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

Kww[edit]

Final: (42/40/9); ended 05:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kww (talk · contribs) - From the top “I thought he was already an admin” file, I give you Kww (talk · contribs). A prolific editor with plenty of clue to spare, he’ll make a fine administrator. You’ll find some article work on some album articles, lots of vandalism reversion, and peacekeeping over on What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Kww is well-rounded and well-intentioned; his contributions speak for themselves. HiDrNick! 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. —Kww(talk) 05:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around long enough that most people that vote on these things have encountered me, and have probably formed an opinion of me. I hope that's a good thing. I mainly focus on vandalism and other forms of article corruption, generally in the Disney Channel area. It's a difficult area to work in, because the relative age of the editors there is so young and the vandalism rates are so high. I also take a strong interest in the various pseudoscience/fringe science areas, although I generally only step in when I see the science getting driven out of our encyclopedia.

Many people will look at my block-log. The recent one is easy: an admin noticed a series of reversions, and did not notice that the thing I was reverting was an explicit exemption to the 3RR rule: the other editor was making obvious violations of non-free content policies. You'll notice he reversed the block and apologized quite quickly.

The older block is a tad harder to explain. I discussed it with User:AuburnPilot, and here is the link to his talk page discussion. In short, I was blocked for 3RR and edit-warring when I had not violated 3RR (I was blocked based on a false report, and, when I complained about that, it was replaced with another false report), and was not, in neither my estimation nor AuburnPilot's, edit warring at all.

As for the views that leave my opposition so aghast, here they are again, laid out in full. We have guidelines and policies. People are free to try to get policies and guidelines changed, debate them, and figure out what the best direction for Wikipedia is. That's fine. None of us are free to unilaterally ignore them. An editor that constantly edits in images that violate WP:IUP is disruptive, even if he thinks our free-content rules are wrong. An editor that constantly edits in statements that violate WP:BLP is disruptive, even if he believes they are sheltering someone from deserved criticism. An editor that edit wars by repetitively undoing redirects on an article that fails WP:NOT#PLOT is disruptive, even if he thinks that obeying WP:NOT#PLOT prevents him from covering his favorite topic to the depth he would like. We treat consistently treat the first two editors as disruptive editors, and ultimately treat them as vandals. I think we should treat the third case the same. I do recognize that we do not. If I had been thinking in terms of "boy, this quote is going to be framed forever", I would have said it differently.
As for that surreal arbcom experience ... I was threatened with a lifetime topic ban for trying to get a decision clarified when I wasn't even a party to the arbcom case. Blaming me for that is truly a case of shooting a messenger. I think it's telling that essentially no one from either side of the inclusionism/exclusionism debates believed that I should be blocked. A link to that debacle is [1] for anyone that wants to read it.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more clarification: an article like Bulbasaur did not, and never did, mean an article about fictional characters. At the time of the last major dispute over Bulbasaur, it did not have any third-party, independent reliable sources that examined Bulbasaur directly and in detail. Everything was sourced from the anime, games, or an official Nintendo publication. Sad to say, that is still true. The only third-party independent source that actually addresses Bulbasaur uses him as the butt of a joke about pesto. The other third party mentions are passing references: it's included in a list of names or examples, or a list of possible starters. I will also point out that having lost the dispute, I don't do anything disruptive. It's still on my watchlist, and I monitor it for vandalism. I worked on the talk page of the article when people introduced some really dodgy etymologies for the Japanese name, and, in the arbcom mess the most active editor on the article, Kung Fu Man, stood up for me.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Pretty much what I do today: revert vandalism and keep the Disney and music articles from turning into a quagmire of blog-sourced gossip. I use WP:AIV, WP:SSP and WP:RFPP extensively today, and that's where I will probably focus.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I still have a fond spot in my heart for Humanzee. It's where I first started editing, and is where you can find my only anonymous edits. It was a piece of speculative fiction, and I worked hard to turn it into a real article. My only featured article is Natalee Holloway, where I am one of the three major contributors.
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: What the Bleep Do We Know!? represented the peak of stress for me. There is something about that article that brings out the worst in editors from both sides of the pseudoscience conflict. I even had the surreal experience of seeing ScienceApologist blocked for edit-warring in a change that MartinPhi had helped write. Ultimately, it took a strategy of just going through the lead sentence by sentence, and getting everyone to agree on a version that didn't make them angry enough to revert it, and making sure everyone understood which policies would prohibit and allow what. Once people focused on making sure each sentence conformed to policy, we got to a version that no one felt compelled to revert. We put the change in with ((edit-protected)) macros, and then left the thing protected for six months. Ugly and bloody, but it worked.
The one I wish I had handled better was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write.
Additional questions from seresin
4.How do you intend to reconcile your opinion on the notability guideline with any potential administrative actions, such as XfD?
A: Reconciliation shouldn't be necessary. My opinion on the notability guidelines isn't particularly important: I intend to be guided by whatever they say while making any decisions, not by what I wish they said. My opinions generally aren't particularly important while closing an AFD, either, because the job there is to evaluate consensus, not to do what I want. What is relevant to AFD closings is how one evaluates consensus. Currently, the !vote system seems to be turning into a vote system, and that is not how consensus is evaluated. People are supposed to argue and debate, not vote. If I encountered an AFD that was all keep and delete with no logic, I would be inclined to relist it, no matter whether it was 10:1 for keeping or 1:10 for keeping, because without debate, there is no consensus. A list of keeps with strong arguments for delete may well be a delete consensus, just as a list of deletes with a few strong arguments for keeping may well be a consensus for keeping. Given the current state of affairs, I expect that my typical path will be to relist, with a comment on the AFD requesting people to actually argue their points. I'm saddened by how the AFD process has turned away from debate and into snout-counting.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up Q: why did you choose to use the particular words just above, "snout counting"? DGG (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Just re-read Lucifer's Hammer a couple weeks ago. It's the word the alien overlord elephants use to describe voting. First word that came to mind, and no derogatory meaning was intended.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Dlohcierekim
5. JayHenry's dif if from April. Can you more specifically elaborate on how the sentiments expressed there would impact your decision making at XFD? Do you wish to modify, elaborate on, or expand on those sentiments?
A: I expanded above in my statements. As for my xFD behaviour, I am constrained by consensus. It's quite possible that an AFD has a consensus to keep when I believe in my heart that deletion is the desirable state. Doesn't matter. I may choose not to be the admin that closes that AFD, but I can't choose to delete it.
6. How would those sentiments affect your treatment of new editors who create articles that do not meet your standards? Specifically, would you be more inclined to warn --> block or educate/mentor?
A: Depends on a number of issues, not the least of which is that wholly subjective question of "can that soul be saved"? I point at my interactions with User:Kikkokalabud, whom I initially encountered after he recreated an article that had been redirected as a result of AFD. He had provided some new information, so I helped him merge that new information into the redirect point. Later, when he wanted to recreate another article in the same state, I helped him. I created a sandbox for him, edited and reviewed the article in his sandbox. When it looked ready, I contacted every editor that had indicated that it should be redirected, and got their opinions. They all agreed that the redirect should be undone. At that point, even though I still thought the redirect should remain, I stated my opposition and then requested restoration of the article and a history merge at ANI to bring it back. You can look at Say OK and its talk page for the article work, and User talk:Kikkokalabud for most of the rest. The merge request is here. A recent case that didn't go quite as well is Missedwardcullen (talk · contribs). Hers was worse, in that her initial edits were misguided to the point of being vandalism. I think the interaction on her talk page speaks for itself, though.
7. A new editor has created a string of utterly non notable, though well written articles. He has not received any contact from the community other than speedy notifications. What now?
A:Depends a bit on perceived age, capabilities, and intent. If that string of non-notables looks like it was intended to promote the creator's business interests, I'm probably not going to do much. If it looks like a well-intentioned editor, a strategy more like I used with the two above is in order ... getting them to understand what we're up to, and seeing if you can get them to find something they are interested in within that framework. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save the Disney Channel area is to get a few of these kids to really understand the concept of sourcing, and turn them loose on it.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from iMatthew
8. In your own words, can you please explain the role of an administrator?
A: A lot of people use a janitor analogy ... I think the maintenance analogy is sound, although I prefer to think of it as a maintenance mechanic. With a project this big, things go wrong that need fixed. It can be little stuff, like articles that need their histories merged; day to day stuff, like blatant vandalism reversion; bigger stuff, like evaluating AFDs and implementing their results; and damage prevention, which is the area that is grayest. Damage prevention entails things like seeing an editing dispute and deciding whether it goes in the bucket of vandalism and vandalism reversion, where warning and blocking an editor is appropriate; content disputes, where you may wind up protecting an article and warning one or both sides; or reining in an incompetent newbie who may be editing in good faith, but is doing something against all consensus and guidelines. What an admin is not is a policy maker: an admin needs to be guided by policy, guidelines, and consensus, but is not a person that attempts to transform Wikipedia to his personal vision. That said, an admin is still an editor: he can and should edit articles; can and should attempt to sway people to his way of thinking on editorial issues; but cannot use his tools in an effort to force people to his way of thinking.


Optional questions from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: Truly an ugly question, and one with no perfect answer, but I assume you know that. The newbie has done nothing wrong. No one is required to check a talk page before making an edit, and his edit, being verifiable, sourced, and compliant with policy, is a good edit. If he edit wars the reversion or some other misbehaviour, there would be concerns with him, but for now, the main objective is keeping him from getting angry or upset enough that he does something rash. Now, the other group has reached what is sometimes called a local consensus. It happens all the time, usually not as egregiously as the case you describe. Some group of five or six editors decide that some statement doesn't constitute OR, when in fact it does; or that a source is independent enough that they can use it, when it fact the source has a financial tie to the subject. The best strategy to take in such cases is to expose the issue on wider and wider levels: through the various noticeboards and dispute resolution processes until you get a large enough group together that the case will be looked at and people will eventually echo our core consensus that verifiability is a core principle, and that the unverifiable material cannot be retained. Keeping the newbie calm during this process, which can take quite a while, is the hard part. It's necessary to make him feel supported and like someone understands his issue.
Unfortunately, sometimes it doesn't work. There are numerous articles that fail basic guidelines like WP:N that are protected by groups of editors such as you describe. Patience is the only strategy that works. In dealing with the newbie at that stage, convincing him of that is the only hope. I would point at other places that such problems have occurred, and try to convince him that failing to get one problem corrected isn't worth leaving the project over.
10. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I can point to my interaction with Kikkokalabud (talk · contribs) and Missedwardcullen (talk · contribs) above. Other examples include Voices4ever (talk · contribs), whom I helped nominate Say OK for deletion in the first place, even though I later helped Kikkokalabud bring it back. Forever Kenny (talk · contribs) still has a talk page full of me helping him understand our image policies. My interactions with Vitor mazuco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) didn't go perfectly, but are a realistic example of trying: a Portuguese-speaking editor who wants to include Brazilian charts in Wikipedia when no one has ever found a Brazilian chart that complies with WP:CHARTS. I fail, sometimes, but I try to stay calm. If you look at my long-term interaction with Oky103 (talk · contribs), I was having to try harder and harder to get through to her, but I never lost my temper. This interaction with Woonpton (talk · contribs) is short, but gives an impression of how some newer editors view me. I do try (and most of these editors are an example) to not revert a non-vandalising newbie without taking the time to go that that editor's talk page and leave some kind of non-templated explanation as to why.
11. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: I don't foresee much of a difference. September has been a peak of activity for me (sick, and cooped up in my room for much of the day for much of the month), and I don't expect that rate to continue. I see it as an efficiency issue: since so much of my editing is spent on anti-vandalism fronts, it's faster to not have to go through AIV. I also see a problem with AIV, SSP, and RFPP response times, so I will put some effort there.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I second this. One diff from six months ago is...stale. However, I know and trust Jay Henry and if he is opposing based on that diff I can be sure that his reasoning is clear and that he felt it was important. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, it is old, and yes he generally sticks more to the material than the editors but it does rather crystallise Kww's opinion on these matters. Not as if it were out of character. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. HiDrNick! 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Seems experienced and knowledgeable enough for me. Probably should archive that talk page, though, and this is the first time I've supported someone who was blocked two days before submitting to an RFA. I know how it is to be blocked errantly. Useight (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seems like a good contributor --Flewis(talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aye, because I believe Kww would be anet positive here, and despite the horrible diff quoted below by JayHenry - almost any word (i.e. "unproductive") would've been OK there, but not "vandal". Black Kite 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; that comment below was poorly worded, but the sentiment is understandable. Administrators should care about policies and about applying them. — Coren (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aye, the only reason I can think of to oppose is on grounds of serious disagreements over philosophy and principle. I don't have it in me to do that. Hiding T 13:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support (Logical Premise has some good points) per Black Kite's support and Ecoleetage's neutral. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I think he's a net positive. Jay's diff and reasoning are sound and I would normally lend more weight to them if I hadn't interacted with this candidate as much as I have. He's articulate and largely professional. This RfA will probably fail, but you should have no problem coming back in 4-6 months and showing that you put this behind you. Protonk (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support even though this editor doesn't really meet most of my criteria. I'm sick of this attitude that people are free to simply create unsourced, unverifiable garbage of no encyclopedic value, and that anyone trying to get rid of it somehow wrong. If someone is a new editor and has never used WP and makes an unsourced article then that's one thing, they're new, you help them out. If you have an experienced editor making unsourced articles that violate WP policy? They should know better. Either way, if an article can't be easily sourced , why is it here? Admins HAVE to make calls on this kind of thing, daily. I'd rather have someone who's going to be able to make the call rightly than simply sit on his hands with the lame-ass explaination of "well, I don't want to delete it because it might get some kind of sourcing one day. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Allayed my concerns. Willing to set aside own view for consensus at AFD. Interaction here was particularly heartening. The JayHenry dif was from 6 months ago. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, overall you can be a little overly vociferous in discussions, but you nearly always do have a well-thought-out and valid opinion. I see a thorough understanding of policy and an appreciation for consensus, and your generally excellent answers to the questions above have settled any other concerns I have. I should add that while JayHenry's diff in oppose #1 is vaguely concerning, the length of time that has passed since then and the lack of a pattern of similar statements reassures me well enough. ~ mazca t | c 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I suspect the candidate and I differ somewhat on how to apply some of the content policies and guidelines, but in fairness that diff is neither typical of what I've seen from him when I've come across him, nor of what I see in his contribs. I trust that he would strive to use the tools within policy, and where appropriate as guided by consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Though the dif pointed out below by JayHenry (and the related beliefs and edits) is slightly concerning, the work overall of this editor definitely seems strong and I'm sure he would not use his powers liberally. I've never interacted with him, but it seems to me that the comment was just poorly worded, perhaps in a moment of anger (that hopefully would never bubble up again during adminship). Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Forgive and forget. Also per question 8. iMatthew (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, this is likely to fail, but my extend my moral support to the candate. We're all human you know, and I would gladly vote again for the canadate if he comes back in 3-6 months. RkMnQ (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the link provided by Dlohcierekim shows very positive interaction within the comunity. Sure, he messed up, but (as i said above) we all make mistakes. RkMnQ (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. If all the naysayers can come up with is some strongly worded language it is evident that this editor is admin eligible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Having had a look at the linked RFAR and the comments there, I think people are looking at the wrong 'quotes'. Here's one:
    Now, in such a situation, what is the appropriate action for an admin to take? It's to go have a chat with the editors ...
    Not threats, not sweats, talk. Amazingly civil, huh? Together with other statements there by people very against TTN (dare one say enraged?) yet either defending Kww or allowing as how independent thought or approaches are not bad, I find an entirely disproportionate response to the single quote cited in the opposes. I don't see 'warrior' here, I see someone who gives his opinion, but doesn't force it on people. I think I'd like to see that more often, eh? Shenme (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Eusebeus (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support zOMG, an editor that gets passionate about things and argues? Say it ain't so! Come on, people, Kww does fine work around here. Passion is good for the project. GlassCobra 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - a good editor; knowledgeable and level-headed. A poor word choice on one six-month-old diff does not negate this. - eo (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, switched from Neutral I am switching to Support because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of seeing yet another candidate get shot down by having isolated comments (or, in this case, a single sentence) from distant months yanked wildly out of context and magnified a thousandfold, thus creating a warped history that bears no resemblance to the genuine depth and scope of the candidate's full contributions to this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, from neutral. Overall a good candidate, I think, and a net positive to the project as an admin. On the balance, no real reason not to support. See also: WP:AGF. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Having worked extensively with Kww on a BLP to bring it to featured status, I have always found him level headed in his approach to our policies. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, to see yet another RfA turn into a one-diff-witch-hunt. Opposes like "where there's smoke, there's fire" are ridiculous and unhelpful. Kww has acknowledged mistakes he has made in the past, and granting him adminship would have a positive result on the project. The link provided by JayHenry has been blown out of proportion to a disgusting level, and it appears many opposers haven't taken the time to actually evaluate the candidate. - auburnpilot talk 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree here. I regret providing that diff because it was really tertiary to the point I was making, and has indeed been blown out of proportion. I would hope that many who opposed citing me evaluated the candidate and saw a pattern of concern. A single diff, however shocking, should really never be used as an oppose. I've read the notability wars RFAR cases and many of the AN threads, but my concern is that some (I don't know who) of the opposers did not look beyond the diff. This was not my intention. Shame on any opposer (I don't know who you are, but you do) who blindly opposed on this basis alone. --JayHenry (t) 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I actually thought kww was an admin already, too. Yes, he holds very strong viewpoints on some issues - there is nothing wrong with that. The WP:FICT nightmare has been incredibly acriminious in the past, and the diff cited below came at the heat of the arguments. Kww was not the only one to lose his temper and say stupid things during that debate. I'm satisfied that he has enough clue, and an ability to look beyond his own prejudices, to be a good administrator. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. does good work in a very difficult area and has convinced me that the knows the difference between his opinions and the work of an administratorMjchesnel (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I got confused earlier, he was trying to solve the problem. My mistake sorry, he deserves adminship for dealing properly with "annoying newbies and IPs" in the correct manor Ijanderson (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – does have very pointed views on many issues, and I'm willing to forgive the diff from WP:FICT as something said in the heat of the moment. I consider myself to be a calm and patient individual, but per Karanacs, that debate was very heated, with plenty of sniping from either side, including myself. I don't believe his views will impact how well he can use the tools. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – Kww would be a great admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyKW (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC) editor with one edit - this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed with strikeout. I was just dealing with this issue in e-mail. Voter is a relative of mine that heard I was having trouble, and decided to help.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – I am sure that, as others have noted, it would be a net benefit for Wikipedia if Kww were granted access to admin tools. In my dealings with him, I've found him to be an even-tempered and conscientious editor. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -I was one of the editors at What the Bleep Do We Know when kww worked to reach a compromise lead that everyone on all sides could agree to. He never lost his temper even when sorely provoked, never bullied or insulted anyone, and though it was like herding cats, he kept at it til it was done. He would make an outstanding administrator. And also, he was kind to me as a newbie when I didn't know how to do anything; that seems to be a rare trait here. Woonpton (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he did suggest that contributors to topics with "notability" less than or equal to Bulbasaur should be treated "as vandals, as opposed to editors". Yes, while I do personally feel somewhat insulted by this epithet, any statement to the effect of "we ought to get rid of not only these articles, but also the people who create them" would make me cringe twice (no matter how sweetly it is phrased). I probably differ from most of the opposers in this regard. Shrug. — CharlotteWebb 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I was talking about my experience with kww at the What The Bleep Do We Know article, where I don't remember ever seeing you. Why would you try to negate my comment by bringing in something completely unrelated, as if that one remark written in a tense moment in a completely different situation must trump my experience of weeks of working with him in a very tense and frustrating environment and watching him never lose his temper or insult anyone? If you had been at What the Bleep and felt I'd misrepresented the situation, then you would have grounds to post a refutation under my comment, but this I don't understand at all. I've always heard that the RFA process is f%&*#ed, but didn't fully appreciate that until today. I've never commented in an RFA before or even read more than one or two RFAs, but I keep it watchlisted for some reason that has become obscure to me, and when I saw that kww was being nominated for admin, I thought, "now *there's* someone I know, respect and can vote for without reservation." You obviously have a different opinion about it, but I daresay you've had a chance to voice your opinion under the oppose heading where it will be duly noted. His RFA is going to fail, in spite of my support, because more people see it your way than see it my way (which I personally think is too bad for the project) but that's not good enough for you? You have to come across and pick arguments with people who have a different opinion than you do about it? This is really not on. Woonpton (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Probably won't matter, but moving from oppose in light of comments in Talk:RFA and a little more digging on my part. Tan | 39 17:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Not weak, but with an opinion that I deem the candidate sufficiently trustworthy to use the tools impartially despite the misgivings on viewpoint mentioned in the oppose/neutral sections. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Never had any problems with the candidate personally and in areas in which they and I have worked simultaneously, they have been civil and cooperative with good ideas. I think it's kind of sad that things go to pile-on sometimes but sometimes it takes an RfA to lance a boil like this and then a second RfA down the track (say 4 months later) is decidedly less eventful so long as the user has not shown any signs of a repeat in the time since. Orderinchaos 14:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't believe it a problem that we have an admin with extreme views, as long as the admin knows how not to let their judgment influenced by their personal viewpoints. A look back at Kww's contributions shows commitment to improve his interaction with other editors. That comment made in April was badly worded - there's no question; but as our project needs more admins, we can afford to base our votes not only on a diff made rather long ago, but also on the editor's history of hard work and his experience with article editing and Wikipedia internal process (the latter should have made Kww an otherwise excellent admin candidate.) I think it safe to trust him to use the tools wisely and fairly. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Candid and thoughtful answers to questions -- especially Q9 -- are persuasive evidence that Kww offers a finely balanced point-of-view which seems under-represented. --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Orderinchaos makes a good observation: I regret this isn't going to pass and hope that Kww has another go. IMHO we need him. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Finally, there's someone with enough guts to delete a few million unsourced stubs. Go button go! NVO (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Fine editor, who I've worked with for a year in getting Natalee Holloway to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. support Although I doubt it is going to make a difference. I disagree strongly with Kww about inclusionism/deletionism issues. I am confident that Kww's extreme views on the matter will not impact Kww's ability to use the tools correctly and in accord with community consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, Kww may have strong views about the notability policy, but I don't think that alters people's ability to use the "delete" button in line with the consensus on AfD. Speaking for myself I also have pretty strong views on the notability or otherwise of fictional characters, but it is quite simple to either put your own views to one side or move on to another AfD where you are disinterested. I trust his ability to do the same. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Yes, Kww has strong opinions but I think they have shown that they will not act on those opinions without community consensus and I would fully trust them with the tools. If having a strong opinion on certian issues was a reason to deny a person adminship then we'd have a lot of de-sysopping to do. Stardust8212 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support--LAAFansign review 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I think Kww would actually be a good admin. — Athaenara ✉ 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I don't think it'd be wise to support anyone who's such an active and dedicated partisan in the interminable notability wars. That you ever thought editors who, basically, disagree with your notability opinions should be treated "as vandals, as opposed to editors" you need to be kept away from having a block button. This led to an RFAR clarification and you completely gloss over this in your nomination. If I need a link it's WP:BATTLE. Step away from the notability wars for three or four months and I could support. It's not that you're deletionist or inclusionist. It's that I don't sense any capability to disengage. It's not healthy to be here so heavily for one cause. It never ends well. --JayHenry (t) 05:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Very concerned by the view expressed by the candidate in the link provided by JayHenry. Classifying good faith editors as vandals is serious enough, without access to the block button. TigerShark (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose due to major concerns indicated by JayHenry. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, while I agree with you more than 50% on notability stuff, the way you go about discussion there (especially with regards to TTN) is a bit too extreme (for lack of a better word) for my liking. Giggy (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, per JayHenry. This user doesn't seem to understand WP:AGF and shows signs of zealotry in the link provided by JH. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As much as I hate "per.." comments, Oppose per the lack of good faith showed in the diff provided by JayHenry. Ironholds 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What you said in the diff given by JayHenry was just shocking, tbqh. naerii 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose As much as I dislike to pile-on, that diff provided by JayHenry is enough to oppose in itself. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per JayHenry and initial answer to question 4 - we all have to reconcile our ideal views to what consensus is, and the comments and guidelines are liberal enough to be interpreted quite loosely as is anyway. To ignore consensus in a manner described would completely ignore at one major commonsense/intuitive guideline remaining. no thanks. I shoudl add I can see alot more DRVs a-coming as well this way...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Jay Henry. Maybe I'm misreading this...but it seems that you believe people who create articles like Bulbasaur are vandals? --Smashvilletalk 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Never per JayHenry. We already have enough of these with the tools. There's not room for one more soldier on the imaginary battleground. SashaNein (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Ironic, in that the "never" shows the very sort of absolutism that the candidate is being opposed for. Is there no hope of redemption/improvement/growth? Ever? For the new editor off to a rocky start, or the otherwise good contributor who never brings in sources, or the not so new but still learning admin candidate? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already too many current administrators trying to turn this project into a soap opera. There is no need to add one more to the cast. I encourage any further posts to be moved to this section's talk page. SashaNein (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it ironic that someone complaining about too much drama is indeed causing drama by their choice of wording. Perhaps its a case of dislike in others what they dislike in themselves? -Djsasso (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Among the reasons listed above, candidate doesn't seem to have mastered the edit summary - Tan | 39 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
  12. Oppose per the link by JayHenry, which I brought to the attention of ArbCom. I disagreed with the proposal of banning Kww from fiction topics over it (it was a single faux pas, and Kww has been willing to negotiate in the FICT conflict). However, the fact that you defended to that edit as a "civil contribution" on my talkpage does not speak well for judgement. Deletionism is OK, but I think Kww has tendencies to being overly aggressive in the pursuit of this. I don't think that I can trust him with a block button in such a situation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I believe Kww's word choice has improved since April, but I have seen no such indication regarding his attitude. — CharlotteWebb 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. StrongWeak Oppose per JayHenry and others. Ugh, I could never trust him with the tools, his viewpoints are too ridiculous for my tastes. Wizardman 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm.. on second look through I've softened my stance, since he does contribute constructively elsewhere. Wizardman 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Was neutral at first because the incident occurred some 6 months ago. On reflection and based on my own analysis of certain comments he made recently, although his wording has improved, I'm not at all convinced he's ready, or that he properly understands the problems that arise if he were to take on such an approach in practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose It's one thing to say you think WP has too many articles on x or that WP should crack down on articles on y, but it's entirely another to call editors vandals simply for working on an article you don't like... and when the article in question is a (now former) featured article with a lot of good-faith contributors, that's worse still. Maybe when that's ancient history things will be different, but a few months after? Not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Not comfortable providing this candidate with the tools, at this time. --Winger84 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose - Extremely misguided per the link provided by Jay Henry. Suggests a parochial understanding of policy and guidelines, and essentially what Wikipedia is all about. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. OPPOSE Per the link by Jay Henry. Truely troubling. America69 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. JayHenry has it in a nutshell. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Does not know what a vandal is, and so should not be trusted with the ability to block them. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Per JayHenry and Q9.  Asenine  01:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Kww may not be a bad person, but he does a really bad job at researching the items that he deletes. This guy deleted images from my talk page that had NO copyright violations, only his "suspicion" of such. It was a picture of womens legs.... and you want to nominate someone this petty as an admin? Please!!!! He also accused me of uploading images to Brandy Norwood's page, (check out my talk page) but if you check the history you will see I never uploaded anything there. I could change my opinion if he shows better judgment in the future. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Wmjummert's edit is here, my revert is here. The image I removed from his talk page is here.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment I've tagged Image:TALK PAGE.JPG for speedy, as it is an obvious copyright violation. It has since been deleted. HiDrNick! 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per the link provided by JayHenry. macy 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I've been looking through Kww's edits, with the notion that Jay Henry's portrayal of him has been blown out of proportion. Or more accurately, that people are attaching too much weight to a single dif. While I do think the dif has been blown out of proportion, there is enough smoke in other areas that I have to oppose. Too many small areas where he's been involved with too much drama for me to support. People aren't coming to him because he is a problem solver, but rather because he is involved in the problem. Now, he might not be the problem itself, but he too intimiately associated with the problem for me to support. I don't have enough time to delve into all of the nuiances to "vindicate" you of every issue that you've been involved with or accused of being involved with.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, where there's smoke, there's fire. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  27. Weak oppose position on notability seems too extreme. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per a silly dispute with another in June on article Zachary Jaydon, then came asking for help of me believing that im an admin when im not. Sorry Ijanderson (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Seems to wish to delete articles about fictional characters, which I strongly disagree with, and so not comfterable giving him admin power. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're opposing because you disagree with the candidate? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per JayHenry. I'm not confident that you'll be un-biased with your admin tools, especially the delete button.--KojiDude (C) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeAbstain Sorry, I'd like to support, but that JayHenry diff pretty much put a stop to that. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC) This RFA is really confusing and I can't decide to vote one way or another. Too many "per JayHenry"s and putdowns, and lots of biting from both sides. I abstain. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 07:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Most drama isn't too bad but I still have to oppose per JayHenry. --Banime (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose bad judgment and decisions. does not accept others views. — Jojo • Talk • 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed another candidate for adminship on the basis of being an "inclusionist to an extreme", yet holds the opposite view of said candidate. JayHenry's concerns have added to the ones I had for Kww. For the record, I do not follow either Wikiphilosophy. Acalamari 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Striking: had a discussion with Kww. Acalamari 23:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per the diff linked by JayHenry, unfortunatly. TalkIslander 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Oppose - I'm sorry, but this recent diff on WP:AN appears to me as a desperate plea for support. Normally I wouldn't pile-on oppose but in this case I feel it's definately appropriate. Gazimoff 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [Refactored].—Kww(talk) 16:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. I really didn't want to pile on; I know how mindless these things can get. I'd been assuming that that diff was going to have been blown out of proportion and be less shocking than people have been saying, but then I read it, and yeah, wow. Vandals? Really? I certainly wouldn't like to be judged by the stupidest thing I've ever said on Wikipedia, but that comment was still comparatively recent and does not, I would hope, reflect the attitude of someone we wish to have admin tools. Sorry. Ford MF (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Per Gazimoff, extremely inappropriate. seresin ( ¡? )  18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Canvassing per Gazimoff. Refactoring half an hour after someone opposes for it seems a bit suspect too. Garden. 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think of it as even approaching canvassing, or I wouldn't have said it. Once I saw that others saw it that way, I refactored.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very strong oppose: See block log. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral below.[reply]
  37. Oppose: First, per JayHenry's diff, and secondly, for a generally unfriendly attitude toward those he disagrees with. I can't support people I feel don't get along well with those who disagree with them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose No, Bulbasaur is not vandalism also you seem to want to delete pages that are fictional characters. Kennytran4 (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is this user's 4th contribution. They are of dubious suffrage. HiDrNick! 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Opposition. The nominee's crude attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with here [2] and his uncivil haranguing (indicating a failure to assume good faith) here [3] and his harassment of/personal attacks on an administrator whose efforts to defuse a content dispute rankled him, see here [4], demonstrate that this abusive user is unfit to exercise authority over others. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong oppose, Anyone who would treat editors who create articles as vandals is unfit to be an admin. An admin has got to know what vandalism is and what vandalism is not. And for an editor to have such a strict view of notability while creating articles like GTD-5 EAX is absolutely laughable, and hypocritical. --Pixelface (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral. I'd support, but the diff posted by JayHenry, above, is problematic. I'm going to think on this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Neutral Switching to support I am specifically not holding the JayHenry diff against the candidate -- that is a single, isolated aberration. And let's be honest, people, we all say things that we later regret -- you don't hold one mistake against an individual while ignoring the full body of work. In this case, however, I am in the Neutral category because of the candidate's full body of work -- I am having difficulty finding anything that would push me to either Support or Oppose. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Moral Support - we do have too many Pokemon articles. --B (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do; I agree with you and Kww. The point is not his views, it's the way he goes about arguing them, that bothers me. People opposing solely over his views should recognise that their argument is devoid of merit. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - leaning support, strong edit count, understandable recent block, but also giving me a hint of WP:NOTNOW. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I've always mistaken the candidate with admin, User:Kwsn :). Well, I was actually going to support you before reading the immense opposers' reasoning. I think I need more time.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Really wanted to support, but not ready (as shown by JayHenry). I think that in six months you will definitely be ready for adminship as long as you show that you can act neutrally in regards to deletion. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral—Not going to pile on. I feel inclined to oppose per JayHenry's diff, though. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, on the edge of Oppose: I am a little worried because you got blocked on account of this 3RR dispute. (Sorry if I went harsh during my initial decision.) However, you might improve by the time you're set for you next RFA, maybe in half a year. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. The "Bulbasaur" incident is worrying. Although it was several months ago and Kww appears to regret the comment now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - while technically meeting most of my standards, with an especially strong edit count, I am a bit disturbed by the tone of some past comments. I see a lot of good things out of this editor, and, given four or six months, I could support a second RfA from this editor. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I have not had the time to dig into Kww's contribs, from what I've read here, it would be quite an endeavor. However, I would like to make a few comments. I think the diff JayHenry gave, while disturbing, is ultimately irrelevant. First, it is many months old, and we are all entitled to our own personal opinions about how things should be, but we are ultimately bound by policy and consensus. Second, I think it is twisting the comment to say that Kww was calling all editors who add fiction type of edits/articles "vandals". Kww explains this issue extremely well at the top of this page when discussing how s/he would handle closing AfDs (Q4). It doesn't matter what our personal feelings are, all that matters is the consensus. Additionally, in case nobody has noticed, this is an editor with a huge amount of experience with images. Kww probably knows more about the IUP and image issues than most administrators, and that's a giant area in need of experienced, knowledgeable admins. Take a look at the discussions he had here, for an example. While it appears this RfA is not going to pass, I would strongly encourage everyone to realize that just because someone is passionate about topics, doesn't automatically mean they would be an impulsive administrator. Also, I would encourage Kww to continue the excellent work on images, and hopefully the next time, the community will recognize the value your experience would bring to that area in particular, and the passage of time will see the community support you for RfA. Ariel♥Gold 06:36, 8 October 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