Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko 2

Kumioko

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/9/1); Scheduled to end 01:34, 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 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)

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.

---

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)

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 Sockpuppet.

   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)

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)

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)

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)