Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko 2: Difference between revisions

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

Kumioko

Final (28/46/16); ended 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Useight (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Kumioko (talk · contribs) I know that some editors do not like self nominations but I am going to do it anyway. For those that aren't already familiar with me and my edits here is a little bit about myslef and my editing. I started editing June 4, 2007, in April 2008 I made my first try for adminship and swore I would never do it again. I guess I lied but I did wait 4 years to do it. In June 2010 was the 1st time I made more than 10, 000 edits in a month and the month I made my 100, 000th edit. In December 2010 was the most edits I completed in 1 month (30, 654). In January 2011 - Made my 200, 000th edit and December 5, 2011 I Exceeded 300, 000. I am on pace to hit 400, 000 in about December or January. My primary reason for applying this time is because it seems like requests are taking longer and longer to get filled, more and more experienced admins are leaving or getting banned, and frankly I believe I have been here long enough and have enough experience that at this point there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to edit a protected article or block a persistent vandal. If I could get the tools any other way than enduring the RFA process I would but its currently the only way so if this is what I have to do then so be it.

I had some trouble with my account a few months ago and the admins had to do some magic to fix it so my count won't come out right. In order to get it right you'll have to look at User:Kumioko and User:Kumioko (renamed) both and add the totals up. Here is a link to a page I created August 8th, 2012 that combines them for ease of review. Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

Over the last few years I have been active in a wide array of things. I can honestly say I would probably do a broad spectrum of tasks but primarily I will probably concentrate on the following things:

1. Helping out with protected edit requests which frequently has a several day to weeks backlog
2. Helping out at the various Village pumps and the Teahouse
3. Working on things like Database reports
4. Work relating to maintaining and improving WikiProject United States and the 93+Projects supported by it and the aricles supported by those projects.

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

There are a couple of things that I am particularly proud of. First I have been active in creating and improving content related to American Medal of Honor recipients. Many of the Featured and Good content I have worked on relates to that and many of the articles I have created also relates to that topic. I also think that the work I have done with rebuilding and maintaining WikiProject United States and the roughly 93 projects it supports has had a huge impact. I have also done a lot of work in standardizing the WikiProject banners and cleaning up the talk pages.

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?

Yes, anyone who says otherwise in Wikipedia is probably not telling the whole story or hasn't been here very long. Very few editors or admins make it their entire time in Wikipedia without encountering some sort of conflict with another editor. The culture of Wikipedia, unfortunately, can be a very hostile place and disagreements are fairly common. This last February I was engaged in a dispute over whether a WikiProject had the right to tell another WikiProject they couldn't tag an article. I argued that one WikiProject did not have the right to tell another they couldn't and that it amounted to article ownership. I reverted a couple of his edits as what I saw as vandalism and submitted the issue to ANI. I was then blocked for edit warring, got very angry and did everything to try and appeal it with nothing but frustration in the system to show for it and almost left the pedia over the ordeal.

Additional question from Someguy1221

4. With regard to the village pumps, teahouse, database reports, and WikiProjects that you mention in your answer to Q1; what role do you think you will serve as an administrator that you could not serve as a regular editor?

There are a lot of things that relate to those areas that I cannot currently do. For example, in the Database reports there are a lot of obvious cleanup tasks that warrant speedy deletion but I cannot do it without the tools. Things come up fairly frequently in the Village pumps about protected templates, vandalism or a variety of other things I also cannot do. The tools will allow me to be more productive rather than just be the middle man referring the task out to someone else.Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from PumpkinSky

5. You've been around a long time. How effective do you feel the socking and disruptive user polices are in regards to users who keep getting blocked/banned/etc but yet keep coming back and do you think those policies should be changed? If so, changed how?

Frankly I think both those policies could use some review but not everyone probably thinks that I don't think either are particularly effective. In fact I think in many respects they aggravate the problem more than relieve it. I think that a lot of users have tried to make an honest return but then their labelled as socks and in my opinion, often times, that just causes them to start hating the pedia and turn into a vandal or Puppet master for real since they are being blamed for it. I do also think that there are a lot of "disruptive edits" that are more a matter of opinion than disruptive. All too often I see people side with their friend than do the right thing. I really don't know how to change it, but I do know that they need to be reviewed.Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Atama

6. I appreciate your candor in mentioning the incident in February that led to your block, it would have come up anyway I'm sure and self-disclosure means you aren't hiding it. Some (including myself) might consider your behavior leading up to the block, and reaction to the block, to be unbecoming of an administrator. What are your feelings on that subject, would you have behaved differently if that event happened now, and why would you behave differently now (aside from wanting to avoid a block)?

Well to be honest I think a lot of people did things wrong including myself. I was hurt, frustrated and no matter what I said no one cared. That block was a bad one from the start and for all the wrong reasons. I was reverting edits that I felt and still feel to this day were in violation of Wikipedia's policies on article ownership and it was extremely innparopriate for the other editor to say that a project cannot tag an article that also fell under a project they were a member of. Everything that happened after it was just as bad and frankly I should have just let it go and left rather than take it to heart. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Followup from Dank: Are you saying you'd be happier now if you had left Wikipedia for good then, and if so, what changed your mind?

I don't think I would be happier per say. What I mean to say is that I lost a lot of credit so to speak with that incident and I'm not likely to get it back. It has been and will continue to be an uphill climb. As will be evident as this RFA continues I fear. It also severely hampered efforts to get WikiProject US going, its been extremely slow since then which is a direct result of my active participation as sort of the defacto leader of the project. What changed my mind was I saw WPUS and the projects it supports go untouched. No one stepped in to do the Newsletter, to run the collaboration or various other tasks. I knew that if I left then that project and all the work I did to get it back running would go to waste. I didn't want that to happen and I believe in the project so I stayed. Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

7. I've just handed you a magic wand but it is only good for one trick. What aspect or area of Wikipedia do you use it on?

Overhauling the RFA process. Its emotionally draining, way too difficult and IMO its more of a hindrance to the pedia than a benefit. Everyone knows its broken, most who are familiar with it want to do something about it and a magic wand, a swish and a wish are about the only way it will ever get fixed.Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Some WPUS questions from 28bytes

8. You mentioned yesterday that you considered the removal of a WPUS project tag to be "article ownership/vandalism." Do you still consider the removal of project tags to be vandalism, or were you just describing how you felt at the time?

I don't think it matters what project, it could be WPUS but it could be Milhist, Biography, USRoads, etc. If a project sets their scope and tags an article another project shouldn't be able to remove that tag and certainly shouldn't get into an edit war over it. I think it reflects negative article ownership and as such by extension constitutes a level of vandalism when they persist in removing it. I can't go around removing WikiProject Connecticut for example but they shouldn't be yanking off WPUS either. Vandalism doesn't have to be deleting an article, adding call X for a good time or saying such and such is this or that, it could be just well intentioned such as this case. I like to refer to it as "domestic vandalism". To answer the question more directly, in the case you present for American Cruise lines, yes I do beleive that consituted a degree of vandalism and heres's why. In addition to articles relating directly to the US, WikiProject US also supports 90+ other projects/topics. As such removing the WPUS tag could also be removing the tag from USGov, USPresidential elections, FBI, Arizona, or any number of others. Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Suppose I write an article, you tag it as being in the scope of WPUS, and I disagree and remove the tag. How should the disagreement be resolved?

I think again it boils down to article ownership. Just because you create the article doesn't mean you own it. It would be no different than saying you don't allow Portal tags or the Persondata template. As for resolution. I always discuss things first. Although it may appear to some that I am just a gunslinger who shoots first and asks questions later its just not so. The fact that I have had more disagreements than others is a direct result of 3 things; the large edit count (over 350, 000) the wide array of topics I edit (I have at or over 1000 edits in almost every namespace except Help, Book and Mediawiki and their associated talk pages and that I already participate in Admin related areas, which as has already been pointed out, can be contentious. If I stayed to one topic, only meddled in one or 2 namespaces or stayed out of ANI then it wouldn't look as negative IMO. Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Jorgath

10. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of Wheel warring, its unlikely that I would revert another admin and even less likely I would do it without discussing it prior. But sometimes admins make mistakes too and many of them have a free revert policy telling others to feel free to revert their decisions so that may have some bearing on the decision if it should occur. REgarding the incident in February, lets remember it was instigated not by me but by an editor who felt that their project took precedence over another, which in itself violates multiple policies as I have mentioned before. I have never and would never tell another project or member of another project that a project I support took precedence over theirs. If I was removing another one, say WikiProject Conneticut, Alaska or USRoads I would have been immediately blocked and that those users are allowed to remove the WPUS tag is troubling. The fact that several admins supported the users actions is to me in itself disturbing and its even more disturbing that I am the only one that recognizes that a WikiProject or a member of one shouldn't be exerting ownership of articles. That used to be a core principle but I guess that requirement has relaxed some over the years.

In regards to Admin accountability. I think it goes without saying that one would be accountable to use the tools wisely. I would expect that if I or any other admin were running amok that they would lose the tools and I am no exception. Additionally, I would also be one of those who is open to having my edits reverted without needing to discuss it if another admin felt I made a bad call. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hahc21

11. This is an inevitable situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

First I should clarify that I am never going to be the guy that does a lot of blocks or participates in deletions. I think blocks are severely abused and overused in Wikipedia and a lot of them that are done are an overreaction to minor incidents by involved parties. I think more often than not they have the affect of driving off an editor or potential editor. If they are vandals or violating copyright that's different. I think in general blocks are viewed by the blocked in a couple ways in no particular order: It either makes them mad and potentially causes them to try and redeem themselves such as I did, in some it causes them to become vandals and sockpuppets (this is actually pretty common, more so than many people know). With that said, I will do some undoubtedly but my interests are in other areas and other tools in the Admin set. Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Which do you believe were the reasons that led your previous RFA not to succeed and how have you improved them since?

The primary reason it didn't succeed this time was the perception I can't be trusted due to the incident in February 2012. This was largely due to the massive volume of edits I do and the vast array of topics I edit. Especially the edits related to WikiProject United States which for some reason has been highly controversial. After editing for 5 years all over the pedia if I haven't earned the trust of the community by know I probably never will. Wikipedia is a contentious place so IMO if your here long enough and do enough things you'll do something that someone doesn't like. I did that so this is the result. This is the second time I submitted an RFA and the result will be the same. Its unlikely that I will submit another one. Its possibly, but unlikely. Being an admin requires a wide array of knowledge and frankly most of the admins don't have it. They are specialists in their area and know little else outside that. The RFA process is largely a popularity contest and frankly I am not, nor have I ever been the most popular editor. Well known and productive yes, but not popular. Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dusti

13. Can you explain why 28bytes blocked you for abusing multiple accounts?

Can I yes, the simple answer is a misunderstanding but there is a bit more detail to it. Clearly it wasn't a severe siisue or I wouldn't still be allowed to edit and they would have flatly opposed rather than voted neutral. It doesn't make much difference though at this point. I don't believe that anything I say at this point will mean much. The consensus of the community is clear that they feel I cannot be trusted with anything but the most basic tools and I don't believe anyone here is going to believe me or care. Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things can happen in the time that's left. However, what's concerning me the most is that the block was never lifted - yet it was modified. If it was a misunderstanding, and since we do allow legitimate sock accounts - why was the block never lifted? Dusti^*poke* 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, its because it was pointless. I was so frustrated that I deleted my Email address and scrambled my password with the intent not to edit anymore. Unfortunately the Wikisoftware won't allow the recovery of a password without an Email address and accounts with more than about 50, 000 edits cannot be merged. The only thing to do was to move the old account, create a new one with the old name and continue rolling. That's also why the edit count for this account shows so low. So even if they did unblock the other account I couldn't do anything with it anyway. I hope that helps explain it. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And in the absence of a Supernatural event its unlikely that I will garner more support than oppose votes at this point. I still want the RFA to run to completion though. Even if its 9000 oppose to 19 support. Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Kumioko: Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) + Kumioko (renamed) (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kumioko can be found here & here.
• Stats are on the talk page. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note but thats only 1/3rd of my edits. Someone needs to pull the stats for Kumioko (renamed) as well to show the full 350+ thousand. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. He's right ... he's had a huge impact, and that more than compensates IMO for the occasional rough sailing. I've always been a fan of his work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. I don't see this passing in the slightest, but Kumi's someone who has had to fight uphill to get basic respect for a good chunk of his wiki-career, and the fact that he's still here after what he's been through says a lot. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Completely agree with Dank and Wizardman. Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
4. I thought this was a reconfirmation when I first saw it listed. Since when are you not an admin? Master&Expert (Talk) 02:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   What exactly happened last February? I see people giving "moral support" or just flat-out opposing "for obvious reasons" to quote Malleus below. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Something I lovingly refer to as Dramageddon. Its a rather long and complicated story but the short answer is this: I was adding WikiProject United States Banners to articles and another user felt that they should not be on WikiProject Connecticut articles and removed them (eventhough they were for one of the WPUS supported projects). I reverted as a violation of aricle ownership/vandalism and that went on for a few a while and I submitted an ANI. The user again reverted my reversion of their edits and I made a comment that I could keep doing that all day and an admin blocked me for 31 hours. I was extremely pissed because I felt that the other user should have at least been blocked as well as they did violate 3RR. That went on back and forth. Eventually I started editing again after a couple months and the other editor involved hasn't edited since early May. There's a bit more detail to it but that's it in a nutshell. Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, all right. I'll maintain my support for the time being. I haven't seen your comments and didn't take the time to thoroughly review your contributions, but your candor in this RfA convinces me that whatever issues existed in the past are water under the bridge now. I think you'll be fine as an admin, especially considering I thought you already were one (it appears I'm the only one using that cliche at this RfA, but that is the case). Master&Expert (Talk) 12:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

5. In the last few days many editors have placed their trust with me even with my rocky boat. Per Dank and the hope Wizardman is wrong, this is my "pat it forward" and it seems we have similar interest [1]. Good luck, Mlpearc (powwow) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Love the answers to questions from Atama, Dennis, and myself.PumpkinSky talk 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. Clueful and useful comments by this user, such as above, so no worries. Br'er Rabbit 03:32, 9 august 2012 (utc) ← Street-Legal SockRabbi ;).

   I edited the above signature solely to improve page readability. Feel free to contact me with any concerns. Pakaran 04:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   unindented per Kumioko's comment. See also: "Br'er Rabbi", Bad faith, and moar drama-mongering. And teh original Br'er Rabbi ;) 06:16, 9 august 2012 (utc) (&& Risker ;) [2] *Free popcorn*]

8. Have encountered him on the Wiki. Nice guy, a grownup and does a lot. Hope he makes it. Will be good for the Wiki and for him.TCO (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Support: This user has been a great contributor, and seems to have learned from their mistakes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Moral Support - Just because. -Scottywong| chat _ 05:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. I had already typed out my oppose statement based on previous knowledge of this editor's behavior when I decided to hold off and spend some time digging through his history. It's easy to have knee-jerk reactions to people who you have had poor experiences with in the past, but looking at this user's history since "dramageddon", as he so put it, I find that he has made a commendable effort to change his past behaviors. I'm not jumping into blindly trusting him, but I'm willing to assume good faith here. It's always important to keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and nobody would put themselves through the amount of crap that any long-time editor has without either being a masochist or because they truly believe in what Wikipedia represents. In the spirit of adminship being no big deal, I feel that this user's contributions and knowledge are more than sufficient to be trusted with the bit. Remember, the mop is a few tools to aid in the administration of the project, it is not the nuclear football. Trusilver 05:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Kumioko has done an enormous amount of work and used the tools well and wisely. What more is there to say? Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
    

    Just to clarify. When you say he has used the tools well and wisely, you mean other than when he used his bot flag to block evade right? -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    He didn't, he used his bot account. And I see it as no big deal. Blocks are a blunt instrument at the best of times. Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
    

    Bot account would still be a tool and since it was bot flagged, it of course hid the edit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Since were on the topic let me say something about the use of blocks on Wikipedia and this isn't directed at me or anyone else its just a general comment. Blocks are severely overused. They should be a ast resort rather than the current mentality of block first and ask questions later. The problem is if you block someone, especially a very ective and established user, its as Rich puts it a blunt instrument, its across the board with no exceptions. That means they cannot comment at ANI, they cannot comment on discussions about their edits in other places like the noticeboards or the village pump, etc. They can only sit and watch as they are insulted, nitpicked and run down. They cannot defend themselves or their actions. Now, using myself as an example. At the time of my block I had a bot and a lot of different discussions about various things at the time. I couldn't respond to any, some editors thought I was ignoring them, some thought I forgot about the discussion and others used it as a means to turn the discussions in their favor. Now if the developers could modify the software so that admins could add certain pages as exceptions to allow the user to do certain things around the block then that would be great but thats not the case. So as Forrest Gump said..."thats all I have to say about that". As a note since my bot got blocked it now takes me days to weeks to do the same tasks that once could be done by the bot in a day or two. This means that a lot of other edits don't get done. Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

13. Support: Plenty of hot-tempered people make fine admins when they finally are able to be effective instead of being hamstrung. And an edit war survivor who knows about the emotion that hits in the midst of a dispute has a better handle on what needs to happen when they are a non-involved admin than someone who has not made any mistakes and thus has nothing from which to learn. I say give Kumioko a chance; all long-term editors will have some baggage - in RFA land, anything you've ever said or done WILL be used against you. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Support I accept the explanation of the block in February and feel that the candidate will not abuse the bit if granted it. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Leopards can change their shorts, especially after they've been commented on rather publicly. Keep going, and see you in six months. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Moral Support: You do a lot of good work, but it's still too soon since the blow up. Keep going, and see you in six months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. On WP, the more edits you do, the more enemies you make. Using a bot account to explain why you can't help someone seems a good aplication of IAR to me. And seeing as this does not look to be successful, see you in 6 months.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Moral Support You've done a lot of good work around here and have been a great help to me in the past.--Dcheagle | GO TEAM USA 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Support I read most the discussion and I am aware of most of the things discussed. It's true Kumioko needs to read Wikipedia:KEEPCOOL carefully. From the discussion I got that he needs the tools to make his life easier with moving pages, etc. I also think he should have applied for the rollback tool first and we could see him tested there first. It is also clear he won't close any XfD in the short future and I think he first has to participate in XfDs before closing some. The time that a huge drama was caused is not far ago and at first I thought it was Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Then I thought that is WP:NOBIGDEAL as soon as he follows these instructions and judging by the discussions we had I think he 'll follow them. So I support now and I ask Kumioko to use the tools only to help him in his current tasks, really be careful with rollback, block, read Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION and WP:3RR. Gibe the community the time it asks from you before fully trusting you with the tools. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Just a note that I had the rollback tool for three years and used it a fair number of times. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

20. Support; if you don't get into some conflicts after this many edits, you're probably not doing anything useful. Kumioko really deserves it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Support - "We know that for two years now, the number of people being made admins is too low. And yet we have valid concerns that admins are overstressed, and that they don't always live up to what we hope in terms of thoughtful, kind, and welcoming conduct. I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Quoted by: ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - per Malleus Fatuorum; "for all the obvious reasons." 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Adminship is really not a big deal. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Heart is in the right place. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Support I understand you have a colorful past. You have contributed for years, and I feel you deserve a second chance.--LAAFan 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Komioko certainly ran into issues before which makes it usually difficult to support. But over the last few month (after all the troubles) I have gotten to know him in the course of working togther on WPUS. With that I have come to understand a few things: Komioko works hard for a better Wikipedia. The issues that have arisen are due to article ownership by certain people on the most lame level possible. The reason why Komioko should be admin because of what he is best at - template work. Not being able to edit in that field is to the detriment of us all and leads to extra work for other admins. Also I cannot see the user misusing the tools. WP:NETBENEFIT Agathoclea (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
27. cautious Support - been thinking about this one a bit. Ultimately Kumioko's zeal, enthusiasm and devotion to the project I think render him more likely than not to be a net benefit. I share concerns raised by opposes, but a ragequit after six months of constructive admin work is still a net positive for mine. Admin behaviour is scrutinised, so we do have safety valves, hence I think this is worth a whirl (though not likely to gain consensus) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Support; having interacted with the former Administrator in the past, I have found the majority of the interaction to be positive and keeping with the highest attempts to contribute positively towards Wikipedia as a whole. Though there has been drama in the past, that is minor compared to the majority positives that have been done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, I have never been an admin. That several users so far thought I was is a positive indication. Kumioko (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Moral support. Sigh. Glrx (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose, for all the obvious reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Regretful oppose. I do appreciate your answer to my question, but I don't feel I can support this RfA, due to the way you reacted to frustration in the incident that lead you to create the new account. It's obviously not the way an administrator would be expected to react, and even though you may have learned from that experience, 6 months ago is too close for me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   No problem, with the RFA process as it is I doubt I'll pass either but I think I can be a lot more productive with the tools than to continue to edit without them. Just for clarification though, I didn't exactly create a new account. I intended to leave and locked my account, wiping out the password. After a while of fighting to redeem my honor I decided to edit again so after talking to a couple of the admins they moved the former account to Kumioko (renamed) and then I recreated the Kumioko account. Unfortunately the Wiki software isn't very well designed in the respect of recovering a password so it was the only way to fix it. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Kumioko, based on your past behavior under stress, I do not think you are even-tempered enough to remain calm in a hot dispute. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I can't support someone who has this sort of "ragequit" in their recent history. Admins need to be able to cope with (what may feel like, or what may actually be) attacks, with having their judgment questioned repeatedly and loudly, and frankly, with realizing they're wrong sometimes rather than doubling down on a dispute. I do think you're full of good intentions here, but I just don't think that your temperament is suited to the job at this point in time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Strongest possible oppose Kumioko is clearly unfit for adminship. When he flipped out because of the {{WP US}} banner brouhaha, which ended up with him losing all bot priviledges, despite my warnings, he went on to create some IP troll posing as some newcomer at WP:BIOPHYS and (successfully and purposefully) suckered me into spending countless hours giving advice to this IP (for example, here, where he feigned ignorance on what bots were, or here, and a couple of other places), who I thought was some biophysics expert. And that's on top of generally wasting WP:BAG's time by refusing to drop the issue for months. I can accept people losing their cool and being burned out. But I cannot accept people who purposefully waste other volunteer's time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not entirely familiar with this incident. Was there an SPI or anything that linked the accounts? Ryan Vesey 04:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Relevant thread. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, it all started with this thread when several users who don't like WikiProject United States, several of which had admin rights, decided to set aside the rules about article ownership and WikiProject's being able to set their own scope and tag the articles they feel are in it, and block me. This is the discussion that caused me to get frustrated and lose my cool. Because I was trying to enforce a rule that says the points above, I was blocked. Yeah I admit that made me mad. What makes me even more upset is when editors like Mr. Headbomb above only give a small piece of the story to try and sway other opinions in their favor without giving them the whole story. And they call me dramatic!. Sorry if I seem a little snide there. Kumioko (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Its quite fine if you want to oppose but can you please save the overdrama that you are accusing me of. Just so everyone is clear in the whole story here. When I got blocked I had multiple discussions open and once I was blocked I couldn't respond to any of them. Several relating to WikiProject United States and how people felt it was trying to take over (which I still think is part of the reason for the block). So I used my bot, Kumi-taskbot, to leave 2 messages letting some folks know I couldn't comment. Thats why I lost my bot privilege, which by the way the only reason I ever created was because the bot operators refused to help in any task related to WikiProject United States. I trend that continues to this day. I would also clarify that I didn't ask you any complicated questions, nor waste hours of your time, nor indicate in anyway that I was a biophysics expert, that was your assumption and not my fault. As for BAG's time, they wouldn't answer the questions. Kumioko (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

7. Strong oppose ragequitting, had AWB and bot privileges removed at some point, using an IP address to evade scrutiny, concerns that he will edit protected pages without consensus, refusal to AGF, seems like he has an axe to grind with ArbCom. Recommend withdrawl and/or SNOW close. --Rschen7754 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Regretful oppose You do a lot of good work, but it's still too soon since the blow up. I do believe that the community will forgive and forget eventually, but not for year or two. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
9. With regret per Malleus, Sven (edit conflicted with) and some extent Wizardman support. I know you been though so much BS many of which wasn't your fault and the work you do here is wonderful. I still believe the admin who caused one of the incidents should have been desysopped in that case. Honestly I don't know how anyone else would have handled these situations. But it's way too soon after all this drama however. The nomination is very mistimed at best, especially that it's a self-nomination. Would obviously support a future RFA, but I recommend to withdraw please as I don't want all the past grudges to appear for the RFA to become a bloodbath. I have a really bad feeling this would end bad for some parties Secret ^account 05:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I may withdraw but I'm gonna give it a day or so first and see what happens. Sadly, its becoming more and more clear to me that my contributions are not important, not particularly wanted and may not even be needed. Kumioko (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Please don't take the outcome of this RfA too harshly. Wanting someone to edit Wikipedia and wanting them to administrate Wikipedia are completely different things. I think most of the people here are actually glad to have you as an editor, and appreciate the work you do. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   An RFA isn't needed for that, RFA is a broken garbage process anyways (though lately it has improved I don't know if it's because of very strong candidates or a change of heart with some participants). I'm sure you know my history well, I got desysopped for stupid shit, and then I cracked under the pressure while trying to get my tools back with some of the oppose comments. I gathered myself together and the only reason why I'm still in Wikipedia is because I feel that I made a huge impact to the project with my article writing and my experience. Most experienced users here know your history and the great work you do with American topics. Adminship in the end of the day is going to cause a headache that you wouldn't want as you will be heavily scrutinized for every bs thing and editors turn against you, and then you might get the feeling that you might not be wanted here. We lost so many outstanding contributors because of the same feelings you are going though right now because they became a administrator and sunk from there, especially our content contributors (YellowMonkey, ALoan, Worldtraveller, Geogre and so forth). Secret ^account 05:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Its really not a big deal if I get the tools or not frankly. I would only use a few of them anyway. But I'm honestly getting tired of waiting 2 weeks for someone to get around to responding to an edit request to copy the work I do from a sandbox, or too have to watch a vandal tear up an article and all I can do is leave a message and report it as they go mucking about. Kumioko (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   To be clear, your contributions are wanted, are important, and do make a difference. Having the tools won't make you a better editor, although it would be convenient. The concerns expressed here aren't about the quality of your work, which speaks for itself, but are instead a question of suitability at this time. So please don't take offense even if a few people are blunt, as RfA can not and will not determine your value as an editor, only your deeds can do that. We all have things we excel at, and writing articles is the most important thing we do here, which is your particular skill, and the whole reason the encyclopedia exists in the first place. Those are very different skills than what is needed to admin, but they are actually more important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the props but the truth is I have been doing admin related tasks for years, I just don't have the tools to implement the change. For example, I do a lot of work with templates, and when I do I have to do the change in the sandbox, submit the request and wait several days usually for someone to do it. Many of these are errors or problems with the templates. Aside from some disagreements I believe I have proven myslelf capable of performing the tasks of an Admin. I already frequently use twinkle to submit stuff for deletion, some of it is just basic housekeeping that IMO just wastes other folks time to request when I could just do it myself. I tried helping with stuff like antivandalism and CFD's but I stopped because I can't do anything other than submit it. I can't block a vandal (with over 22000 pages on my watchlist I see a lot of them) so I usually don't even bother, I just revert the change and move on. They can clearly see I can't do anything so when I leave a message they just ignore it. Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Not sure the tools would help that much though, since any time I am working anywhere near a project and I need to delete a page, I submit it so there isn't an issue with WP:INVOLVED. Some admins are sloppier about that, but it is better to keep a large airgap between "editing" and "admining" to prevent hassles. There is actually more you can than just submit though, and many volunteers clerk, cleanup, research and offer opinions, etc. at the various boards. Many are quite good and extremely helpful, but doesn't sound like something you are interested in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I don't want to sound like I have a bad attitude but if I don't have access to the tool then there's no way I can prove I need it or not. Its all just subjective. There are plenty of admins that rarely do admin related stuff or specialize in one area. In fact very few are broad generalists and most are specialists. I admit my self diagnozed ADHD may not allow me to concentrate on one specific topic but I think I could help out in little bits across a wide range of things. I already have a broad toolset including Twinkle, AWB, various scripts and custom modules. I don't use every function in any of them. But I use all of them a little bit and that's how I would use the admin tools. Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Simple Oppose When I think calm editors are good for admins, I sigh hard and slow. There'd be something going wrong for a stressed out guy. Won't withdraw, but it's for my own good expressing. Also, "blowing up" and "ragequitting" isn't in this guy's vocabulary (and dictionary for the latter) plus I won't forgive somebody for the next four years or so(same old routine as this year)_{Not really}. TruPepitoM (Opinion and Comment Board) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Very Strong Oppose This user is a very argumentative and hot headed editor. When he doesn't get his way he very often freaks out causing much drama. He is not good in situations that are controversial which an admin needs to be. He also abused the bot flag he had by editing with it to get around a block on his main account. If you could list someone in the dictionary next to not admin material, his would be the picture. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    I only request you use my right side for the picture...its my better side. :-)Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Oppose Your block log scares me, clearly unfit for an admin. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 13:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose - seems to have learned nothing from the Block as he still holds that "removing Talk tags" is a valid reason for 3RR violations. Calling it "Vandalism" also leads me to believe he would misuse the Rollback tool, if given to hir. I also noticed a request for File Mover at PERM (that was granted) that (unless I'm not looking at the right logs) has never been used. Great content editor, but I'm in a place where I can't trust hir with the Tools. Achowat (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose Based on the drama past associated with this. However, this does show, to me at least, that the current suite of admin tools is more of a problem than RfA. Intothatdarkness 15:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if this is what you were driving at but I have long advocated creating several more roles with different tool sets. IMO, since most folks only use specific tools anyway there is little need for most folks to have the whole set. For example I would really like the ability to edit protected pages. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    I happen to agree with you regarding a need for smaller/different tool sets for specific or less critical roles. But that's a development that seems unlikely to happen. Intothatdarkness 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Much in common with my RFA it seems..:-) Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

15. Regretful Oppose this time. Basically, I feel that it's not been long enough since the February debacle, and you haven't really had enough time to demonstrate that you're consistently past that kind of behavior. I think you should wait until it's been at least a year. You are overall a good editor, and I have faith that given that kind of time you can get past that incident, but you haven't yet. I'm open to changing this depending on further answers to questions, but barring that, ask again in February. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    No worries, the last time I tried for Admin was back in 08 so if I don't get it this time it will likley be another good long time before I try again. Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Seriously, if you do it in six months and haven't had any problems in the interim, I'll probably support you. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, its no big deal. Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose per block evasion, among other things. AutomaticStrikeout 17:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Moral Support I'm sorry, but in the time frame that I've been trolling the AN boards and DR I've come across Kumioko's name a few times. I've swung back and forth from opposition to support on projects. Recalling tempermental actions and recent revocation of positions of trust I do not think that mop-hood is appropriate at this time. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose per socking, the drama mentioned above and this In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Per AN/I/Archive 742#Kumioko block. Not sure user should get the right. Mysterytrey 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Sorry, but its too soon since the incident, while I was not familiar with the events, it is certainly a concern that appears justified by the community. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose There is just too much controversy surrounding this candidate - much of it appearing to be well warranted - from being blocked and trying to circumvent it to numerous instances of non-neutrality and calmness, among several other issues. If the candidate can go another six months to a year without incident, while continuing to contribute, I would likely be more willing to support their candidacy, however. I do recognize some of the valuable contributions of the candidate thus far; thank you for those. --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 05:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Headbomb and the recent block log shown here. Unfortunately with these concerns piled together I can tell that this editor isn't mature enough for adminship. Minima© (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose per above. I believe Kumioko does not fit to be an admin. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Not trying to nitpick but I think you mean is not fit. Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

24. A quick look at your block log shows you don't pass number four. MJ94 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    One of the blocks that Kumioko had should be expunged from his record, as it was a horrible block by an involved admin. The other drama is a bit too recent for my tastes but Kumioko should not be punished in a future RFA (given enough time passed since then) for his block record, as most of it is either not his fault, or it was stupidity on his part for an otherwise excellent editor. We used to have a forgive and forget policy once, and now it seem it disappeared. Secret ^account 10:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

25. Oppose Sorry man, but the incidents provided above are too concerning for me. Better luck next time! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    No worries but I really wish people would look into the incident in question before passing judgement. As I mentioned before above it all stemmed from trying to enforce policies of 3RR and article ownership but was blocked and discredited for my trouble. The true shame isn't that I was blocked, but that Wikiculture would rather block and continue to beat me down for it rather than enforce its policies..its a true shame. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

26. Oppose per this user's block log and other concerns expressed above. Michael (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose - I can live with one block by a well-known block-happy admin, but the log is too muddy too recently for my taste. Clean for two years might seem a high bar, but that would be about what I would like to see... Don't let this shitty process get you down, keep working hard. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose There is edit warring, abusing multiple accounts and block evasion all in the last 6 months. I also have an issue with the nomination, while I have absolutely no issue with self-nominations, however any nomination (whether self or not) has to say something about the candidate and what the things about them which make them suited be being an admin. This nomination focuses on the edit count and how long they've been editing. Given what happened in January/February I would have expected there to be an explaination about what happened and what they have learnt from it. While you have made progress, I expect at least 12 months with a clean block and showing that you can be a constructive and calm member of the community. I suggest you look at everything which has been written in this RFA and consider coming back in 6-12 months, because I think could be a great admin in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    I just want to clarify one thing here. This nomination isn't based soley on edit count, its based on the fact that I am already doing many of the things an admin does, I just have to have an admin implement the change. I do a lot of work with templates (many of which are protected), submitting things for deletion, answering questions about various technical details, etc. and other than the incident in February that was largely based on a bad block by editors who are involved and don't like WikiProject United States. Did I overreact, absolutely, but any editor who was confronted by multiple editors breaking multiple policies and then looking the other way, would frustrate anyone. But anyone reading this should realize by looking at the fact that I have close to or over 1000 edits in almost every major namespace, that wouldn't be able to do that without using advanced automation, administrative experience or technical proficiency. Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

29. Oppose Among other reasons for the apparent sense of entitlement. Per your nom statement, "I believe I have been here long enough and have enough experience that at this point there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to edit a protected article or block a persistent vandal." Being an admin is not about how long you have been here and how much experience you have. Being an admin is about you having sufficiently good judgment to know when to use the tools and when not to. If overreacting can lead you to socking, I am concerned what a similar overreaction may lead to if you have a mop. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    VW that wasn't a statement of entitlement it was a statement that I am functionally and technically proficient for the task. Adminship is more than just being popular or in how many edits one has but in their capacity to perform the tasks. I would also note that I have used AWB, Twinkle, Rollbacker and a variety of other tools for years with no problems, this would be no different. Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Technical proficiency is a necessary but not sufficient qualification. It's the rest of what can be required of an admin that concerns me. Also, should you desire to abbreviate my name it's VW, not VM. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    No worries I just wanted to clarify what I meant by the statement that's all and sorry for the typo, no offense intended. Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    I would also followup that with saying that my past use of AWB, Twinkle, Rollback, etc. should indicate my judgement patterns. Even the best admins aren't perfect and make mistakes. I will certainly not do everything perfect but the great thing about WP is that almost everything, admin tools included, is just a revert away from correction. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Candidate does not possess a temperament suitable for adminship. Binksternet, Headbomb and DJSasso have the most cogent statements congruent with my views. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose Candidate does not meet my criteria; in particular (but not limited to) my impression of his temprament. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Oppose with Napalm In no way shape or form should Kumioko have access to any admin tools. He shouldn't even be allowed to make any edits at all. The reasons have already been given here; sockpuppetry, rage quitting, disruptive editing, bans, a loose cannon with AWB and an AWB bot, wasting US Taxpayer dollars by editing from work, wasting other editors time and on and on and on. Unbelievable that this RfA is even here. Brad (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Wow Brad, you got me on everything but worshipping the devil, lol. Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

33. Regretful Oppose -- -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose. We met at Wikimania, and you struck me as a genuine, decent bloke. However, I get the impression that you are more than a little hot-headed, and I suspect this is what has led to much of the controversy. You have what you think are good ideas, and like everyone's brilliant ideas, some are brilliant and other are total bollocks. The problems arise when you try to implement these brilliant ideas, especially the ones that are (or which other people think are) total bollocks and you encounter resistance. With the greatest respect, I don't think you handle criticism or questions of your actions very well (which is perhaps unfair to say here, because you can't respond to it without appearing to prove my point, so I apologise), and you, perhaps inadvertently, escalate the situation. This leads to things like the socking, and the so-called "ragequitting" and to many of the other issues that have got you into trouble. I could support a candidate with that in his history (although with you it's rather too recent history right now), if that underlying hot-headeness had been resolved, but it isn't something that's going to go away overnight. Thus, it's with regret that I have to say that you're not suited to adminship, at least not for the foreseeable future. However, I am familiar with your work at MILHIST, and I have always respected you for that, and I hope you'll continue the good work you do after this RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    I am very passionate about the project and sometimes that manifests itself but I also think that members of the project should follow the rules. When I get very upset and my confident demeanor comes out in public its generally because someone has broken a policy like 3RR, article ownership or the like and others are inclined to look the other way because they like the editor or because, shockingly, they are an admin. Not because I am offended or hurt that they don't like my idea. I would in fact like to see a link of where I got mad or upset because someone didn't like my idea. Kumioko (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

35. Oppose per HJ Mitchell's comments above, and the answers to questions 3 and 6. I've got nothing at all in principle against supporting candidates who have been blocked, but these answers basically boil down to arguments that everyone was wrong, and you found the situation difficult to deal with. Admins need to make judgement calls in situations such as that which lead to your block (including a decision to let a more experienced admin handle the matter if you don't feel confident about the situation), and I'm not confident that you're well positioned to do so at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Strong Oppose I was going to say "neutral" because the whole ragequit is horrific poor judgement, and extremely dramaesque. Indeed, I'd say that's something you need to work hard to put behind you over a MINIMUM of a year, showing clearly that such crap is no longer occurring. However, the whole issue around the Bot problems, especially your comments around that situation are the obverse of what we need. You're clearly stating that you intentionally broke the rules because nobody would help you - indeed, you accuse the BAG-group as being anti-Wikiproject USA. Unbelievable, really. Barring some major change in this kind of behaviour, I see no chance of future RFA's being successful either - which is unfortunate, as there are many positive contributions dangerouspanda 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    There is a lot of discussion here about the use of my bot to make an edit but I don't think that the majority know what I did and they are just copying Oppose comments. Here is a link to the bot with the edits that I made. Should I have done it, no but I made 2 edits. One to the admin that blocked me, IMO, in poor judgement. The second was to WikiProject United States, where multiple discussions were taking place. With that said, as I have stated before I think that blocks are overused and abused and should be used only for severe cases. Kumioko (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Did you know not to do it? Yes. Did you still do it? Yes. 'Nuf said. dangerouspanda 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yep whats done is done. There's no sense in making excuses or asking for forgiveness, Unfortunately the Wiki community isn't big on forgiveness. Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

37. I'm glad that the incident earlier this year was eventually resolved in such a way that you are still with us. But with such a fairly recent block I would really need more reassurance that it won't recur. Happy to reconsider if at some point you return here with 12 months clean blocklog. In the meantime please try to remember that just because you disagree with someone it doesn't mean they are a vandal. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose I came here looking for a way to support in spite of the drama that surrounded WP:US but the first thing I read is After a while of fighting to redeem my honor Wikipedia has nothing to do with honor, redeeming or otherwise. I've seen too many instances where Kumi sees the world as an all or nothing battleground, specifically in BRFAs following his "retirement". He should have been blocked then for blatant socking as an IP, but wasn't for whatever reason. That's not conduct becoming of an admin nor do I have faith he wouldn't drama out again - not someone I want to see with admin tools. StarM 01:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose. Just after reading the answers to the questions I was ready to oppose. The answers did not inspire any confidence to me, and also made me question whether you really 1) need the admin tools and 2) know what adminship is really about. Then there's all of the things mentioned in the opposes, but I won't restate those.--Slon02 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    If I may, the answer to number 2 is Yes I do understand what the role of an admin is, as I do many of the tasks now, I just cannot implement them myself. The answer to number 1 frankly is no I don't need access to the tools...if the community doesn't want me to work with any of the following: protected templates, blocking vandals, keeping vandalism out of articles, pulling in groups of articles larger than 25000 to AWB, use the revision deletion tool, Page protection/unprotection, design and wording changes to the interface (per consensus of course), etc. If the community has plenty of help in these areas and doesn't need it then that's ok, I don't need the tools and I won't participate in those areas. If that is not the case and assistance in those areas is needed and wanted then I need them in order to do them. There is certainly plenty of other work to do in WP that doesn't involve those areas. But I also don't feel remorse in not participating in them, if I can't be trusted to do so, with or without the tools. I hope that clarifies. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

40. Oppose Please address the concerns which others have raised. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Time heals all wounds, but even healed wounds can sometimes leave an ugly scar!. Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

41. Oppose The disdain and mockery of process on display here does not bode well for adminship. aprock (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    My chances for getting the tools were lost long before making that comment but yes I am mocking this block. The original block for that user was one of the most blatant Assumptions of bad faith I have ever seen but given the admin in questions track record it doesn't surprise me. It also does seem like these poor blocks and like activity are commonplace these days. It appears to me that the pedia has much more to fear from some of the existing admins than from me having the ability to edit a protected page! Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

42. Oppose. Wrong attitude and temperament demonstrated both in the WikiProject US affair and in the answers in this RFA. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Here is an example of a summary I could have deleted with the tools. Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    I fail to see the relevance with my oppose. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

43. Oppose Plutonium27 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
44. Oppose Per headbomb. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
45. Oppose I've sat trying to figure out which side of the fence I was on, and unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that if I have to think this hard as to whether I support a candidate or not, I need to oppose because the unconditional support isn't there. It's not that I don't trust Kumioko, it's that I'm bothered by the lack of control that has been displayed and the blocks that were a result of that lack of control. While I do believe that in the future Kumioko will make a good administrator some day, I don't believe that is now. I think the community, like I, want to see that maturity has happened and Kumioko can have the ability to remain subjective and neutral and make the sound decisions that are required. As of now, unfortunately, we don't believe that Kumioko can make those decisions, as in the quite recent past, the decisions that were made by a non-admin resulted in a block - being under much more scrutiny isn't going to help. Dusti^*poke* 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
46. Oppose: even though I'm a huge believer in adminship being no big deal, I believe you you have an unsuitable temperament for the job and that sockpuppetry incident was a big no-no. Max Semenik (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Moral support. Kumioko obviously cares a great deal about this project. I hope that whatever happens in this RfA, he will stick around and keep contributing productively, because Wikipedia needs people with his passion. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Moral support as I think you have good intentions but not the proper temperament for the mop. I don't think you would delete the front page, but it is easy to cause subtle damage in your interactions with other editors and that is a concern. And if we learned anything this summer, we learned that the real problem with RfA is us, not the process. Even now, I am hopeful that the process here will be fair and constructive, regardless off the outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Moral Support - agree with the Pedro cabal above. — Ched :  ?  11:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   There is no Cabal, and we meet at 7pm next Tuesday instead of 6pm due to a scheduling conflict. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    :-) .. I'll bring the donuts. — Ched :  ?  14:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC) ]]

4. Neutral With Moral Support I think that you are a great asset to Wikipedia and we need people like you here, but I'm going to stay neutral for the temperament concerns. Electric Catfish 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Personally I'd like to support your candidacy. I remember the template controversy and I admit I sided with your basic point. You have a lot of commendable contributions and know what you're doing with the project. But while I'd like to support you, I feel like I'd be a hypocrite because I've opposed people for much less than what others are opposing you for. Something I always look for is the ability to keep a cool head, I think that's essential for an admin. Adminship is usually stated to be "not a big deal" and I don't think it is as long as you use the tools with restraint. I'm not convinced at this time that you would. -- Atama頭 22:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I'm concerned this nomination is too soon after the above mentioned drama. After looking into the dust-up back in February a little more, I'm dismayed by all sides really. Ultra seemed very eager to block for what were trivial reasons (31 hours for minor EW violation of an experienced editor) but Kumioko seemed equally eager to keep edit warring over an equally trivial issue. And there were problems there. Reading this thread is depressing in general. With that context, it's too soon for adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Basically per Sven in the oppose section. You do great work and I'd love top support, but I think it's too soon as well. I really hope this RfA doesn't get you down and you continue to contribute positively no matter what happens here. – Connormah (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Moral support for a great contributor whose work is much appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Even though your rage quit was six months ago, something that big takes more time to clear up, and I think it would have been better if you chose to run for adminship a year after this occured, not six months. I can't bring myself to oppose, though, as you are a very valuable contributor and you were certainly helpful when I worked with you to merge WikiProject American Old West with WikiProject United States. Don't be disheartened by this RfA; keep contributing positively and give RfA another go in six months, maybe a year. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral - Edits seems fine to me, but from I've read this user has a concerning history. I won't vote against because I'd like to think they have improved. --LemonTwinkle 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Moral Support - Your a good guy and help out a lot; that we could have two of you. Your certainly on the right track now. In other words per Connormah. Ceoil (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks but I doubt the place needs two of me, they barely want one. Being on the right track has nothing to do with adminship either. Unfortunately its clear that no amount of time is going to change the majority of the communities mind. Some perhaps but certainly not enough to ever garner a consensus so I'm gonna need to do some sole searching on whether continuing to contribute is in either mine or the communities interests. It seems apparent that I may need to step aside so that others can pick up the tasks I have been doing. Particularly the admin related ones that the community doesn't really want me doing. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Neutral. Candidate knows I feel wikifriendship; we have both agreed and disagreed strongly in past situations. That said, page work is strong and I have over time developed much trust in this user. Despite this, I feel the recent socking and drama prevent me from fully supporting at this time. I'd like to think this candidate could re-apply at some point and earn community trust. BusterD (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Damn fine editor and good guy, but I can't support. Kumioko, an RfA isn't a measure of how much a community 'wants' you; it's a measure of your suitability for additional permissions on the site. I, along with many other people, think you are doing great work here. Hell, you revived WP:USA literally by yourself. There's no reason to stop that just because people aren't enamored with the idea of you being able to delete things. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Its almost funny. The Wikipedia culture is one of the few who will let you be the scholar but restrict who can be the janitor. Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

14. Neutral. Although there has been a significant time lapse since the serious problems, I'm not willing to support yet. After another six months of good quality contributions, I would support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Moral support. Later perhaps ... Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
16. I don't want to pile on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2012 (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.