Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 4: Difference between revisions

Kww 4

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

Final (134/7/7), ended 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Kww (talk · contribs)

First off, no one can help but notice the little "4" there on the nomination title, so it needs explanation. Yes, I've gone through this three times before. The first was around 50%, the second was around 60%. The third got very close to 70%, and was sufficiently marred by general downright nastiness (from both supporters and opposers, unfortunately) and canvassing by opposers that it wound up in a two day long bureaucrat discussion. All three RFAs failed primarily due to a statement I made in April 2008, and a subsequent attempt to topic ban me from all arts related articles. Those events are real. I can't state that they didn't happen, so I won't. I am wholly responsible for the wreckage that is my past.

As for my sentiments, they were incredibly poorly phrased. I should never have used the word "vandal" in that context. Still, the point I actually intended to make was valid: people shouldn't pick and choose which guidelines and policies they will follow, and which they will not. If they think a guideline needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed. If they think a policy needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed. They should not routinely ignore a policy or guideline because they find it unpleasant. I don't care much whether we are talking WP:BLP or WP:N, chronic violators are a problem.

The blocks in my block-log are quite old. The Sept 30th, 2008 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, with the explanation in the unblock as "my error".

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. I'll let that discussion speak for itself.

To recap my editing thrusts: I'm not heavy on the content-creation side of Wikipedia. I've worked on one featured article (Natalee Holloway), and worked very hard to get What the Bleep Do We Know!? beaten into reasonable shape. The first article that I worked on heavily was Humanzee, and the first one I created was chromosomal polymorphism. Looking at chromosomal polymorphism today, I'm a bit ashamed of my work.

In terms of editing difficulty, What the Bleep Do We Know!? was probably the most difficult article I've ever worked on, and I became aware of the pseudoscience issues on Wikipedia as a result. I was truly astonished at how hard people would work to try to portray nonsense as defensible. I don't directly work much on pseudoscience articles, but I do monitor a few to make sure that they don't turn completely into support of nonsense. I'm not well liked by the pseudoscience crowd.

I spend most of my time in what I think of as "damage prevention". I scan for vandalism, unsourced material, poorly-sourced material, guideline violations and policy violations and revert or fix such edits. Most of my effort in the last 18 months has been on record charts, which is truly a problem area. What I noticed was that the charts had degenerated into essentially random lists of countries and numbers. There wasn't widespread agreement as to which charts were good and which were bad, and there weren't any standard places to verify figures, making it difficult to detect and repair vandalism. I started a discussion about creating a consolidated list of charts to be avoided, which ultimately resulted in WP:BADCHARTS. I produced the bulk of WP:Record charts/sourcing guide, aka WP:GOODCHARTS, which worked at it from the positive direction. 15,000 edits later, and the record charts across Wikipedia are in much better shape. This is work I'm proud of, and it illustrates what I think is the right way to tackle major problems: gain consensus as to direction, and then proceed quickly and efficiently. For those that concern themselves about such things, all my edits, including those, have been done manually: no scripts, bots, Twinkles, or Huggles. I'm currently working on using templates to generate the charts that will allow bots to automatically detect and repair chart vandalism. If I can get that to work, I think the music area will be in much better shape.

My first edits to Humanzee were done as an IP. I'm also Kww on commons and Dutch wikipedia. I have edited on some of other wikis as 190.4.72.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Apparently once here, too, but I fixed that quickly:[1].

Administratively, I have always focused on vandalism and sock-puppetry, and expect to continue that focus into the future. A quick look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria/Archive, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko/Archive, and the sheer number of my edits dealing with undoing and reverting sock edits show how much effort I place in that.

A substantial portion of the opposition in my last RFA came from my treatment to Meursault2004. It's bound to come up again, so I am keeping my statement on it from my last RFA intact in this one. I stand behind my reaction: the editor knew he was proxying for a banned editor, and needed to be blocked until he acknowledged the policy against doing so and said he would not do so again. I firmly believe that blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and the best way to do that is to block until the editor states he will conform to whatever policy he has been blocked for violating. I don't care for "55 hours for this kind of problem" vs. "36 hours for that kind of problem": if the editor credibly agrees to conform to the policy in the future, he shouldn't remain blocked. If the editor will not make such a statement (or, based on experience, no such promise would be credible), there's no reason to unblock him.

From Kww 3

Additional statement re Meursault2004

I see several opposes based on my stance on Meursault2004. I am adding this section to explain the way I felt, and the reason why my stance was so strong. In this edit, Ice Age Lover was very explicit that he was banned from English Wikipedia. He even included a direct link to en:Wikipedia:Long Term Abuse/Bambifan101. That was a typo, but an English-speaking bureaucrat from another wiki can be presumed to have the skill to find Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101. I was not aware until typing today that the given link had a capitalization error. Had I realized that, I might have taken a mildly softer stance. Not much milder, though: given the admission of being a banned user, given a pointer to an abuse report, I would go so far as to say that a bureaucrat from another project has an obligation to find the actual abuse report before installing the edits.

Examining the text of that LTA report at the time the link was posted, it included the text

“ He has also managed to convince users on non-English Wikipedia projects, such as User:OckhamTheFox from the Russian Wikipedia. This user was approached to perform edits on this site for him, including restoring his deleted articles, redoing his earlier versions of articles, etc. He appears to coach such users on what to say to avoid detection, yet he makes no attempts to hide the fact he is blocked from editing this site. In this instance, the recruited user appears to be fully aware of why Bambifan101 can not edit here. Since Bambifan101 couldn't resist bragging about his circumvention and revandalizing under his IPs, he exposed the scheme himself. ”

User:OckhamTheFox, mentioned in that LTA report, has this block log. He received an indefinite block for editing precisely the same article that Meursault2004 was being requested to edit.

The edit he performed was this one. An 18K expansion of the article, which essentially restored an earlier version, where that earlier version had been flagged as vandalism.

My reaction to these events was based on having researched the situation and reached the conclusion that the edit was performed with the knowledge that the edit was unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: keep the Disney and music articles from turning into a quagmire of blog-sourced gossip. I use WP:AIV, WP:SPI and WP:RFPP extensively today, and that's where I will probably focus. Socking is an area where I am specifically hampered by not having administrative tools: right now, I can't even see where someone has made deleted contributions, much less see the contents of them to use them in putting together evidence. There are also times when not being able to block the sock immediately lets things get out of control: I've seen Brexx rack up 100 or more edits that I needed to revert while I was waiting for the gears of the SPI machine to turn.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my best contributions to date have been WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS. Imposing some order on such a problematic area was sorely needed, and I suspect that this will be my most lasting influence on Wikipedia.

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. 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.

That whole surreal arbcom experience.

Of course, I would be lying if I said that WP:Requests for adminship/Kww and WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 weren't pretty stressful as well. Not much I could do there but stay calm.

WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 was again stressful to the point of being surreal. The attacks by some of my opponents went over the top, and some of my supporters went right to the same level in their opposition. There was some well-reasoned opposition and well-reasoned support, but that RFA turned into a war. There was very little I could do but watch. I hope I did so with dignity and aplomb.

Optional question by DarkFalls

4. Per your response on [2], are you saying that all edits by banned editors must be reverted, except if they are "obvious vandalism reversions"?

A: "Must" is stronger than WP:BAN reads. In general, they should be reverted, and only added back after someone has taken the time to verify the information, come to the conclusion that it is accurate, come to the conclusion that its inclusion is an improvement to the article, and is willing to stand behind the edit. I revert frequent sockpuppets dozens of times a day. If the information is valid and needed, it makes it into the article eventually: there's no information that Brexx possesses that is a secret to the rest of the world, and the articles he edits generally have a large community of interested editors.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question from  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed:

5. Let's say you see an editor adding unsourced gossip to an article, being reverted, and engaging in an edit war (not with you) to make sure it stays in. You issue a short block to that editor for a WP:3RR violation. The next day, just as the block expires, the editor in question resumes the very kind of behavior that got them blocked, and you are the very first person to notice. What would you do then?

A: An indef, with an explicit note on the block and in the block log that any admin can lift the block without consulting me when the editor states that he has read WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS and agrees to take the issue to the talk page. I really don't care if the editor is blocked 2 hours or 55 hours, so long as he agrees to behave and shows a sign of understanding why his current behaviour is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Doc Quintana

6. How quick or slow are you to block?

A: I don't really think of it in terms of speed. I'm inclined to block if I come to the conclusion that damage will continue unless a block is placed. I probably come to that conclusion more easily than some. I'm not a big fan of numbers on these things: I've seen vandals complain that it wasn't fair to block them before they had their four chances to vandalise an article, which I think shows the problem with being too rigid about level 1,2,3,4 warnings. If you drop a level 1 warning on someone's page, and his answer is "Screw you and anyone else that doesn't like Lily B. Tabloidfodder, I'm going to write anything I want to about her anywhere I want to write it", there really isn't too much reason to wait through 3 more warning cycles.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

6 1/2 Do you think your answer on 5 constitutes a "cool down block", and if not, why?

A No. The intent isn't "go calm yourself", it's "go read up on what we are up to, and agree to go along with it". The editor in question was already informed about the problem with his editing, blocked to make the point clear, and then proceeded with the problem editing showing no sign of comprehension. If he can't understand what's wrong with his editing, then WP:Competence is required comes into play: it doesn't matter whether or not he's editing in good faith, what matters is that he doesn't have the minimum skill set required to edit. If he does understand what's wrong with his editing and doesn't care, there's every reason to expect the disruption to continue. Blocking while laying down a specific behavioural expectation helps make the distinction clear. If he claims to have read the two guidelines and then takes the issue to the talk page as promised, there's every reason to believe that he can be a productive editor. If, upon claiming to have read the two guidelines and agreeing to take it to the talk page he then proceeds to immediately begin the edit war anew, there's no reason to believe the editor is educable.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

7. What is your opinion and take on IAR?

A: Easily and frequently abused as a means of trying to get one's own way in a discussion. Certainly there are situations that our guidelines and policies don't address precisely and situations that weren't anticipated, and that's where IAR comes in to play. It is still necessary to get a consensus that it is a situation where rules can be ignored, and then to get consensus that your preferred technique for ignoring them is acceptable.—Kww(talk) 01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

8'. Do you think vandals and other users with poor behavior can be rehabilitated? Or is it better to ban/block them and then ban/block their socks unless they do as they are told? I guess what i'm saying here is do you think all of Wikipedia's "troublemakers" should be seen in the same light?

A It's an individual thing. I've mentored a couple of sockpuppeteers trying to bring them back into constructive editing. It worked out well with Petergriffin9901, who is now a constructive editor. It worked out poorly with Wiki-11233, who remains a banned editor.—Kww(talk) 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions from DESiegel

9. What is your opinion of Process is important?

A I might tweak the wording in few places, but it sums up my attitude well. It's important that everyone know roughly what's expected of them, both in terms of content and procedure. There's no reason to become hidebound about it, but, at the same time, "oh, that's just a guideline, we don't need to pay attention to it" isn't an attitude that works well.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

10. You are patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. You find an article that has been tagged as "Patent nonsense". In fact, it is a short, unreferenced description of a village in Brazil, written in Spanish. The tagger has not notified the creator of the tagging, nor has anyone else. What action(s) do you take?

A If there's a trick here based on a Spanish language article about a Portuguese-speaking country, I'm not seeing it. First, it isn't nonsense, so the tagger needs to get a note about that. Then, a quick trip to Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia to see if it's essentially a duplicate article. I'd be willing to treat a literal Portuguese to Spanish translation as a "duplicate" for this purpose. If so, db-foreign applies. If not, tag it with {{notenglish}}. The creator needs to get a note about the result. The referencing will need to be dealt with, but probably after translation is complete.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

11. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged an article as A7. It describes a Professor at a University in Yugoslavia, who is stated to have won an national award for teaching. No references are provided. What action(s) do you take?

A Here, we are in BLP land, which is a minefield. First, it isn't an A7, so the tagger needs a note. It is a completely unsourced BLP, so the first goal is to source it: Google and what clues there are in the article provide the starting point. If it can be sourced, add at least one, and leave pointers to others that I found on the talk page if I don't have the time or the inclination to integrate them. If there aren't any sources to be found, the new prod-blp process applies.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

12. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged as A7 an article on a band. The article says that the band has released three albums on the same label (not a one-band label) and has made two multi-state tours. Both statements are referenced to allmusic.com. There is also a cite to a review in an online music magazine. What action(s) do you take?

A Again, not an A7 (I'm beginning to sense a theme, here). I'd do a quick check of the references, because this is an area where I'm intimately familiar with the guidelines. If nothing checks out, db-hoax is an option. If things partially check out, it may wind up at AFD if I think it fails WP:BAND. If all checks out, declining the speedy and notifying the tagger is all that need be done.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

13. Give your views on what constitutes a "claim of significance" sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A A7 is an intentionally low bar. An article can fail to meet all related notability guidelines but still make it over A7. The intent is to eliminate articles that make no credible claim of importance, not to prevent AFD discussions as to whether a particular record label counts or whether a particular award is important. There is some judgment expected, but not a lot: "Billy Bob Cornhusker is a three-time Nebraska tractor-pull winner" would make it past A7 with me, because even though the area of notability is pretty dubious, winning most state wide competitions seems like something worthy of discussion. "Billy Bob Cornhusker is a three-time Wood Lake, Nebraska tractor-pull winner" probably wouldn't make it past A7 for me, because being the champion of a 72-person hamlet doesn't seem like a credible claim of importance.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question from DGG

14. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination)? DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A First, I see the old confusion between "primary" and "independent" rears its head here again. It really bugs me that people can't keep that straight. Anyway, argument by argument weighting:

• Dale's argument is damaged by saying "primary" when he meant "dependent" or "licensed". Spotting him that defect, his argument is sound: WP:RS states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and the referenced source isn't third-party.
• VitasV doesn't present an argument beyond personal preference.
• Ikip's argument is weak, as it doesn't address the primary complaint that the source is unacceptable.
• Colonel Warden's argument seems to be "a lot of articles suck, so one more doesn't hurt". Not much weight to give that.
• Bravedog plays the "potential copyright violation" card. That's a valid concern, because the level of transformation is low. Still, he doesn't expand on it, and doesn't show a grasp of it, so it's hard to weight that section of the debate. Refers to NOT#PLOT without naming it, and that's a strong argument, as the article does recount plot for the vast bulk of it's weight.
• Doctorfluffy alludes to NOT#PLOT, but does so in a way that warrants an warning on his talk page about how to conduct himself.
• Sceptre attacks it from NOT#PLOT again, but still doesn't state so directly.
• Bali Ultimate goes from NOT#PLOT.
• A Nobody argues for speedy keep, which isn't even possible at this stage, because we have people arguing for delete. He also tries to pretend that NOT#PLOT isn't policy, which is an unacceptable argument: like it or not, it is policy.
• Balthcat plays an interesting card: the nomination is based on defects in the current article, not one deletion motivations, with the exception of WP:N concerns. He further believes that the notability of the chronology is not in doubt. I'd like to see that one played out further.
• The Wordsmith plays out the "AFD is not cleanup" argument. That isn't a bad argument in the first AFD. This is the fourth, so it is hard to weight that heavily here. He also makes a "framework" argument that is interesting: he is making a play for WP#IAR based on a necessity defense, and I can see his point.
• Kww (I'll assume this is a different Kww, so I'm allowed to close this AFD at all), goes for NOT#PLOT again, pointing out that Wikipedia's coverage of the plot of Star Wars is excessive, and cannot be described as a concise description of a fictional work.
• DGG echoes the necessary framework argument.
• Dream Focus leads with the "evil deletionists attempting to get their way" card, no points for that. He tries to describe it as a list. I'm going to count this as a vote for the "necessary framework" argument.
• SoWhy goes for necessary framework. In the discussion, NOT#PLOT comes up again.
• Peregrine Fisher goes for adding sources, an effort to fight the "dependent on licenses sources" argument. Decent strategy, hard to say it was enough.
• HJ Mitchell plays "not cleanup": again little weight on the fourth AFD.
• Epeefleeche, BryanG, Cube Lurker, Rlendog, Dekkapai, Bobby T., JoshuaZ, Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando, Willscrit and Schmucky all basically "me too" on the "necessary framework" argument.
• Stifle argues NOR. This came up in the initial nomination as well, but nobody identifies a piece of OR that needs to be NORed. No weight here.

In summary, this goes to a tension between the "necessary framework" side and the "not#plot" side, and I don't see a consensus. My preference would be to relist with a summary similar to what I've given in this answer, caution A Nobody, Ikip, Dream Focus, and Doctorfluffy to stick to legitimate points and language, and ask for the current commenters to try to come to a consensus on those two issues. In current procedure, a "no consensus" with the same plea is as good as it could get. Of the arguments presented, only a compelling version of the copyright violation argument could have forced my hand, and it just wasn't strong enough to do that.

On a purely personal level, I still think 400 articles summarizing the plot of Star Wars is beyond excessive, but I can respect the argument that an overall framework article might not be the place to start the trim.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Question from Lankiveil

15. What action, if any, would you take with a user who had the following userbox on their user page?

This user respects all races, but is proud to be white!

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A:My first instinct would be to ignore it unless drawn into a controversy over it. I'm not big on userboxes, and don't tend to scan for them or investigate them unless the problem is obvious. I didn't recognize the image without doing some research, and the link isn't to a grossly offensive article. Give me the same appearance, but a link to Lynching in the United States or Grand Wizard, and I would be more inclined to be personally excited. In its current state, if push came to shove and others came to the conclusion that it violated WP:USERBOX#Content restrictions, I wouldn't take actions to defend it, either. Userboxes are one of those problems I wish we didn't have, because they don't have much to do with building an encyclopedia, but there has always been a tension between "Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia as a community", and userboxes are emblematic of the community perspective. Some userboxes are always going to occur that bother some people. There's a continuum between "Proud to Be Irish" (or any other white ethnic group, which no one would be upset by) and "Let's Go Stomp On Blacks" (that very few could defend), and this one falls in a zone where I wouldn't feel comfortable making sole judgment.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A last-minute question from Phantomsteve

16. Who Put the Bomp (In the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp)?

A. I do not know. I do, however, have it on good authority that the lady that is sure that all that glitters is gold is none other than the inimitable Shirley Bassey.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Kww
• Requests for adminship/Kww 2
• Requests for adminship/Kww 3
• Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion
• Requests for adminship/Kww 4

• Links for Kww: Kww (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kww can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on the talk page.  7  23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Question 16: What does the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia have to do with anything? Well, never mind. Party's starting a little early in the sandbox, we have lots of non-notable bands playing, come on guys.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, due to the large number of supporters, we're moving the party to Carlos 'n' Charlie's.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't link due to questionable copyrights, but if you looked up "Stairway to Heaven" and "Doug Anthony All Stars" on YouTube, all would be revealed.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Must lose something in translation from Ozzian.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. While I didn't participate in RfA 3 I have read it in full. It appears the candidate is aware of things he could have done better in the past; and stands by the things he thinks he did properly. That candour and honesty, and a willingness to put himself forward for RfA 4 after the nature of RfA 3, are big pluses in my book. We shouldn't be reticent to promote candidates merely because they are not milquetoast uncontroversial, or sit on one side or the other of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum. I am satisfied that giving this candidate the tools will be a net benefit to the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
2. I supported last time, and I think I will again. You've done some good work, and you've shown that you have potential to serve the community as an admin well. ceranthor 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - I supported in the last RfA and I don't have any reason to not do so again this time. -- Atama頭 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Support again. In fact I'm just going to copy over most of my support comment from last time: "Some users have the perseverance to actually listen to the criticisms from their previous RFAs and learn from them. How is it that a certain crowd is willing to assume good faith and keep almost any article, but perpetually oppose someone they have had a disagreement with. KWW seems to have a strong understanding of the admin approach to decision making, which is based on an understanding of Wikipedia policies and current consensus, not personal feelings. I trust him to use the tools." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Strong support as nominator last time. He deserved to pass last time. He presents his own work better than I can. I know him from working side by side with him on Natalee Holloway, a FA and TFA he did much work on, and persisted with in the face of vandalism and opposition. Pass him, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - While there have been times that I felt Kww has been a bit heavy handed, we must all be reminded that administrative actions are reversible. In giving my support, I request that Kww asks for help in situations where they are not sure about the correct course of action to take, and be willing and open to others critiquing their work. I know Kww well from their edits at SPI userspace, and have come to find a dedicated user with a knack for catching sockpuppets. We could always use more active administrators at SPI. Tiptoety ^talk 00:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Even just reading the long statement he's made, I think that he's got the right idea and knows what he's done right and wrong.  fetchcomms☛ 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
9. Support despite Kww's and my vastly differing opinions on notability and inclusion in the 'pedia, I can see he is dedicated to improving the 'pedia, worth a trial with the mop. Remember that we have an effective review mechanism in the arbitration committee for anyone who misuses tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. I was a bit shocked by the first two words to the answer to Q5, but when I saw that he wouldn't be opposed to the block being lifted once the blocked editor understands what is wrong. This is fully in line with WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks, in that if an editor sees no reason to stop disrupting we have no reason to allow him to edit. Also, great answer to Q6. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. Kww doesn't have the greatest history, but let the past be the past, guys. He has always been a dedicated contributor; this is seen through his contributions and endless efforts to keep banned users like Brexx from coming back. Clearly, he keeps Wikipedia's best interests in mind. He's done extensive work in several different areas through the last few years and I haven't seen anything from the past year that would make me question his judgment in the slightest. I think Kww would be nothing but a net positive with the tools. — ξ^xplicit 01:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Plenty of experience. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - No issues here. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
14. Support overdue imho. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
15. Support watched from the sidelines last time, convinced by opening statement this time. Icewedge (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Ray^Talk 03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - A candidate with an eventful background, who seems to have learned from his experiences. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Support - I supported before in your third RfA and I'm supporting again. Valley2city^‽ 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. No previous unpleasant interactions. The blocks and past history are concerning but Kww seems to have learned from those mistakes. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - No problems here. Will make a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
21. Support No objections at all. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
22. Support I opposed at the last RfA, but I see no recent problems, and so I am happy to support this time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
23. Looks fine to me. 頑張って!  7  06:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
24. Seems to have learned from previous mistakes. Should be no problems with this one. BigDom 06:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Support – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Admiration for the honesty and openness with which the candidate has approached this RfA. Should make a great addition to the ranks of vandal blockers and sockpuppet investigators. And has a bit of passion for the project, which is no bad thing -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
27. Support as last time (though I opposed on RFAs 1 and 2). Kww has acknowledged his mistakes, and is ready to move on. Even though I have differences with him when it comes to the proper application of notability and deletion policices, he has a generally sensible approach to process issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
28. I supported last time as a net positive and my opinion has not significantly changed. If anything a stronger support than last time due to the impressive honesty and willingness to "hold your hands up" over past errors. Making mistakes is not the issue - refusing to learn from them is. I don't see we have anything like that issue with Kww and that's the turn-key for me. Pedro :  Chat  07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

    Support Tough to go through this so many times. I hope you get it this time. Your recent history is worth my standards. Best wishes for this RfA.115.242.81.6 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, but IP's are not enfranchised. Comment indented (or please sign in) Pedro :  Chat  08:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

29. Strong support - Last AfD was definitely close, and the previous one reeked of politics (especially oppose #7). Definitely time, and the elevation of which would validate some of the progress that's been made in making RfA less absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Nov 07 is a very long time ago in wiki time and I'm happy to disregard such an old block. All else seems fine. ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Support   pablo_hablo. 09:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    tempted to move to oppose re the answer to Q16:– clearly admins should know who supplied the ingredients to the rama lama ding dong et al.   pablo_hablo. 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
32.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Kww. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. About time. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
34. Yes. I've, particularly recently, come across Kww a lot at RPP, when he's requesting a bulk protection on a number of sock targets. His dediction to hunting down and dealing with socks is admirable, and having the mop will only make it easier. And additionally mean that I won't have to deal with his protection requests ;) GedUK  10:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
35. Support- well and truly overdue. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
36. Support, assumed you already were... anemoneprojectors talk 11:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
37. Obvious record of good work and (recent) good sense. The prefacing Act of Contrition makes it hard to resist a Support !vote. Also, great answers, especially to question 14. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I'm pleased you've realised the mistakes you made earlier in your career, anyway, a long term contributor with a barnstar too. Minimac (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Aiken ♫ 11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
40. Support communications with others seems to have improved since number 3. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
41. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
42. Support as previously. Kww does excellent work in important areas, and would greatly benefit from admin tools. Granting him adminship is overdue. ~ mazca ^talk 13:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Whether he was before or not, Kww is ready to be an admin.--Chaser (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
44. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Shows clear reasoning and dedication to the project. Someone with the great brass fingers and perseverence to bring What the Bleep Do We Know!? and WP:GOODCHARTS into a semblance of order will make a fine addition to the mop'n'bucket brigade. I look forward to working with you. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Compelling arguments made above. Dlohcierekim 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
47. Support, looking through previous RFAs the concerns raised appear to addressed. I see no current reason to oppose. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
48. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Supported 1 & 2, missed 3, hope 4 here finally does it. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
50. Support as per previous RfAs. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Sole Soul (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
52. Now Kevin has knocked on the door,
    With RFA number four.
    Last time was so close,
    Much closer than most,
    But he'll easy pass this time, I'm sure.  f o x  17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
53. I'm really happy to see how this one is going; it may be a sign that we can all just get along, after all. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
54. Sypport Sure, since I supported you last time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
55. Support TNXMan 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
56. Support--John (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
57. Support, already. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
58. Support yeps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
59. Support as in RfAs 2 and 3. Deor (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
60. Meets my criteria, could quote myself from RfA 3 but that's a waste of bytes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
61. Convinced by a review of previous RfA's and commentary on the current one that Kww will be a solid admin. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
62. Support. Can't say much more than I have already. I have no doubts Kww can be trusted to use the admin tools with discretion, in accordance with policy, and with a willingness to accept input on their use. --auburnpilot talk 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
63. Support he seems to have enough experience to obtain the mop. Dwayne was here! ^talk 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
64. Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
65. Support - Has work he wants to do, and appears to have the experience to handle the mop properly. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
66. Support per my vote on the previous RfA. —Soap— 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
67. Give them the mop already. Demonstrated commitment to wikipedia should be worth something. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
68. Support. Experienced, dedicated, clueful guy. Useight (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
69. Support, as I have previously. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
70. Support I would have supported you last time had I seen your nomination.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
71. Support - fully meets my standards, and should "get it" by now. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. , but remember, don't bite the noobs! Bearian (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
72. I'm late, I'm late, for a very important Support! Such a great guy... Buggie111 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. - Josette (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
74. Strong support. Our areas of editing have been known to overlap and I've always valued your input, even where I've disagreed with your opinion. Never short of policy links to bring up in discussions just when you think you must have covered every policy! All in all, a knowledgeable, clueful editor whose edits are consistently helpful. A fine candidate for adminship. Fourth time's the charm hopefully! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
75. Strong Support: whilst i've never been involved in previous discussions i've read through and support all of the other supporters. Kww is an excellent example of an editor who displays patience and virtue. His edits are very rarely undone and has many times that he is not personally attached to content. He is always helpful and has been a good mediator. The makings of a good admin. I admire his attitude and personally feel like i've learnt a lot from him. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
76. Support Tan | 39 01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
77. Support: This editor seems long overdue for "administratorship"!Donatrip (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
78. Support - I'm well aware of this editor's efforts against persistent sock puppets and have worked with him regarding it. He is conscientious and patient and an asset in this area. Completely support him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
79. Don't know about you guys, but I think it's high time this fellow got promoted. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
80. Support An editor who has put up with a lot of grief and still contributes tirelessly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
81. Support. I don't always agree with him, but he's always willing to engage in discussion and well-versed in policy. liquidluck✽talk 05:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
82. Support A very hardworking editor who has been shown to be capable. Short blocks are long past in wikipedia terms. Should be given a chance to contribute with the mop. Polargeo (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
83. Weak hanging-on-by-a-thread-on-a-mechanical ventilator-in-the-ICU Support I've had both negative and positive experiences with you— to be honest, mostly negative. But that was a long time ago, and I myself didn't have the smoothest interactions when I first came to Wikipedia. I'll be watching you... I'm kidding... no I'm not. Orane (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

    • You know I find it funny how you talk as if your a mistake-free individual. Kww should watch you, considering how you have previously been abusing Admin tools. And considering your recent quarrel with BalticPatt, I believe Kww should be watching and keeping you on a tight leash.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    • How exactly have I been "abusing admin tools"? Please explain. "And considering your recent quarrel with BalticPatt"? What, admins aren't allowed to disagree with other editors? Was I uncivil towards him? Are you aware of the ensuing e-mail discussions between us? No. Then you don't know enough about the situation to comment. I don't speak like I'm a "mistake-free individual" because I explicitly stated that I myself have had rough interactions on Wikipedia. Orane (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

84. Support, as I always have. Give him the tools already. - eo (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
85. Yes. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
86. Support - I like all the answers. LK (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
87. Support.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
88. Cautious Support I trust Kww to do what he sees as the right thing. I'm still not certain that I trust his judgment about the right thing. There are a number of editors who put their own views above the community when using the bit and I worry that Kww will be one of them. But his contributions have been outstanding for the last year or so. So if not now when? Kevin could easily have ditched this account and made a new one and made admin. No question. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
89. Support. Clearly dedicated, thoughtful and intelligent communicator; WP needs more of those. As to the "wikicop" theme raised by opposers and neutrals, I would agree that admins who run around just happily waving their wikicop badges are to be discouraged. However, I don't sense that here. Martinp (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
90. I don't even remember what it was, but I had some interaction with him that raised a red flag. Because of that (and because it seemed in conflict with my prior opinion of him) Kww became an editor whose comments I paid attention to when I came across them. Initially that was driven by my desire to figure out what I really thought of him, but later it was because I found his comments a helpful marker in trying to orient myself in a long debate (think AN/I, or something of the sort). And based on that, I feel comfortable with the idea of letting him have a few extra buttons. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
91. Support. No recent controversy. Good contributions and a good understanding of policies. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
92. Support. --JayHenry (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. Because, to quote the end of Rocky IV, "Everyone can Change", and it's been two years since this editor was getting into trouble. Cathardic (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
94. Support As I did before...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
95. Just as I did in 3/2, for similar reasons. Nothing about the candidate has changed in the interim. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
96. Support Seems to have a handle on all the relevent stuff.MurfleMan (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
97. Support No worries here. AniMate 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
98. Support. I see nothing wrong with any answers. 7OA chat 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
99. Strong Support I have supported Kevin on Kww 3, and will continue supporting until he becomes an Admin. Kevin has always shown wise and trustful judgement, as I have never seen him be biased or unfair. Looking forward to the good news!!!--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
100. Support Longtime, hardworking editor with experience with both content and administration, who has not attracted controversy recently and who appears to be trustworthy enough to be given the tools. Kww will no doubt be careful to use the mop properly; I am confident that he will based on his solid answers to the questions. Reading through the past three RfAs, I realize that Kww's candidacies have been considered problematic in the past, and while I have carefully considered the arguments presented by opposers in those RfAs and in this one, I am not convinced to oppose or even remain neutral. This candidate has earned our respect during his tenure, and I feel he deserves my support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
101. Support—Jack Merridew 05:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
102. Support- Answers and explanations are well thought-out and refreshingly sensible. SS✞^(Kay) 05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
103. Should be fine. Tim Song (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
104. Support; Kevin has been helpful and courteous to me, and shared his experience without hesitation. I've been watching his Talk page and observing his actions esp. in music-related areas for months now, and he seems to have good, steady hands for holding a mop. His facility for clear expression in English and his sense of humor will help him help us. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
105. Comment #85 on Kww 3 still holds. He's honest, willing to discuss his past and willing to be held accountable to it, which is better than many admins who presently work on difficult stuff. ALl the best. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
106. Support: Growth and persistence. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
107. 4th time lucky as they say? Well I hope so because Kww is a fine editor who I'm sure will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
108. Very helpful and decent user: giving Kww the tools will be beneficial to the project. I have no concerns whatsoever. Acalamari 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
109. Support: understands that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Cardamon (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
110. Support Been reading the last three RFA's over the last few days, don't have any outstanding concerns. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
111. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
112. Support as I have in the past. Kww has a comprehensive knowledge of policy and sound judgement. Nomination statement and answers to the questions only increase my confidence in his abilities. ThemFromSpace 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
113. Support; — Coren ^(talk) 20:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
114. Support — looks good! Airplaneman ✈ 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
115. Support Just as I did last time. He has matured, has experience and clue, and is a great contributor. --StaniStani  21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
116. Support I have briefly dealt with Kww in the past as well as observed some of his contrubutions, all of which have driven me to believe that he'd undoubtedly make a decent administrator.--Harout72 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
117. Support Candidate seems perfectly fine to me. — Scientizzle 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
118. AGK 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
119. Support again, as I have the last two times :-) KWW certainly meets my criteria for an admin. Nothing has changed since then to show any reason to oppose him now. He has a solid understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. His dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Certainly having more admins willing to deal with anything Disney is an extra perk, and recognizing the serious problem with have with being overly permissive with the Bambifan101 socks and those who help him is a plus, not the negative people wrongly made it out to be in the last round. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
120. Support per my support rationales in RFAs Kww and Kww 3 (and I missed Kww 2 or I would have supported there too). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
121. Support Jumping on the support train, wishing I'd been here earlier to be Support vote 10 rather than 110, or whatever number I am here :). I believe Kww is a fine, well-intentioned, and thoughtful editor, based on my experiences working with Kww as well as a jaunt through Kww's other contributions, which are many and varied. Kww would make a superlative admin, with his respect for consensus, his patience, and his reliance on protocol. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
122. No problems in my opinion. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
123. Support Ok. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
124. Support Knows his way round vandalism & sockpuppetry issues and would be a useful asset. Rodhullandemu 23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
125. Although issues have been raised in the past, now would be a fine time for Kww to have the tools. (Although I was inclined to oppose when I saw it was the fourth RfA until reading the full background.) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
126. Support After lots of reading.  Chzz  ►  07:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
127. Weak support – OK, why not? I was thinking about this one for a good while, and I think Kww has significantly improved since the last RFA in which I did oppose. I still have a couple of reservations, but I don't think with the recent activity is enough for me to oppose. Anyways, don't let me down, now. –MuZemike 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
128. Strong support: Kww will always have my support. - Zhang He (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
129. Support - Good involvement in WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:AN, WP:VPT, WP:SPI & WP:CHARTS too. Vipin Hari || talk 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
130. Strongest possible support for a user who is long overdue for the mop and bucket. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
131. Support for a superb candidate. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
132. Support - I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
133. SUPPORT. Let the WARS begin!!!! Pcap ping 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

     If you are looking for a military leader, I'm afraid that I'm not your man.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

134. Support - Fourth time's a charm. Great work, per above. I really hate how some people can't understand that we are humans, and that we can make isolated mistakes without turning into bad people. Best of luck, and you should work on that military leader thing ;) Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OpposeWeak Oppose (per statements in Neutral section) Moving from Neutral. On further consideration, this "Indef block until the offender accepts the Truth" attitude is extremely troubling. In any project, variety of thought, including criticism of power structure, should always be considered a strength. In a project like Wikipedia with labyrinthine guidelines which are constantly in flux, and which are, after all, only made up by fellow editors, an inflexible attitude towards criticism of the status quo would be disastrous. On a personal level, I was blocked by an involved Admin for restoring my own !vote which he had removed. I refused to apologize during the block, and I did apologize for the incivility-- which was used as a post-block justification by the Admin-- after the block had expired. I did not apologize during the block because I felt it was unjust, and that the incivility complaint was made post-block. I continue to believe I was in the right and the Admin was in the wrong. Were this Admin to follow Kww's philosophy, I would still be blocked. Cannot in good conscience sit on the fence on this one. Dekkappai (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   You are entitled to your views, of course, but Kww's response seems very appropriate to me. You may be confusing an indef block with a ban from the site. What Kww has said is "I've blocked, until the person agrees to cease the misbehavior, then he can come back and I'll AGF. To make things easier, I'll waive consultation and allow any admin to unblock without the requirement that they talk to me first." Sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Hi Wehwalt. In the case in which I was involved, the block would have been a ban because I refused to apologize, or even to say I'd stop being incivil. I did this out of principle because I felt the block was wrong, and didn't want to validate what I felt to be an unjust block by apologizing under it just so I could edit again. I did apologize for the incivility after the block had expired, because I was wrong to use incivility, and apologizing for that was the right thing to do. My point is that a hard-nosed attitude, in this case, would have resulted in the banning of, at least, a non-vandal, if not a productive editor. Agree to disagree, of course, and, obviously, Kww's going to get the bit. I just hope he takes into consideration that differing attitudes towards some of the rules and guidelines are good for the project, and enforced conformity is not. Anyway, don't want to make this RfA about me and my incident, which was totally unrelated to Kww. So I'll leave it at that. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   The indef block would only be after a short block for the same behavior and the question notes that the behavior is clearly against the rules (3RR is about as bright-line as rules get). I don't see how the answer really applies to your incident if you apologized after the block (which would suggest that you didn't continue the behavior). Mr.Z-man 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   The block was to be lifted if I apologized, which I refused to do because it was an unjust block-- The blocking Admin was in dispute with me and blocked me for restoring my !vote which he had removed. In spite of the block, I apologized for the incivility after it had been lifted because the incivility was wrong. No matter how long the block, I would have refused to apologize under it because it reeked of Wiki-cop vigilantism. I was an experienced, productive editor of 3 1/2 years when I received this pedagogic block, yet I would now still be blocked if Kww's "block 'em till they say 'uncle'" idea were enforced. Imagine how new, inexperienced editors will react. Dekkappai (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   You're comparing apples with oranges, though. The example that Kww was given was of an editor that was blocked for edit-warring, and then immediately repeated that behaviour upon the expiry of the block. This is not consistent with your example. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, I see your point. The concerns mentioned in the "Neutral" statement (under Otis) still apply though. I'll soften my oppose, and hope Kww proves my concerns unfounded. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   ...Although... one of the main reasons I ceased the incivility after the block, was only that I'd already seen so much similar abuse from Admins here. If I had had a similar block earlier in my Wiki-career, I'd have certainly gone nuclear with the incivility after the block. Maybe apologized to get unblocked after the second one, and then harrassed the Admin even more, then get banned. So Wikipedia would have lost a potentially productive editor thanks to the ham-fisted behavior of an Admin. So, no, it's not that much apples and oranges... more like... grapes and raisins?... I guess my concern with the block thing is that some basic understanding of human behavior would be a nice pre-requisite for Adminship. But, obviously, that's not going to happen... Dekkappai (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   If someone decides to lie in order to get unblocked, then go "nuclear with the incivility", I fail to see how that can be blamed entirely on the admin. Just because someone isn't an admin doesn't mean that they're excused from personal responsibility. And I disagree that such a response is normal human behavior. Its the same concept in the real world. Getting a ticket you didn't deserve is not an excuse for assaulting a police officer. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   But it appears to me that, because some admin inappropriately deleted your !vote (as I understand your presentation of the event), and then stubbornly blocked you for restoring it, you want to punish Kww's stretch for the mop because you assume he's going to be just as unfair and spiteful as that other admin. That's like throwing out all the oranges in your house because you once had a bad apple. Or something. I think you're assuming the wrong thing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. In RFA #3 I opposed without the "weak" qualifier, on the grounds that admins have tenure and it's virtually impossible to rid ourselves of a bad one--which means I need to be certain, and with Kww, I'm simply not. This editor is active in contentious areas, and has in the past lost his temper, which isn't a good sign in an adminship candidate. But, it's been a while since the last such incident so I've downgraded my oppose to "weak". After another few conflict-free months I'd be neutral.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose; Very standoffish; Not a good quality in an admin. Admin actions are not black and white, they require considerable judgment in some cases. I'm especially troubled by his stance towards tending to bite newcomers. Needs to mellow considerably before I'd reconsider. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Can you offer any recent diffs for that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   No, I can't; I'm not familiar with this editor. Reading his responses to the questions above, as well as the previous RFAs causes concern for how he would use the tools. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose changed to neutral, see below I do not trust him to not follow his own view of what the content of Wikipedia should be like, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I do not trust him to follow consensus. I'm judging on overall pattern, & I don't want to focus on specific instances yet a 4th time. I did enough of that at the previous RfAs. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose As stated in his past attempts, I don't trust him. Comments like this: [3] "As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around." cause me great concern that he will ignore whatever consensus is, and just delete something he personally doesn't like. Dream Focus 05:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I going to add an example of something that just happened, that I believe demonstrates his character quite well. Kww nominates an article for deletion, it ending in no consensus. 13 minutes later, he replaces it with a redirect eliminating the article anyway. [4] This is reverted. He then sends it to AFD again, the day after the last AFD closed. Dream Focus 06:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   People considering this statement should consider my comments on the closing admin's page, this discussion between Silver Seren, Moonriddengirl and myself, the remaining "keep" voters statement that "I personally feel the that the AFD should have been relisted", and, of course, my detailed explanation of why there wasn't any remaining content to keep in a standalone article.—Kww(talk) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   The only reason I agreed to a relisting was because I was afraid that you were going to continue to try and redirect the article, against the recently closed AfD, and that I, in trying to stop that from happening, would be forced into a 3RR situation. Silverseren^C 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   It's a shame you didn't say something before now about it (or did you?), so that somebody could have dealt with your concerns. It appears you are revealing your motivations for the first time right here. How could anybody (Kww or otherwise) have guessed what you based your decision on? And especially, how could they have come to the "true" conclusion about the basis of your involvement when you – twice – wrote: "I personally feel that the AfD should have been relisted, as two votes hardly seems like consensus to me and if there had been more keep votes and arguments against redirecting, that would have been that. But, alas, that didn't happen." That seems like a very clear willingness for relisting, as opposed to the reluctant, painted-into-a-procedural-corner situation you appear to be depicting it as here.

   It happens that, after looking over the links provided by Kww above (and the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. AfD discussion), I agree with the outcome regarding the articles and their content. I also don't have a problem with the process he followed, except that I readily understand how the redirect could look like an "up-yours" move. Unfortunately, I can't see what Kww used in the edit summary for the redirect. But maybe my acceptance is based in part on the trusted image he's built up in my eyes, so I read his words in a different voice than others do. I also wasn't attached to N.I.N.A./Left Eye/Lisa Lopes/How many identities does she need? so it's easier for me not to feel defensive. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   The edit summary was "Redirecting to appropriate subsection of Lisa Lopes. Sources are vague, and do not support all claims made in this article".--Chaser (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I was involved in this obscure AfD dispute, as someone who initially voted Keep, and then shifted his vote to delete/redirect based on what was, to me, sterling work by Kww on the article's talk page to support the redirect. Regardless, anybody looking at this is again advised to look at the links supplied by Kww above demonstrating his process work before the Redirect, and not to take Dream Focus' representation of how things went down at face value, because he is not describing the full situation. Kww demonstrated caution and a respect for consensus before performing the redirect, caution which many others might not have exercised. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

5. I agree with Kww on most things. As satisfying as it might be to "pack the Court", if you will, with another admin with whom I am ideologically aligned, I think I would rather not. Admins with (declared) predispositions about fiction and notability walk a fine line, and I think Kww lacks the diplomacy necessary to be a judicious administrator of this area. We have enough poisonous people and enablers there, and I don't think Kww+sysop is going to be able to add constructively to resolution of the broad problem. Sorry, Kww. ÷seresin 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose The way the N.I.N.A. article redirect was handled gives considerable concern over the ability to be constructively level headed when dealing with others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, unregistered users cannot vote on RFAs. Please feel free to add comments in the above discussion section though, where they will be considered by other users. --Deskana (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose Insufficient content creation - the candidate's edits seem relentlessly regressive and reactionary. And there seems to be a bitter, ad hominem edge to them too. For example, in this case, what seems to be a good faith edit is reverted on weak grounds with a personal attack. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Placeholder Neutral I think I will support, but not quite there yet, i'm going to make Kww earn it. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Full Neutral per Dekkapai. I have no doubt that Kww is a good editor and this RFA is going to pass anyway, but the sentiment of "You didn't listen to us and our standards so now we're going to block you until you do" won't reach the proper results in most cases. It seems almost pedagogic I think it'll only cause more frustration on the person being blocked and possibly only further fuel their disruptive behavior. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Adminship is not to be earned, but if it were, Kevin has. Dlohcierekim 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   I cannot agree. Adminship is not a prize, but it is a responsibility of trust, and that trust must be earned. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral I've opposed in the past, and if you want me to be honest, I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of this RFA passing. It's also true that most of these concerns come from events that are somewhat dated. So though i'm still not comfortable jumping on the support side, here's to hoping my concerns are unfounded. Unless something new develops between now and then I won't oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral Want to support this time, but I'm still getting that "Wikicop" feeling, and feel very strongly that we have too many Paul Blarts using Wikipedia to play Dirty Harry these days. Many of the Supports indicate that there has been a real change in the candidate's attitude. I just don't see evidence of real change in the philosophy, rather than a softening of rhetoric, behind the notorious quote alluded to but not linked to above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28fiction%29&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955) Quotes from the candidate on this page like, "If they think a guideline needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed", and the interpretation of "IAR" (it means a certain rule hasn't been written yet) are common Wikicop-think. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not play games with ever-changing, never-settled guidelines... I look through the candidate's recent edits don't inspire a feeling of real change either... That said, the softening of the rhetoric is, at least, a step in the right direction. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Note Oops-- that's me above logged into my mainstream Japanese-cinema-friendly name. Dekkappai (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral While I would normally oppose a 4th RfA, Kww's rationale in questions 5 and 6 1/2 is far more correct than Dekkappai's oppose rationale. Blocks aren't timeouts, and should not be lifted (absent a community discussion showing no consensus for the block) unless the problematic behavior is repudiated. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   I did not repudiate the problematic behavior for which, allegedly, I was blocked during the block. So I should still be blocked? Dekkappai (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   Was there a discussion which concluded with a consensus that the block was excessive? If not, then yes. I suspect that since you're NOT still blocked, then the behavior in question was either not sufficiently outside the pale and/or was not repeated. If you'd like to talk in more specifics, feel free to start a separate discussion on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

4. I have some concerns - notably that you are too rigid in your view of WP process. However, my concerns aren't sufficient to oppose. You do have my respect and, as this looks likely to pass, I wish you the best.--Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
5. I opposed the last time around due to serious concern's about the candidate's attitude when interacting with other people. His behavior during that RfA was above reproach and showed that he's capable of much, much better, but my cynical side expects that when the stress levels rise that ugliness will be front and center. Considering his experience and skill, the significant shift in community attitude towards him, and the fact that my own view is based in part on cynicism, I do not feel my concerns are sufficient to oppose. I wish the candidate luck.--~TPW 11:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral - Kww has contributed significant amounts to Wikipedia and has a clear need for the tools, and seems to pass most of my criteria fine. I am still not fully though that Kww is suitable for the role of an administrator, along the lines of key criterion 7, with the Meursault2004 incident still an issue for me. While I appreciate and have read Kww's nomination statement on the issue, I am not convinced by it. I will not oppose however given that this was a while ago now and I have not seen anything fresh in the oppose section which is of serious concern to me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
7. neutral changed from oppose. I did not expect to be changing my vote, but his answers to my question and to Langviels following question (and the other questions as well) are so impressive, showing understanding and skill--which is no surprise, and also judgment--which is more of a surprise, at least to me -- that I think it would be unfair for me not to acknowledge it. Additionally, a careful review of recent edits shows similarly good skill, judgment, and even tact. I will be very glad if the change is real. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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