins than to reject a potentially good admin that we are unsure about. To sum up: I am quite unsure, and considering the admin abuse I observe too often for comfort, I don't feel comfortable supporting someone--despite their great editing--who is a very big question mark for handling tough admin decisions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to above For what it's worth, the candidate hasn't fallen to drama so far, and doesn't appear to be prone to it. Just like trolling, one can either respond to drama, or not. If he chooses to not respond to drama, and continue doing his tasks, I find that to be very good. I personally believe that drama is unnecessary and unwarranted. Yea, there's no way of telling how he will respond, but I think this RFA might be an interesting study in his behaviour. Yngvarr (c) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I've missed something, I see nothing at all wrong with the candidate's (few) responses to opposes on this RfA. The diff you object to seems pretty harmless, and a poor substitute for a substantive oppose based on a comprehensive review of contributions. Avruch T 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, I've continued this discussion on Avruch's talk page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Sorry, your contributions are admirable and you should be praised for it. But adminship is not the way. Once you get the mop you stop looking at articles. Yanksox (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind explaining this oppose, I'm not sure I understand.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are certainly entitled to your opinon but I disagree. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a place to become admins and stop editing. To become an admin doesn't mean (to me anyway) that you stop editing and pick up the mop never to edit again. It simpy gives you more tools to help make wikipedia better. IMO if an admin never edits articles and only does admin stuff then that is wrong. You should be an editor first and and administrator as an extension to that, not drop the pen and pick up the mop. Just to clarify my intent has never to been to stop editing, that will always be my primary purpose as I believe that IS the point of wikipedia, the sysop tools will just allow me to do more.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Looks like you may use admin tools for your advantage in edit wars and debates. --FGWQPR (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I can't even remember the last time I voted in a RFA but I have to say that anyone who suggests that adminship would be helpful because it lends credibility to policy shouldn't be one. There's too much indication of potential use of admin status in conflicts. Given his work, I'd love him to be an admin, but his responses here worry me. I fear more wheel-warring in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per unacceptable response to Queerbubbles' oppose. SashaNein (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also several poor responses to questions and oppositions. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose BlackBeasts (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - This account was only created today and has done nothing but vandalise! TheProf - T / C 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented oppose as vandalism only account.Balloonman (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I feel uncomfortable with someone wanting to become an admin in order to bypass the need to explain and negotiate when discussing policy. And I feel very uncomfortable with this comment: "I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience." This comment gives the impression the user is impatient and dismissive of the process the community goes through to judge if an applicant is trustworthy, and also feels their time is rather more important than gaining the community trust in the future. Probably just a poorly phrased statement prompted by some disappointment at the way this AfD is going. I do hope that Kumioko will take on board the comments that people are making and will consider applying again in 6 months time. SilkTork *YES! 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, your right the word were probably poorly chosen so I will clarify. I will not resubmit again, however if someone chooses to submit my name I MAY consider it. From what I have seen though the process of selecting an admin needs some work on clarification and standardization so perhaps I will assist in devising a way to make the process of selecting future admins more quantitative rather than a simple majority/minority vote, perhaps more along the way that articles are assessed. It seems to me that would greatly reduce the phenominal amount of time currently spent on RFA's and streamline the process.--Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The process is about finding out if the community trusts the candidate. Different people have different ways of judging trust. The process itself, and the way the candidate handles the process, gives people a realistic view of how the candidate will deal with the odd situations they may encounter as an admin. I understand your thinking about having a consistent set of measurable criteria; however, simply matching a set of declared criteria in order to become an admin may not produce a decent variety of admins nor produce the most secure and sock-free admins. SilkTork *YES! 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. 30 000 edits in ten months indicates a desire for quantity of edits, not quality. It seems Kumioko is a good editor, evidenced by a GA and no blocks. Sometimes it's better to keep doing what you're good at ... used to be called the Peter Principle. There is not much evidence of discussion and the candidate mentions in one of his replies that he thinks these discussions are one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. I disagree. Discussion is a prime tool that admins need. I suggest he keep on editing and contributing to the Pedia, not because he would make a bad admin; rather, he makes a better editor. Truthanado (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Good editor, great asset, but not experienced in the right areas yet. Also, per Kurt. Jmlk17 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - response to oppose #30 lacks maturity ("I'll take my tools and will never ever apply for the mop again... well, I mean, unless you really really want me to" - reminds me of the Gary Hart non-resignation resignation technique) and also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process (RfA is more than a simple majority vote - even at its most votey-est, it's still not a simple majority). --Badger Drink (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse a United States Marine of being immature. WaltonOne 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's appropriate to bring the user's social status into the RfA.--KojiDude (Contributions) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think it's very naive to bestow mental traits on someone based solely upon their occupation. Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine as well - not exactly a paragon of maturity and emotional stability, he. Additionally, Kojidude's point above is well-stated. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, a married father of two who was in the Marines for over a decade is a pretty safe bet to be more mature than a 13 year old who makes it through RfA for knowing how to game the process ahead of time. More to the point, this oppose vote is a fairly snarky mischaracterization of what Kumioko is actually saying. I'm with Walton on this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So marriage and armed forces make a man mature? Sorry, but I strongly disagree. His actual actions here in this RfA speak louder than the best semi-educated guesses you or I could make ever could. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he wants to Oppose for a reason you think is stupid, then just let him be stupid. What harm does it do to you?--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He just compared him to a murderer Koji. The disturbing absurdity of the insult speaks for itself, but now certainly warrants an apology to Kumioko. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mentioned before that I think the way Kumioko is handling himself in this RFA shows what he is made of. Everyone is jumping over the statement I don't have time, with the inference that the candidate is basically saying I'm going to take my toys and go home. I actually read this quite differently, as him saying he doesn't have for drama. Let's be blunt, there are a breed of people who thrive on drama, and there are those who don't care, and want to do their "jobs". I've not seen any real indication of drama, nor any real indication of immaturity. If anything, the blatant baiting of this particular oppose remains unaddressed by the candidate. Yngvarr (c) 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared him to a murderer? Can you show me where this comparision was made? --Badger Drink (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) You piped a link to Jeffrey R. MacDonald. I certainly felt as well that was an implicit comparison to Kumioko, in this context. It comes across as highly inflammatory, and I agree that you owe Kumioko an apology, and you also owe Hiberniantears one as well [5]. Darkspots (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear Jonathan Swift ate babies, too. I opposed Kumioko for (among other things) an immature attitude, which apparently upset Walton, who, based upon his statements in this and other RfA's, evidently believes that all members of the armed forces are mature manly men who walk on water, simply by virtue of the job they perform. I informed Walton that this was not the case. Hiberiantears jumped in with mention of the candidate being a family man, to which I responded with the MacDonald link, a rather notorious family man who also happened to serve in the armed forces. At absolutely no point did I "compare" Kumioko to MacDonald, nor MacDonad to Kumioko. Anybody not trying their absolute damnedest to get offended at something could clearly see that my point was that Mr. Walton and Mr. Hiberiantears were using naive over-generalizations of irrelevant outside social functions to support a conclusion that ran counter to what was displayed in this very RfA. To Kumioko's credit, he has not jumped in on this particular brouhaha, but I will not apologize to him nor anybody else for people's (willful or otherwise) inability to comprehend simple rethoric. To demand I do so is misguided and petulant-sounding at best. Hope this helps - --Badger Drink (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the comments speak on their own. That said, a conversation surrounding this RfA is that we are driving off qualified candidates with what has become an over indulgent process (no, this is not a cry for "fix the RfA") that allows for silly questioning and opposing/supporting. I'm just hoping that the 'crat who closes this takes a long look at the entire RfA, rather than the percentage. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious, why is lack of knowledge about the RfA process relevant to actual adminship? I could understand that lack of RfA knowledge would be a (very big) problem if running for bureaucratship, but not knowing much about RfA itself should not matter as long as the editor knows about actual policies. I'd be surprised if everyone who ran through RfA (and even those who pass) know what the criteria for promotion is. As I said, I'm curious. Acalamari 21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumping into anything without making an effort to familiarize one's self with the process they'll have to go through strikes me (and others, apparently) as impulsive and lacking foresight. Doubly, or perhaps even triply (why not!) so for the RfA process itself. It sets a dicey precedent, especially considering the recent overly-bold actions that've gone on (i.e. East's flooding of the main page edit history and subsequent adminbot running - not trying to pick on East, just the two most recent examples that came to mind). WP:BOLD is great for editors, but admins need to look before they leap, and calling RfA a "majority vote" does not seem to support said looking. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This brings up an interesting point, perhaps we should also change the way editors are allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Maybe we should make sure that they are familiar with the MOS and other policies before they can edit. Just a thought but it seems like some of this thinking is contrary to the concept of wikipedia, that OJT is NOT ok. Its seems to me that some people are scared that I will use my status as an admin for my own gain. Some have said that I may use it to win edits wars. Since I have never been engaged in an edit war, I fail to understand what the basis for this argument is. Some have said that I should spend more time doing admin stuff rather than editing. I would argue that editing is more important than participating in Wikispace pages, that is after all what wikipedia is for. :-)--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough: thanks. Acalamari 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger as well.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose: Per Above, most certainly. I am sorry, but you simply are not fit for admin, and i doubt you ever will be. Just give up! SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    — SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I'm in two minds as to this request. On one hand, Kumioko is, per Majorly and the other supporting editors, an excellent article contributor, and that very often provides an administrator with robust inter-editor communication skills. It could also suggest that he'd be competent at article-related administrator duties, such as protection. Having said that, we also have an editor who has very little administrator-related-activities experience, insofar as I can observe, and that brings some doubts into the equation for me: I fear Kumioko may not have a sufficient grasp of admin. duties, and may (unintentionally, of course) cause damage through some bad calls. Whilst I'm sure that would improve with time, it concerns me: there's simply not enough experience here. Perhaps if Kumioko could expand on the RfA standard questions with some strong answers, I'd be willing to support, but at present, they are very thin, and really don't do anything to sway me to support. On the fence for this one, depending on a response from Kumioko (which I'd be very happy to see forthcoming), and further developments. Anthøny 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I don't think this editor is ready yet for the tools. --SharkfaceT/C 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nuetral I'm not convinced either way just yet. Will change to support or oppose base on further actions within this RFA (e.g. questions, responses to votes, etc. . .) --Liempt (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nuetral More admin-related experience needed. Epbr123 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mainspace work doesn't necessarily mean you should be an administrator. Also per EVula. Rudget (review) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I'd say that you should review everything at WP:ARL and try again in a few months. A short bit of admin coaching may also be helpful to you. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that might apply if, in the so far as I can tell unlikely event, that this RFA passes, but there's no need to have a coach if you can't make the team.--Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this would be the coach for getting you onto the team in the first place. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Oppose until/unless question 15 gets a more extensive treatment (I am very strict ^^;;) Support for answers to Scepters questions. Total ends up neutral. Either way there's definitely hope for you. Try and do some more thinking about question 15, and I may yet switch :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - He has been a tremendous asset for anything Medal of Honor related. He always pops up in my watchlist cleaning up and improving articles. However, for that many edits, Wikipedia project space participation is just way too low. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I don't want to support, but I don't want to oppose either. You're doin' a good job with the Miliary related articles, but I don't think you have enough experience with the fields that an admin works in. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral because I don't pile-on stuff. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - A fantastic article writer, but in terms of the day to day routine janitorial chores, I can find a single vandalism warning directed at another editor. Prospective sysops having the "tools" need to demonstrate some experience of reviewing a wide range of articles, communicating (or attempting to) with editors with frustrations or just a mean streak. Get a couple more months RC patrol and re-apply. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral, within touching distance of support. Ngghh, this is hard. You are obviously a good contributor to the project, but under 100 Wikipedia space edits doesn't seem to say that you need the tools. However, you would not abuse the tools, I'm sure about that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral support Ooh, I like the looks of you, and your temperament seems ideal for adminship, but can't bring myself to go S for now. If I measure you right you'll take good note of the more useful comments in the Oppose section and come back in a few months and zip straight into WP:100 never mind adminship. --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral I wasn't going to comment or place my name in any list, but the answer to Q.22 is excellent and I believe indicative of someone who will make a good admin. Maybe just not this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral, switch from oppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral does not deserve an oppose. SexySeaShark 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral, very low number of edits to talk pages, and the Q&A above doesnt move me to look deeper. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral. I rarely vote neutral, but this users lack of wikipedia space edits worries me, on the other hand though, he seems dedicated to the project. So, I can't support or oppose. Maybe support in a couple months. Spinach Dip 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral per my comments in oppose section. EJF (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral per Dweller. Spend some time in the nuts and bolts of the operation, and I'll very likely support in a few months. KrakatoaKatie 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neutral AGK's reasoning tracks closely with mine. The occasional intemperance aside, Kumioko appears to be possessed of the sound judgment and deliberative temperament that commend one well to adminship, but I can't conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that he knows whereof he does not know (and there do appear to exist areas in which his knowledge of policy and practice is not complete; the answer to question four, for instance, isn't stellar in substance or form), such that might he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, and so in the final analysis cannot say with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed would be positive, but I come relatively close to so saying and so almost certainly can't oppose. Joe 17:32, 21 April 2008 (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.
Category