Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 2

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

Kww

Final (76/49/9); Closed by Rlevse at 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kww (talk · contribs) – From the "Wait, he's not already an admin?" file, I nominate Kww (talk · contribs) for the bit.

He is not the most uncontroversial candidate to hit this page: he can be opinionated and vocal in a way that irks some and has, in the past, been guilty of dramatic hyperbole to make a point he felt strongly about. On the other hand, he is dedicated, hard working, cares for Wikipedia in all he does and — most important of all — he learns from his mistakes. I can think of no better qualities in a prospective admin. — Coren ^(talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. —Kww(talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I can't deny the existence of the bonfire that was my first RFA, so there's no use trying. As a result, I can't deny the existence of my infamous Bulbasaur quote, and I won't do that. Probably wouldn't if I could.

Another thing I wouldn't do is claim that I said it in the heat of anger. It was poorly phrased, and had I known it might become my epitaph, I certainly would have said it differently, but I honestly believe in the core concept underlying it: editors that consciously and repetitively ignore guidelines are disruptive, and need to be treated as such. Everyone is allowed to disagree with guidelines, and to attempt to get consensus to change them. Creating scores of articles in open defiance of them and edit-warring over efforts to redirect the non-compliant articles is disruptive.

Two blocks in my block-log. The Sept 30th one is easy: an admin noticed a series of reversions, and did not notice that the thing I was reverting was an explicit exemption to the 3RR rule: the other editor was making obvious violations of non-free content policies. You'll notice he reversed the block and apologized quite quickly, with the explanation in the unblock as "my error".

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

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

In terms of editing difficulty, WTB was probably the most difficult article I've ever worked on, and I became aware of the pseudoscience issues on Wikipedia as a result. I was truly astonished at how hard people would work to try to portray nonsense as defensible. I don't directly work much on pseudoscience articles, but I do monitor a few to make sure that they don't turn completely into support of nonsense. I'm not well liked by the pseudoscience crowd: Tom has one of my quotes framed at User:Tom Butler#A perfict quote. Again, that isn't a popular sentiment, but one I'm not going to try to hide.

I spend most of my time in what I think of as "damage prevention". I scan for vandalism, unsourced material, poorly-sourced material, guideline violations and policy violations and revert or fix such edits. Most of my effort in the last six months has been on record charts, which is truly a problem area. What I noticed was that the charts had degenerated into essentially random lists of countries and numbers. There wasn't widespread agreement as to which charts were good and which were bad, and there weren't any standard places to verify figures, making it difficult to detect and repair vandalism. I started a discussion about creating a consolidated list of charts to be avoided, which ultimately resulted in WP:BADCHARTS. I produced the bulk of WP:Record charts/sourcing guide, aka WP:GOODCHARTS, which worked at it from the positive direction. 10,000 edits later, and the record charts across Wikipedia are in much better shape. This is work I'm proud of, and it illustrates what I think is the right way to tackle major problems: gain consensus as to direction, and then proceed quickly and efficiently. For those that concern themselves about such things, all my edits, including those, have been done manually: no scripts, bots, Twinkles, or Huggles.

I have also participated in the epic struggle which is WP:FICT, and I have to say I am disappointed with the results. We do need a compromise in this area, if only to keep the peace. A decent compromise was proposed, but it was ultimately killed by people trying to change it after the RFC. That happened in both directions, both from people that wanted to write a blanket permission slip to write articles on every episode of every drama ever made, and from people that wanted to tighten the sourcing requirements so much that it became a restatement of WP:N. Neither of those represents a compromise. I think anyone that examines my edits dispassionately will see that I was doing my best to argue for the ethical maintenance of a compromise.

Administratively, I have always focused on vandalism and sock-puppetry, and expect to continue that focus into the future.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Pretty much what I do today: revert vandalism and keep the Disney and music articles from turning into a quagmire of blog-sourced gossip. I use WP:AIV, WP:SPI and WP:RFPP extensively today, and that's where I will probably focus.

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

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

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: What the Bleep Do We Know!? represented the peak of stress for me. There is something about that article that brings out the worst in editors from both sides of the pseudoscience conflict. I even had the surreal experience of seeing ScienceApologist blocked for edit-warring in a change that MartinPhi had helped write. Ultimately, it took a strategy of just going through the lead sentence by sentence, and getting everyone to agree on a version that didn't make them angry enough to revert it, and making sure everyone understood which policies would prohibit and allow what. Once people focused on making sure each sentence conformed to policy, we got to a version that no one felt compelled to revert. We put the change in with {{edit-protected}} macros, and then left the thing protected for six months. Ugly and bloody, but it worked.

That whole surreal arbcom experience, where Kirill Lokshin proposed topic banning me from all fiction articles, apparently because I dared question people using E&C2 as justification for blocks on TTN that went well beyond the penalties outlined in E&C2 for edits that didn't violate the restrictions imposed.

There are a number of opposers that question my comprehension of Kirill Lokshin's proposed topic ban towards me. To be honest, I have to question theirs. A lifetime topic ban on the basis of one diff? As the first step in dispute resolution? I think that the list of lifetime topic bans proposed on the basis a single diff is a very short list indeed. So far as I know, the one proposed against me would be the only one on it.—Kww(talk) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is E&C2? Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The one I wish I had handled better was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write.

Questions by Ottava Rima

4. What is your stance on BLPs? Any work on BLPs? How would you treat the concerns of the subject of the BLP? What kind of assurance should we have that people are building consensus and seeking to be neutral at BLPs and how can we have such?

A. Technically, Natalee Holloway is a BLP. Her fate has never been determined, so we treat her as alive. I think sourcing and balance are both crucial. Everything needs to be sourced, but people need to recognize that controversial claims may be both positive and negative. I get as upset about "world's greatest steam-powered kazoo player" as I do over equivalent negative statements. The current proposals to start deleting all unsourced BLPs don't bother me much. I think the timeframe supporters of that concept are fighting for is a bit unrealistic, but I'm not fond of unsourced articles of any kind.

5. How do you feel about admin that may violate CoI? Should an admin block someone who blatantly vandalizes pages they work on? Should an admin block someone who contentiously disputes something on pages they work on? Should an admin block someone who personally attacks in regards to pages the admin works on but seems to provide valuable edits elsewhere and is a good faith editor? When and where should an admin seek a third party to handle blocks or confirmation on blocks?

A. I think caution needs to be applied on both sides. Some are very quick to criticize involved admins that block, and some admins don't seem to recognize their own COI. As an example that might actually apply to me, I don't think there would be anything wrong with me blocking someone that vandalized Natalee Holloway, despite my involvement in it. If someone was inserting material that was trying to drive it away from what I consider to be NPOV, it would be pretty questionable if I blocked, no matter how hard the other editor was violating what I perceived as consensus, even if he was edit-warring, because it's difficult for me to be unbiased, and probably impossible for me to be perceived as unbiased.

Questions from Malinaccier

6. Could you explain the situation with User:Wildernessflyfisher about the article temple garment?

A. You can find an independent summary of that dispute at User:Alanyst/WFF. A little background for those that aren't familiar with the area: Temple garment is an area where WP:NOT#CENSORED comes into play. The temple garments are considered sacred by most branches of the LDS, and displaying images of them or discussing them with people that haven't undergone an endowment ceremony is considered improper. As a result, the related articles are frequently blanked or have all images deleted. An anonymous editor removed an image from temple garment, which I originally reverted as an unjustifiable removal, and (unfortunately) didn't quote policy until the second reversion. I explained the policies to the anon, he recruited Wildernessflyfisher as a meatpuppet, and the situation rapidly degenerated. Alanyst, being an LDS, attempted to moderate. It should be noted that while Alanyst and I disagree as to whether removing the images is vandalism or a content dispute, she believed that my actions were pretty much by-the-book in all other respects, and comments a few times on my efforts to explain and discuss.

As to the core issue of article content, I think the images are pretty straightforward and illustrative. If it were not for the sacredness issue, the question of their removal wouldn't even come up. No one has ever given a sound secular reason for removing them. I have always tried to ensure that the article remains respectful: I work towards keeping derisive slang from being introduced, derogatory descriptions of LDS beliefs from being made, etc. If someone were to insert an image of a Penthouse Pet wearing temple garments, I would argue very strongly that the invisible mannequins in the current image was more respectful of the sensitive nature of the topic illustrated.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

7. If you had administrative power at the time, would you have blocked Wildernessflyfisher for asserting you were a vandal?

A.For saying Kww is a known vandal on wikipedia, so his allegations really don't bother me? No, it would never be right for me to block based on that. If it had continued, I might have asked another admin to look at it. I'm not big on doing blocks based on WP:NPA, and it needs to get pretty bad before I would do one, and, if I'm the target, it's hard for me to claim that I have unbiased judgement. If he had continued with the meat-puppet attack, I would have blocked.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Question by A Nobody

8. Given your participation in the fiction related arbcom cases and threads, including the one in which you were nearly sanctioned, would you close AfDs for fictional characters and television episodes?

A.I won't make any campaign promises to not exercise admin powers on certain things. Imagine that I promised not to, and then, having been voted the bit, went ahead and closed a fiction AFD as "delete". Do you think you could use that as grounds to get the delete overturned in DRV? You'd be laughed off the page. People will have to evaluate my suitability as an admin based on their conception of how I would perform in all aspects.

I'm going to elaborate on this one again. AFD handling is obviously one of the areas that really frightens people, which is strange, because it is really one of the most closely monitored admin functions. Even if I was the evil article-deleting bogeyman that some think I am, I wouldn't be able to get away with much before being desysopped.

First, I'm not a stupid man. I hope the most ardent of my opponents recognizes that. If I close an AFD as delete, it's going to be taken to DRV in a microsecond, solely because of my reputation. I'm willing to bet it would take two years of adminship with me not screwing up before that would cease being the case.

Second, if you look over my arguments, you will notice a fairly consistent theme: I believe in following policies and guidelines, and believe in sanctioning editors that consistently and willfully violate them. We have polices and guidelines on how to handle AFDs, and I would expect to be sanctioned if I violated them.

Third, my feelings on AFD consensus. These have not changed. AFDs are not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In the ideal AFD, a nominator indicates that he believes that the article's existence (or all contents of the article in its current form) violates a guideline or policy, and that deletion of the article is necessary. Other editors then support or refute that argument, read each other's comments, debate the argument, and come to an agreement as to what to do. This may be an agreement as to content change, to merge, to delete, to keep as an exception to a guideline, or to attempt to modify the guideline to permit inclusion. If things were working properly, all the closer would have to do is read the argument summary and obey it, because all editors would have listened to each other, thought about the article in relation to the deletion argument, and come to a consensus. That consensus would, 90% of the time, be obvious to all.

Instead, many people write down votes based on personal preferences, both to delete and to keep. A few write down a few scant policy based notes. They don't read what other editors have said. They don't come back to the AFD to read counter-arguments. In short, they don't discuss. Since they haven't discussed the issue, there isn't really a consensus in the traditional sense.

In obvious cases, I don't have any quibble with admins that close AFDs based on these kind of things by trying to divine consensus where a traditional consensus doesn't exist. 100% delete votes tend to indicate consensus, as do 100% keeps. When people have mixed opinions, and have not discussed their disagreement is where things get messy. What do you do when you have one really well reasoned "keep" vs a horde of "Delete it, because I don't think nekomusume anime should receive this kind of attention" statements? Or one really well reasoned "delete" among a horde of "I don't know why this band shouldn't have an article, because they have a really nice MySpace page" statements? These are both really "no consensus" situations. Much as I would like to say "go with the one well reasoned argument", I know I'm just condemning the AFD to DRV.

My inclination is to relist the AFD, with an explanation of which votes I discounted, and why; an explanation of why I saw no consensus; and contact the people that registered opinions to tell them the AFD had been relisted. If you can get the people involved to talk, it's usually possible to obtain consensus. If it still doesn't resolve to my satisfaction, let another admin close it.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• If the overwhelming majority of people said to keep an article, but you felt it didn't meet all the guidelines, would you delete it anyway? Is the opinion of a closing administrator all that counts, or are the opinions of everyone equally valid, and thus you willing to let them decide the fate of an article through consensus? Is there any possible reason to have a discussion at all, if administrators decide outright what should be deleted, never considering keeping it, regardless of the will of others? Policies must be followed always, according to the wikipedia rules, but the guidelines are just suggestions, and can be ignored according to wikipedia law. If the consensus of the people in the AFD, say to ignore the guidelines, and Keep an article, would you accept this? Or do you believe that all guidelines should be considered absolute law? Dream Focus 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I think you need to reread the text immediately above your question, where I indicated how I would handle many-to-one AFDs where I thought the reasoning of the one was superior to that of the many. I truly think you are mistaken in believing that guidelines can be ignored. Guidelines don't need to always be followed, but you always have to think about them, and take them into account while making decisions. I'm a lot happier with someone that argues I think we can keep this despite not meeting WP:NSONGS because WP:NSONGS doesn't really fit the situation of a song that did x, y, and z than someone that just says "keep". Certainly a !vote of Keep because I don't think guidelines mean anything is a !vote that I wouldn't weigh very heavily, and I don't you would find many admins that would. The situations where I would directly go against a clear numeric majority are few and far between. As usual, I won't say "never", but I will say "extremely rarely, and only in cases where I believe the close would survive review at DRV".—Kww(talk) 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Given your participation in the fiction related arbcom cases and threads, including the one in which you were nearly sanctioned, would you use admin tools against those with whom you have known tensions in these disputes whether it be myself, Pixelface, or any others?

A.I can promise not to be vindictive, and to only use admin tools in ways that will be upheld by the community.

follow-up Q Perhaps you can explain a little further, because I read this as saying you will block your opponents if you think the community will uphold your decisions. DGG (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which would only happen if it didn't violate WP:INVOLVED. I'm well aware that there are editors that I'm considered involved with ... of the top of my head, I'd say Colonel Warden, Pixelface, and A Nobody are clearly there, and people might question any interaction between me and some of the pseudoscience editors. Would I have to think carefully before I proceeded against any of those editors? Absolutely. Would I normally try to get someone else to do it? Yes. If I decided the situation was urgent enough for me to proceed, would I place a notice on ANI? Yes. Am I going to give any of those editors a blanket promise that no matter what they may do, I will never use an admin tool to their detriment? No.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from —LetsdrinkTea

10. A user applies for rollback. They have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring, but you side with them on most of the disputes and you don't think it would be a problem. Would you grant or deny their request?

A. Probably deny. I've never quite understood why rolling back directly is considered to be a precious commodity while rolling back through Twinkle or Huggle is available on any street corner, but that's the situation. There's no great advantage to giving him rollback no matter what I think of him, and the blowback is likely to be extreme. I have a hard time envisioning a situation where I'm such great buddies with someone that has a history of disruptive editing, anyway.

Note: Correct on Twinkle, however Huggle requires the rollback right in order to function.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

11a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A:Yes, there's a problem, and it's significant. If I had a magic answer, I'd provide it. On the whole, I think it's just the most visible aspect of the broader problem of preventing corruption of articles, and I think it's wrong to focus exclusively on BLPs without considering the other millions of articles. I think part of it needs to come from increased accountability for editors: reducing our dependence on anonymous editors, and working harder to ensure that people are using only one account to edit Wikipedia with. Once edits are traceable to individuals (even if those individuals are, themselves, anonymous), it's easier to control the influx of corruption.

11b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

A:Too high of risk of POV corruption. It's too easy and tempting for a devout supporter or opposer of a person to gain undue influence over article content.

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

A:Not enough different from flagged revisions to satisfy my concerns.

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A:I would have no objections to semi-protecting all BLPs. This would go a long way towards encouraging account creation as well. While people want to think about Sarah Palin and Barney Frank when they discuss BLP issues, the big BLP articles are Ashley Tisdale, Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens, etc. Anything that encourages pop culture editors to get an account and use it is a good thing.

11c. For BLP AFDs, closing as "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: There are really about twenty sub-questions baked in that one. I think that "no consensus" is an excessively tempting way out of a difficult AFD: given a mix of !votes, it's very easy for an admin to declare "no consensus" and claim the matter is out of his control from that point. If the result of the "no consensus" aligns with the admin's personal preference, it's a method of performing a blameless keep (or delete, as the case may be). I think the first thing we need is protection on the state of no consensus: multiple admins should attempt to evaluate the AFD before declaring "no consensus", or perhaps they should automatically route to DRV. As for defaulting to delete vs. defaulting to keep, I'm prone to go with delete for BLPs, with one explicit caveat: I think requests by the target of an article to delete the article (and !votes stemming from that) should be ignored at all stages of an AFD. An AFD should be based on internal policy, not external influence.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan...

When I participate in an {{rfa}} there are three questions I always ask in some variation. I read the discussion from your first {{rfa}}, and having done so, I have some additional questions for you:

12. There is a category for administrators willing to consider being recalled. The last time I looked only ten percent of the current cohort of administrators had listed themselves there. How do you think the project should demote administrators who repeatedly show partisanship or other bad judgment? If you were entrusted with administrator authority would you list yourself as being open to review? Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A:I think a standard recall process should be developed and used across the board. I don't think any admin should be immune to recall.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

13. While most of our current administrators show good judgment I am afraid our current cohort of administrators includes individuals who act as if being entrusted with administrator authority frees them from an obligation to comply with the project's civility policies and conventions. If you are entrusted with administrator authority, could we count on you always doing your best to comply with the project's civility policies and conventions? Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A:I work hard to stay civil. Hobit's oppose is illuminating. There are issues where Hobit and I are dead-set in opposition to each other, and we have had some extremely drawn-out debates on the issue of notability. When he researched the arguments, he could find no civility issues. I'm accused of incivility occasionally, but when you dissect the accusations, you tend to find that they center around an editor that believes disagreeing with him is incivil, or that stating that I believe the editor's behaviour to be disruptive is uncivil.

14. The wikipedia uses a consensus based decision-making model, and it has always seemed to me that a corollary of WP:AGF is an obligation openly acknowledge when we realize we have been mistaken, when we realize we have made a mistake. Further I think we should approach each question posed to us with the possibility in mind that this might be an instance when we are the one who is mistaken. Unfortunately, I have found that in real life, and here on the wikipedia, one encounters individuals who regard questions about their statements, or actions, as personal attacks, no matter how civily expressed they are. Even more unfortunately, while most of our current administrators show good judgment I am afraid our current cohort of administrators includes individuals who treat questions as if they were personal attacks. If you are entrusted with administrator authority will you commit yourself to approaching each question posed to you with the possibility in mind that you may have been mistaken? Will you own up, and openly acknowledge when you realize you made a mistake? Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I try to practice that in my life and on Wiki.

15. This is your second candidacy for administrator. In the six months since your last candidacy have you considered whether any of those who voted against you voiced valid concerns? Did any of the feedback from your challengers cause you to modify your editing behavior? If so, could you tell us how they have affected your editing? Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A: Primarily, I attempted to render the primary objection to me moot by trying to gain consensus for a version of WP:FICT that would have allowed a large percentage of fiction articles to be in compliance with guidelines. I specifically attempted to craft that guideline to allow the retention of Bulbasaur, for those that are suspicious. Unfortunately, that compromise was derailed both by people that are more devoutly exclusionist than me and the extreme end of inclusionism.

16. The first person who voted against you, last time around, offered a diff showing a comment you made, that triggered a lot of concerns from other contributors. They characterized that diff as showing you thought editors who, basically, disagree with your notability opinions should be treated "as vandals, as opposed to editors" I looked to see if you replied to these challenges. Near as I could see this was your response -- which I simply didn't find at all clear. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I discussed that quote in the first two paragraphs of my nomination. I'll amplify, even though I don't see my previous response as being particularly vague. Guidelines are guidelines. Editors don't get to pick and choose which ones they follow unilaterally. If you want to disobey a guideline, you need to get consensus that your edit is an exception case, or get consensus to change the guideline. Simply ignoring it repetitively is not acceptable behaviour. It isn't a matter of "disagreeing with my notability opinions", it's a matter of disagreeing with an established guideline. WP:N lays out the tests for articles. Following that guideline is recommended in a policy, WP:DELETE. Editors have limited power to ignore it, and admins have an even more limited power to ignore it in making administrative decisions. For any guideline, violating it out of ignorance should always be treated as an educational experience: the change needs to be reverted, and the violation explained. When an editor consciously, willfully, and repeatedly violates a guideline, it becomes disruptive, and blocks begin to become appropriate. At this point, I recognize that WP:N is not strictly enforced with respect to fiction, so I'm not going to start handing out blocks based on it. That doesn't mean that I don't believe it (or some agreed-upon successor) should be, and I reserve the right to try to convince others that I am right.

17. Could you expand on your stand on notability guidelines? In my experience the wikipedia's notability guidelines are vulnerable to allowing innocent, good faith lapses from WP:NPOV. I've often seen material that I thought was neutrally expressed, that cited verifiable authoritative sources, challenged on notability grounds -- with the challengers basically saying: "I don't consider this material notable because I don't believe the statements of the person being interviewed, or profiled in that RS are credible. Would you ever accept the claim that material backed up by solid, verifiable, authoritative references wasn't notable, because the challenger didn't personally find it credible? Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A: Only if the challenger can gain consensus that his suspicions are well-founded and reasonable. If someone's statement can be demonstrated to have a strong bias that undermines its credibility, that has to get taken into account. As an aside, this doesn't have much to do notability, which is concerned with article creation: this sounds more like an issue of WP:RS.

I do believe that inclusion guidelines are necessary, and should generally be stricter than they are. There is a cost to every article in terms of verification and vandalism prevention, and we need to be certain that those costs are justified by the value of the article.

Just to be clear -- if the apparent local consensus in a particular {{afd}} was at odds with WP:VER and WP:RS, are you saying you would allow the apparent local consensus to over-ride our established policies and guidelines? That is what I am writing about, instances when there were no sources to substantiate the challengers' doubts -- but they managed to marshall a consensus that the individuals weren't credible, based on appeals to common sense, or common knowledge, and making use of the well-known proof-by-repetition, and some closing administrators will conclude for deletion in these instances. Some administrators will allow an apparent local consensus to trump policy. Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Geo, I'm not sure you stated that clearly. guidelines are intended to be flexible, and policy and guidelines both must be interpreted by consensus. Doingthisis not "trumping" policy. DGG (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of local consensus trumping policy, but you really need to give me few links. Show me some AFDs that exhibited the problem you are worried about, and I will tell you how I would have decided.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

18. felt my ears burning here. I usually don't read these questions much but I figure you telling me saves me trawling through your contribs. One of the things I most hate is one-way-traffic - namely editors who contribute little or no content themselves (i..e no scrutiny) but scrutinize and demand work of others with tagging and nominating or voting at AfD. Couple that with a combative mentality and I really doubt the benefits of such a person as an admin. Others in a similar position hve shown their immense value in other areas in article writing, copyediting, prose, and template work. You need to show me what you've done since the last RfA to make me change my mind. Believe me I don't like ongoing argy-bargy so surprise me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... a paucity of question marks in that question. I'll try to answer anyway. My work since the last RFA has primarily been on record charts: organizing the haphazard chart management process into WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS, and manually trawling my way through several thousand articles correcting and cleaning their charts. Examine that edit spike of mine from Oct 2008 through Dec 2008, and I think you will be satisfied that I actually work on things. I can't do it without being accused of canvassing, but if you asked them, I sure you would find that the editors that haunt WT:Record charts all have a high opinion of me. Of course, this goes along with my usual cleanup work that is the core of my usual editing: detecting vandalism, copyright violations and false information, correcting it, and using the AIV/ANI/SPI boards to get action on repeat offenders.

On the implicit questions: I don't do much in the way of tagging. I'll occasionally slap a {{cn}} tag on something if it looks dubious and I can't find a source, but it doesn't look so dubious as to warrant immediate removal. If I've put a dozen "cleanup" type tags on articles since I began editing, I'd be surprised. I usually fix problems if they're serious enough require fixing. Despite my reputation as some kind of AFD boogey-man, I don't do a lot of work there. Most of my nominations are for WP:CRYSTAL violations and hoaxes, not for WP:N issues. I don't actively search for articles to go for CSD either: I CSD an article when I stumble across links to them. The vast majority of CSD nominations I make are for reposts of deleted material.

I worked hard on trying to get a workable version of WP:FICT developed, and was disappointed when it failed. Again, for those that are suspicious, I identified Bulbasaur as an article that needed to be kept under any version of a new fiction guideline.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Deserves the tools. -download | sign! 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think anyone 'deserves' adminship -- it isn't (or at least shouldn't) be treated as a reward for good work. Not suggesting that you think it is, could just be a misunderstanding. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Support - Provided nothing serious crops up. Knowledgeable, a quick review of Kww's contributions doesn't give me too much cause for worry, easily a net positive with the tools. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good from here. hmwithτ 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support yes please! Kww is a great editor. I am sure he will benefit the administrator tools. I also believe, that he can stay neutral with the tools. --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support- no worries here. From what I've had to do with Kww in the past, I believe they're intelligent and hrad-working. I see no danger of Kww misusing the tools. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Kww does a lot of good work in the places where he edits, and he often deals with a lot of vandals. The tools will be of great use to him. I think he's learned from past errors. Acalamari 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Indenting: I'm sure about this one anymore. Acalamari 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Support; per not contradicting myself.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong support - Hmm, I always thought you were an admin... --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Aye per my comment on the previous RfA, and his excellent work since then. Black Kite 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support from the most controversial candidate to hit this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   One could dispute that last bit ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. The only possible issue I had was the situation about the temple garment images, and you've cleared that up for me. Thanks for your quick response. Malinaccier (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Great editor, cool head, will use the tools well. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
13. --Giants27 ^T/C 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Move to OpposeSupport Why not? - Fastily (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    See below. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Support I found A Nobody's oppose to be unconvincing, and I have no issues with this candidate. Good luck! :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    You have not had to contend with the candidate assuming bad faith with myself and certain others in practically every dealing. There is nothing to suggest that the candidate would not be biased when it comes to fiction discussions, barring a pledge to absolutely avoid closing any AfDs pertaining to them and not to block those on the opposite side of the fiction disputes. Dissenting opinion is one thing, but even in the case of virtual snow keeps? Moreover, see this edit summary. Because he (notice the "I") doesn't agree with something it is unacceptable? Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

15. Support. I've seen this guy in action, and I have to say that he is an excellent at handling BLPs. Definitely someone we want as an admin. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. I regret my oppose from last time. I've watched the candidate closely since the last RFA and I realized that the diff cited by me in the previous RFA and linked by A Nobody below was blown ridiculously out of proportion and is now ancient history as well. The deletionism does sadden me, but it's clear to me that Kww is a good Wikipedian. --JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support No question, none at all. Fine editor, who I worked with on Natalee Holloway which became TFA last October, and I see all the hard work he does keeping the music area under some kind of control. Deserved it last time, deserves it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I see no reason not to. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Reasons have been presented below. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Are you going to badger everyone who's not convinced by your oppose? Reyk _YO! 01:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Given past experiences with the candidate, I am deeply concerned that we have the potential for a non-neutral admin and as such in a discussion, it is worth making sure that we prevent any disasters now rather than wait for it when someone becomes an admin. As seen in the other seven or so RfAs I commented in today, I am more apt to support someone, but in this lone RfA in the today, I have deep concerns. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    And given that you are one of two opposes (the other of which is a horribly nonsensical oppose from someone who has opposed every single RfA for a while), you're apparently not convincing. People aren't convinced by your oppose, so don't badger people. If they think there is any credibility to your oppose, then they'll say so. As of now, they don't, so keep your comments to yourself. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Well, the others in this thread have not had so many interactions with the candidate and those who have had interactions in these fiction disputes would see and identify the clear bias. We do have issues with those who are biased as admins closing AfDs based on their biases and blocking opponents as well and it is imperative that we avoid these problems in the future. Objective editors will indeed see the problems here and will express reservations accordingly. In a discussion editors interact with each other. If this were just a vote, it would be just a list of supports and opposes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Except that the objective editors who have !voted support have looked at your oppose and don't find it convincing in the slightest. Stop feeling so full of yourself. People will oppose per your oppose if they agree with it. If they don't, they're going to support or oppose for different reasons. Trying to impose your bogus criteria on other people doesn't work. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Why are you so mean to me? You know, I try really hard to be nice to you as in User talk:Sephiroth BCR/Archive 21#Of probable interest to you... and yet the hostility continues... To be honest, this is exactly my concern, i.e. admins being needlessly aggresive with those with whom they disagree a la here as well. And yeah, I think most editors want to support and I figure most above are assuming good faith or have had pleasant interactions with the candidate outside of the fiction disputes, and as such I have only commented to those who either referenced me directly or who had some kind of "why not" that just disregards the oppose. I have always found it somewhat insulting if there are opposes to say, "why not" or something to that effect. Finally, I think most editors can handle having someone challenge their stance. You don't see me get up in arms when someone challenges my stance in an RfA. I hope that Kww will prove me wrong, but I have reservations based on previous interactions and again, many of those on the supports has not been in these discussions and so the only way to make them aware of them is to share with them. But anyway, just to clarify, I have no intentions of commenting further to anyone in this RfA who does not either reply directly to me or who does not mention me specifically, i.e. I will only reply to those who are in essence anticipating a response from me as it would be rude of me to not reply to someone who replies to me or who comments directly on my oppose. Otherwise, I see no reason to challenge people's stances any further. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    A Nobody is intitled to his oppose, but the editor does not have to go and comment in the support section to those who say "why not". They clearly don't see your point of view. America69 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I respect your opinion A Nobody, but I disagree with it. I think Kww will be a great admin, despite the opposes. Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Support, I do not believe there are too many admins at the moment for this candidate to be sacrificed or burnt at the stake. --candle•wicke 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Yes I'm sure it is unavoidable that folks will come in here and let their view on content determine whether or not we should make someone an administrator. I hope that doesn't happen again here. If it does, I hope those of us who aren't intent on fighting the great content wars will have the maturity to look past opposes like that and support or oppose this candidate based on his merits, which are many. KWW is a good content contributor, working in areas of the wiki that sometimes lack a calming hand. He deals with new users constantly and has handled most situations with them that I have seen with aplomb. He is also very capable of identifying serial copyright vio. uploaders, sockpuppets and sly vandals in his content areas. His posts about those folks to AIV, AN and AN/I are always informative, clear and neutral. He is also willing to work on the project side, at deletion discussions and in deletion work in a manner that I consider quite helpful. I am also certain that whatever his opinion on content, he is fully aware of WP:INVOLVED and is capable of rendering decisions about where and when he can use the tools. I think that giving Kww the tools will be a net positive for wikipedia. Please support him. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support I have no reason whatsoever to believe this use would abuse the tools, I trust them completely.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - call it a content-based support, yes, I side with Kww's take on checking pop-crap proliferation. Not to mention Kww's stubborn, dependable personality. NVO (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
23. I haven't been to the "I thought he was one already" file before, so I didn't know he was one of those people until I saw his name up here and realized he really wasn't an admin. Kww is a fantastic editor wherever he goes, and indeed, it is long past time to give him a mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - While there have been times that I feel Kww has acted a bit heavy handed when responding to sockpuppetry (which did make me pause when deciding to support or oppose), overall he has shown admin qualities. Also, we could use more administrators who are willing and able to help at WP:SPI. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support — Kevin is here to do good work and will make good use of the tools. I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. Attempts to elicit pledges re specific tool usages are antithetical to the concept of adminship. Kevin knows what articles he has strong views on and that AfDs concerning them might be better handled by someone else; I trust him to make such calls appropriately. Ditto for issues involving certain other editors. This sort of judgement is something that folks watch for in new admins (and the not-so-new). Advancing hypothetical concerns as cause for opposition, is bad faith. G'day, Jack Merridew 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Although your mentor per the arbcom decision allowing you to be unblocked has told you to stop mentioning me, replying to me, etc. for some baffling reasons you continue to feel the need to do so here and elsewhere. I don't know if you're trying to bait me or what and as people can see elsewhere I am avoiding replying to you in the other forums essentially per Casliebr's advice, but anyway, you do recall that this candidate believes you should remain banned (even though I perhaps foolishly said to give you a chance under mentorship...strange that you go back to villainizing the one who wanted to give you a second chance instead)? Maybe in that instance his judgment rather than mine was actually correct. In any event, I am not interested in combating you. If you want to perpetuate a one-sided "fight" here and in other threads as you have done recently post-Casliber's words, you can continue to do so, but I will not feed into it any further. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

26. Support, having known him for a long time. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Seeing Kww around a lot, I see he drives to keep Wikipedia at its best. He works long and hard, specifically in music related articles where I've seen him. I have nothing but utmost confidence and trust in him being able to use the tools correctly. — Σxplicit 05:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support  I have examined the candidate's contributions and issues; I believe he would be a forceful, unafraid admin. For those who would question me further, beware, for I am a small, tubular canine of German descent, specialized to hunt a particular member of the family Mustelidae. --StaniStani  06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong support as an adept spam fighter who knows policy well and expects only the best results from this project. ThemFromSpace 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I know KWW mainly from the fiction area, and I can see where perceptions of him being a controversial editor come from (i.e. he doesn't shy away from making his opinion heard). Having said that, I've paid closer attention to his way of interaction since the last failed RfA, and he seems have have tamed down and is not as quick to take the bait and risk making content disputes (appear to be) personal. I'd want him to think twice before swinging the mop in controversial areas (judging by his replies, he seems to already know that), but he seems to be a good admin candidate otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Why not? (And pre-emptively, don't say "see below", it's the usual stuff I disagree with.)  GARDEN  12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Trustworthy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Easy call, we don't have enough Admins and in my view Kww has the attributes to become a good one. I'm happy with the explanation of the only block in the last twelve months, and like the example of Kwww's conduct re temple garments. ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Strong Support. An excellent, dedicated and responsible editor who cares deeply about the project and is fully deserving. It is highly unfortunate that the opposition to KWW is derived largely from those who do not share his wikiphilosophy and (admittedly as I read it) are engaging in wikilawyerly and backhanded attempts to impugn his good faith and his ability to learn from his actions. Simply put, "doesn't agree with me on fiction-related articles" (regardless of the framework around which such a position is built) is not compelling grounds for opposing his adminship. Eusebeus (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support per no big deal, and having read the concerns of A Nobody below. Verbal chat 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support with reservations. In the end, should be a net positive but I'd be more comfortable if Kww changed his answer to Q8. Not that RfA pledges mean anything but I'd like him to understand that in areas where one is viewed as having strong and controversial opinions, taking administrative actions (no matter how benign) is a recipe for drama. It's a simple rule of thumb that every sensible admin should follow and in fact bad admins are characterized by their refusal or incapacity to understand it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Should make a good admin. Hal peridol (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Yes — R² 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support, which is highly ironic given my recent comments about the pointlessness of "strong" votes at RfA. Kww is an immensely dedicated Wikipedian that has worked very hard for the benefit of the project. His opinions are sometimes strong and I don't always fully agree with them, but what I do know is that I completely trust that he (a) has the best interests of the project at heart and (b) is fully aware of the abilities and responsibilities inherent with becoming an administrator. I have full confidence that he will make good use of the tools - any contentious edits he has made are dwarfed by the volume of sensible contributions and well-thought-out arguments. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. Has clue. Skinwalker (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support with no reservations. I've worked with Kww extensively both in areas of article development and admin related tasks such as sockpuppet investigations, page protections, and blocks. He has a strong grasp of policy in all areas where we have interacted and my personal experience leads me to believe Kww will make an excellent admin. Kww openly acknowledges his mistakes, learns from them, and has a history of asking for outside opinions on his actions. That is exactly what we want in an admin. We all have strong opinions on one issue or another, and Kww is no different. I have no doubt these are the areas where Kww will ask for outside opinions before acting and accept input afterward. Good luck! --auburnpilot talk 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I'm a bit on the fence, but ultimately I think this user can be trusted. AniMate^talk 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Solid answers, and has proven trustworthiness. Grsz¹¹ 01:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Weak support - I was going to oppose for use of the word !vote, but I thought that might cause a rather lengthy discussion I don't feel like reading. ;) Seriously, for my questions, I was impressed with 'a', felt pretty good about 'b', but 'c' sort of lost me, particularly the last sentence, which sort of killed it. Marginally notable people who object to having a biography here should not be ignored. At the very least, their opinion should be given consideration. لennavecia 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Cautious support...alright, I can see you are dedicated, and that folks of my ilk (i.e. inclusionists) will be watching for any misuse of tools. Ironically this gives you a safety valve as far as I am concerned so I am prepared to give this a whirl. Good luck, and keep up with the content contributions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support --Shot info (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support No concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - absolutely. - eo (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - there are some reasons for concern given by the opposers, but on balance I think I'm willing to trust Kww with the tools. Whatever else can be said about him, he clearly places high importance in following our rules and policies, and that's a good attribute to have in an admin. His biggest problems seem to be occasional civility issues, and a tendency to take Wikipedia debates too seriously - nothing here is all that important, but endless arguments over things like Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are particularly pointless. Whether this RFA fails or succeeds, those are the things I would advise him to remember in future. Robofish (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC) On further inspection, switched to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

52. Support won't misuse the tools, and extra ++ for denying those attempting to get blanket pardons as campaign promises. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    pardons they're not. any one of the 900 other active admins could still take action against them. Asking someone else is what people do, and admins have been desysopped for not doing so. We're asking him not to do something for which he could be desysopped, and he won't promise not to do it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Please read my response and amplification again. Here's a thought experiment for you (at the risk of a WP:BEANS problem): let's say I detected one of these editors you are concerned about running a script that was undoing redirects of fictional articles at the rate of hundreds a minute. I would argue pretty strongly that it would be very reasonable for me to block immediately to get the script to cease, and immediately post on AN/I that I had done so in order to get my action reviewed. I would be surprised if anyone would even consider desysopping for that action, even though it goes to the heart of the dispute between me and the editors in question. Blocking one for an NPA? Desysoppable. Blocking them for any action where the damage being done is minor or slow? Probably desysoppable. Will I say that I would absolutely forswear it under all circumstances? No, and that isn't what WP:INVOLVED requires: it states If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thought experiment 2. Let's suppose I found you running a script that would be doing just the opposite. Would I block you? And the answer is no. I've never been on Wikipedia where there weren't other admins around as well. In my early days as an admin I did in fact give a short block to somebody whom I had previously had a disagreement with. Just a one-time disagreement, not a long-running battle. He took me to AN/I over it. At AN/I people supported me, and said the block was fully justified, but also hinted I should reduce to time served. And I did, and I learned from that, and have never done anything like it again. Not so people wouldn't throw me out, but because I know how wrong it is. DGG (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    I realize it's generally quite wrong, and believe I've made it clear that I know that. My refusal to issue 100% guarantees in a situation where I think the answer is "99.99% of the time" is a personality trait that I'm not going to be able to change during the course of this RFA. And, FWIW, if I did such an asinine thing as your thought experiment 2 lays out, I doubt you would suffer any criticism at all for blocking me, so long as you immediately notified other admins that you had done so and invited reversal of your action if deemed appropriate.—Kww(talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    @DGG - you and I have had interactions (mostly positive I think), but I think it fair to say that we disagree on some things. Because of that interaction and disagreement, if you deleted the main page or otherwise went bezerk, would I block you? Yes. And I hope that you'd have the same respect for the project that if I did likewise, you'd block me. No foresworn passes handed out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    I hardly think you and I dislike each other as much as Kww and some of the other people he mentioned--regardless of who is fundamentally wrong in their interactions. (I'm not aware I dislike you at all, in fact. If I've said anything to make you think so, we need to talk about it.) similarly, I'd trust Kww to block me if I needed it--we're not enemies no matter what it may sometimes seem like. Rather, think of whatever editor you dislike the most for general reasons, and think whether it would be better to do it yourself or ask someone like myself to do it? DGG (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

53. Support I've come across KWW at some AfDs, and whilst I can't remember the details, I do remember that he argued his points well, showed a clear understanding of policies. --GedUK  08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support: Of course! seicer | talk | contribs 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support: At first, I couldn't remember where I had come across you, but then I remembered working with you on NFC issues. A good editor, will make a great admin. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support per my last AfD comments and lessons learned; meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; no good reason to oppose. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Many have been presented below. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

57. Strong support - Stubborn in the right sense of the word, not afraid to get his hands dirty, and has an extensive knowledge of policies. Will be a fine admin, I'm sure.  Channel R   16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong support Good editor, will be good with the tools, and although I do see the problems, the answers to the questions go a long way towards my opinion on this RfA. —Neskaya ^kanetsv? 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support; he may be deletionist, but he isn't evil. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong support per various arguments laid out in the Oppose section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    So then you mean strong oppose? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    So you support incivility and bias? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Nah. And I may even have stopped beating my wife. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

61. Support per all the above and that down below, too. Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    I can understand supporting per those above who want to assume good faith and all; however, to support because of clearly indicated instances of dismissiveness towards perceived opponents and clear bias just doesn't make much sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

62. Support to counteract some of the frivolous opposes. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Net positive Most of the opposes do not deal with the areas for which the candidate has requested the tools, and many deal with occurrences far enough in the past that I'm willing to leave them there. I would recommend the candidate reviewing his views on some matters and the way he comes across to others. An effort should be made to mend fences before trying again. Dlohcierekim 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Strong Support because of help in the past. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Support meets all of my basic criteria. Shows a solid understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. Dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Far too many issues of late with people just bulk saying keep for everything while claiming "ignore the guidelines they aren't important/real/relevant." Can be abrasive, but seems to recognize this and has done well at dealing with it. None of us are perfect, and I don't believe Kww would abuse his tools even while dealing with some particularly aggrieving folks and people he has had conflicts with before. Some opposes seem to feel he's too "tenacious", but we need more admins who are, and who are willing to take a harder line with some issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. All my encounters with this user have been positive and lead me to believe he will use the tools wisely. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I see nothing of concern, opposes aren't convincing, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support- It is my pleasure to uphold this nomination as I have reviewed the recent works of the editor and found them to be consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He is uncompromising and non-political, though he may have some personal biases, as I believe all of us do, it doesn't usually show in his edits given the fact that he has been with us for quite some time and has contributed loads. We need more people like him and less those that propagate a "you scratch my back" culture in Wikipedia. Please, let us give Kww a chance to prove himself. – Shannon Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support --EEMIV (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Per above editors.WackoJackO 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support per my previous nom. HiDrNick! 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support, controversial, but I believe that they will do a good job. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
73. Support, even though things don't look promising. Deor (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - This one took a while, but the final analysis shows he is a benefit. Agree with his positions on many things.King Pickle (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Done it before and I'll do it again. So much of the oppositional kicking-up seems to be so much incidental butthurt IMO. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support after a careful review of contributions, I believe Kww will make an excellent administrator.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww#Oppose. Candidate has played a major role in perpetuating a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere in discussions pertaining to fictional characters and television episodes and was nearly sanctioned by ArbCom for role in these disputes (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive145#Topic Ban for Kww). In addition to the diff in the previous RfA in which the candidate referred to editors of opposing wikiphilosophy as "vandals" or for calling for blocks for anyone who expressed concern over TTN, a user who was sanctioned by arbcom, and as much as I am reluctant to even bring this diff up, the candidate has say for example mockingly referred to my old username in a discussion. Regardless of what you think of someone and I know some have their concerns over why I changed names, but what does that accomplish? Why needlessly add to the tension? Moreover, in the admittedly high tension effort to compromise, i.e. where editors concede a little ground, on a fiction notability guideline, please notice such edit summaries as here, in which the candidate dismisses an effort at concession because in his words he (note the "I") does not agree (in many other instances, I notice a lot of not using any edit summaries a la [1] for example and is it really necessary to act so disgusted at others' ideas as if one will vomit?). Now I don't know the average age of Wikipedia contributors (do any of us?), but the candidate asserts that many articles are simply "created by 8-year-olds one Saturday afternoon, and that 8-year-old had an 8-year-old's attention span." Sure many editors do indeed start articles and leave, but why dismis them all as children? Other concerns include that the candidate had strange support in the previous AfD and has twice been blocked for edit warring. I am concerned that candidate could abuse tools when dealing with the various editors on the opposite side of the fiction discussions and would not trust to be unbiased when it comes to closing fiction and episode related AfDs. While I could find few to no instances of arguing to keep articles on fictional characters or television episodes (in fact the candidate argued to delete even in such cases as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Third Time)! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Back (Demi Lovato song), all of which had near WP:SNOW support for being kept), the candidate has by contrast argued to keep such things as Wikiproject Fancruft, which was decisively deleted due to overwhelming consensus against the project. Moreover, candidate holds a grudge against those who opposed his previous RfA. Now, he criticizes Casliber for his interpretation of not a democracy and yet uses votes (see [2] and [3], for example) with no arguments in AfDs. Finally, candidate is behaving during the RfA, but apparently the gloves can come off afterwards, i.e. we are being treated to one persona while the RfA goes on versus when it is closed. [Barring a pledge to never use admin tools with those with whom the candidate has disputes in these fiction discussions and to never close AFDs for which a potential bias exists, I cannot support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   • As for the strange support, I concurred with its removal. As explained at the time, it was a relative of mine that believed she was helping.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   • I see that, but to be accurate, you did concur with its removal after its removal. Anyway, just to be clear, given that first oppose in the old RfA and what I have seen in the fiction discussions, my concerns are really twofold: 1) you are zealously critical of your "opposition", i.e. whether say for example you really do think of ill of myself and Pixelface, I see little to no efforts at reaching out or really compromising with opponents and my concern there is what would you do as an admin? Would you defer to neutral parties or would you seize the opportunity to just blocks those you don't like? Given that you said those who write the fiction articles are "vandals", that doesn't strike one as a willingness to WP:AGF. 2) If we take that belief that such articles are vandalism despite serious opposition to that effect, how would you handle deletion discussions? Could you be neutral? You don't see me closing AfDs as a non-admin closer, because I know where I stand and how people would take that. Given that you are clearly and adamantly on the opposite end of the spectrum, would you similarly avoid closing such AfDs or dealing with prods for fiction articles? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   • I recognize that at this point in time, there is no consensus to block editors for knowingly and repeatedly creating articles that violate WP:N, so you need have no fear of me suddenly going on some kind of inclusionist blocking rampage.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   • It goes beyond just that to those with whom you have had specific disputes, such as Pixelface and to be honest, I can't think of any instances where you were nice to me. In dealing with such editors as us, would you defer to a neutral party? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   The last instance of this user being blocked for edit-warring was in November of 2007. It has been about 18 months since that. - Fastily (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   And in that time the candidate has been less than conciliatory when dealing with inclusionists and with regards to fictional articles. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Compare his answers to Q8 and 9 above with my answer to questions about closeing afds at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG, and the fact that i have in fact never closed keep on a fiction or academic topic ever, or closed keep at all except for SNOW or withdrawn nomination or technical reasons. I had no difficulty fulfilling my promise, and the very few people who have ever complained about a close of mine, are when I close Delete. That Kww is not even willing to promise says something for his honesty, but not for his intentions. I have usually not supported A Nobody when he complains about candidates who are too deletionist, because I don't judge on that basis. This time for once he's right. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't actually see anywhere that candidates are required to promise that they won't close AfDs or discussions in an area that they have some interest in. In my opinion that is something you might choose to do, but his not choosing to do the same doesn't somehow imply that his intentions are malign. Protonk (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   additional reason The answer to Q11c alarms me as much as anything else here. I think this is completely opposed to rational policy--the use of Nonconsus in a AfD debate is very often the best solution. The participation in an AfD is somewhat erratic, and there very often is no consensus shown of the community as a whole. Yes, it is good to find consensus--and I certainly support continuing a discussion via relist in an attempt to find consensus, and in fact I have just gotten considerable flak at Deletion Review for being willing to close as Delete after a fairly recent non-consensus close. But it many cases closing as non-consensus is the best practical solution, in the hope that consensus will form after a while, as it often does. The preference for multiple admins to all agree on non-consensus seems an attempt to influence policy so as to in actual practice reduce the number of times an article is kept for a while by non-consensus, and part of a general attitude to delete whenever possible. The policy is that deletion is a last resort, and I do not think Kww accepts this. This would matter less if I though he would actually follow policy rather than seek ways around it, but based on both the overall thrust of his answers here and his previous work, I do not trust him to do so. DGG (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose I've had very negative personal interactions with Kww in the past and I don't trust this editor to be fair unbiased in issues related to fiction in specific and inclusion/deletionism debates in specific. Given his unwillingness to step away from those areas, I must oppose. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
   • At Kww's prompting I went back and tried to find all those interactions. While I have fairly painful memories of deletion debates with Kww and I strongly disagreed with him during the TNN debates, I must agree those were not civility issues, just stark disagreements often rubbed raw by others in the debate. I do feel that he takes his opinions (say on SNG vs. GNG or if TNN was being uncivil) as fact and seems to have problems seeing the other side as being a reasonable viewpoint. I have a similar problem, but I'm not up for admin :-). I feel we currently have admins who close discussions based upon their personal opinion of the article and I fear this would be another for the reasons described above. Thus I continue to oppose, but want it made clear I don't see civility problems with this user. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose, per this answer in question 3: "That whole surreal arbcom experience, where Kirill Lokshin proposed topic banning me from all fiction articles, apparently because I dared question people using E&C2 as justification for blocks on TTN that went well beyond the penalties outlined in E&C2 for edits that didn't violate the restrictions imposed." This indicates to me that Kww still doesn't get it. The proposed topic ban was because he declared that he wanted to treat people who worked on articles like Bulbasaur as "vandals, as opposed to editors".[4] The fact that he still tries to gloss over that outrageous statement as merely "daring to question" is in my mind a very poor indicator of suitability for a position with block buttons. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Is it possible that he was in a silly mood that day because of it being April Fool's Day? I wouldn't vote for someone who said that and stands by it, but I would like to wait and see what his explanation is. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose, mostly for the Arbcom election !vote pointed out by A Nobody. No matter what one might think of Casliber's !vote in Kww's first RFA, I think it's an assumption of bad-faith to say that Casliber does not "grasp WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY" based on that and honestly it sounds more like a grudge against Casliber for opposing rather than a genuine concern. Also, per Sjakkalle, who points out that Kirill Lokshin stated clearly why they proposed the ArbCom sanction and Kww still seems to misunderstand this. Also, his rollback-use is problematic, he uses it often to revert good-faith IP edits that violate WP:BADCHARTS or are unsourced (see for example [5] [6]), although rollback is clearly for bad-faith edits only. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   While I do use rollback (accompanied by a personal message on the editor's talk page) for some chart violations, I don't use it for unsourced edits. The two provided here as examples are of editors inserting false figures into charts, which I believe that most people would treat as simple vandalism.—Kww(talk) 11:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Isn't it an assumption of bad faith yourself to assume Kww's vote against Casliber was revenge motivated? Since Casliber's election was not close, it would have been easy for Kww to withdraw the vote if it was bad faith, so it wouldn't haunt him on a RfA. I don't find that very convincing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not saying it is that way, I am saying it sounds like it. I do not know why Kww cast the !vote in this way but they should know that such !votes can and will be misunderstood. Clear communication is one thing an admin should be able to perform. Again, I am not saying it's revenge-motivated, but it can easily be interpreted as such. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, there's a good reason not to oppose anything or anyone on Wikipedia, it might be used against you next time because it "sounds like" something. And in view of the fact that Casliber just supported, don't quite know that you are entitled to be offended on his behalf.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Per what others have told me - aren't you allowed to use a rollback one time for "good faith additions"? Unless he is actually edit warring with rollbacks, I don't see the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, you are not. Per Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback: "(...) should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method. (...)". If an IP wants to change chart positions based on something they heard somewhere, they are doing it in good faith and should not be reverted using rollback. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Except that those IPs aren't doing it in good faith, as you'll see if you look at their contribs - the false information they insert is different each time [7] [8] [9]. This is an ongoing problem in pop music articles, the majority of the time it's just vandalism (as it is here), and Kww is doing exactly the right thing by rollbacking edits which are clearly unproductive. Black Kite 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   From what I can see, the paragraph makes it clear that the reason is -only- because they (the writer of the language) feels that an appropriate edit summary is needed in all situations, then even states that if you can craft other summaries then the point is moot. I believe Huggle allows for rollbacks on good faith. So, if you have a complaint it is that his summaries do not specify that it was a "good faith revert". You do not have a rollback complaint, you have an edit summary complaint. I don't use rollbacks. I don't like rollbacks. I really don't like automatic script. So, you can see this is an independent view on the whole matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Either way, "rollbacking" where some message is left in the edit summary isn't limited to the same restriction that rollbacks w/ no message are. I disagree w/ KWW that the repeated insertion of incorrect figures into charts necessarily constitutes blatant vandalism, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that it could constitute blatant vandalism. Protonk (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose The previous comments in this section (excluding DougsTech) raise very serious concerns regarding immature and reckless behavior that are difficult to overlook. Sorry, but I cannot support Kww. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose per the troubling concerns above, and the 40 opposes in the last RfC only 6 months ago.[10] Battleground mentality, I don't see how the candidates behavior could have radically changed in 6 short months. May of the editors opposed KWW's admonship because of what KWW wrote last year on the Wikipedia:talk notability page, regarding "Acceptable spinouts": I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case. This is not the type of uncomprimising battle mentality that wikipedia needs in an administrator. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose This user did seem like an excellent candidate at first but I just don't have enough assurance that they won't abuse admin privileges given their belligerent mentality. —LetsdrinkTea 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sorry, but this kind of comment sets off alarm bells. I have very little knowledge on any of these kinds of topics. However, if a topic has been considered notable enough for Wikipedia, then all significant viewpoints on that topic must be considered and editors who consider any of those points must be extended "good faith", and cannot be considered candidates for blocks or bans because they consider and perhaps add those points. Having an admin with such an opinion and the tools to enforce that opinion is highly problematic in my opinion(olive (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

    I believe you are misconstruing WP:FRINGE or ignoring it. Non-prominent fringe views are to be ignored. Prominent fringe views are not to be treated as fact. If they are well known, they are discussed as opinion or in terms of why they are well known. To construe fringe views as fact in any way goes against encyclopedic integrity. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Please refrain from telling an editor you disagree with that they are ignoring a policy. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Um, what? Telling someone that there's a relevant policy is now not ok? (I incidentally think that both OR and Kww aren't quite correct on what Fringe says but that's a separate issue...) JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just to clarify ... that quote expresses my belief on what we should change policy to be, not what I think it is today. All editors have a right to express what they desire policy to be, and an obligation to follow what it actually is.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    There are some views on what policy ought to be that show a lack of concern for the fundamental basis of Wikipedia. Strong opinions on procedure are one thing. The concept that someone who makes an edit that can be seen as supporting homeopathy should be blocked for it is outside the acceptable. (just in case anyone doesnt know, I personally think homeopathy a delusion. But that does not affect my view of the encyclopedia) DGG (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose at this time... as I see the grave potential for more future drama and not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Sorry but as well as the above, a comment where you called for editors to be blocked for bringing an issue back to Arbcom again has stuck in my memory. Such comments especially from admins have a chilling effect and Kww's strong opinions on this area do not let me have confidence in him becoming an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
13. 'Oppose Seems to misread things. [11]. Looking through his contributions[12], I don't think I want him as an administrator. Dream Focus 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Could you clarify what he misread there? Seems about right to me - you said [13] and he read [14]. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    That one was my mistake. I should've proofread my own stuff first, I saying "everyone" twice including the title, but then mentioned the keeps with improper wording. That discussion should be kept over there though. Anyway, looking this his past nomination, which failed months ago, I come across this [15] and other things that make me worry about him. Threatening people for complaining about what they consider abuse, is rather wrong of him. Dream Focus 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I think the way that Kww and other editors who tend to delete articles are ganging up on Dream focus, who tends to save articles, only reenforces the multiple reasons to oppose this nomination.[16] There is no good faith in this edit by Kww yesterday, no condemnation for Thumperward's twisting the subtitle of the article, it is simply partisan battleground tactics, selectively enforcing rules against those seen as being in oppostion, and ignoring supporters own rule violations. This is not the qualities I support in an administrator. Ikip (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Strong Oppose Pretty much per all of the above, I am not comfortable with adminship for this person.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Simply too much drama in this candidate's history for my taste.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per olive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Oppose, per the above, an editor who holds grudges, exhibits a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, shows bias and does not abide by WP:NPOV. He defends his block for edit warring [17][18][19][20] by saying he technically didn't violate WP:3RR.[21] In that edit war he was adding incorrect content into the Bleep article, (that the documentary portion should be called “fiction” because he believed that the interviewees were lying.[22]), wanting to add material that he clearly knew was WP:OR. Dreadstar † 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    [23].—Kww(talk) 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    You bring up an issue from 2007 and dare to accuse Kww of holding a grudge? Please. Kww did not violate the 3RR in the diffs you provide, technically or otherwise. As for the rest, move on. You were on opposite sides of a content dispute and a year and a half later you still can't get over it? Kww was not the lone actor and was in agreement with 8 other editors who appear to have been in good standing. --auburnpilot talk 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, Kww brought it up in his opening statement, else I wouldn't have mentioned it at all - goes to his lack of judgment. Dreadstar † 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Adding that I concur with DGG, especially his point on Q9, in view of comments like this. Dreadstar † 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose at times, confrontational. Give yourself some time to develop as an editor, and I will be more open to supporting you.  Marlith (Talk)  02:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
19. oppose Moved from neutral. Too many issues especially as laid out by DGG, Sjakkalle. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per DGG. Shocked to find myself agreeing with A Nobody, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Strongest possible oppose per DGG and answer to 11c. Changed to strongest possible per this diff which shows serious misunderstanding of our mission and how we work. We do not need admins who think like this on the project. Thank you Tom Butler for pulling that one out. --John (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (amended --John (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
22. Oppose I'm not really comfortable with his oppose vote for Casliber; he probably has a better grasp of Not#Democracy than any of us. Generally his combative attitude isn't becoming of a potential administrator and, as noted above, is quite prone to drama. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm guessing that if one of the two dozen people who voted against my successful RfA ran for ArbCom or for some other role, I'd be well advised not to vote against them, lest I be roasted on the gridiron of "oh, you must be voting for revenge purposes". Not that I ever plan to run for anything again, once was enough, and kudos to Kww for being willing to go through Hell Week a second time. While I like and respect Casliber, there are at least two views of every well-known WP editor, and having one or the other shouldn't be grounds for opposing in a RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose per DGG.MaxPont (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose per A Nobody, DGG, Dreadstar, and Scarian. I found myself very much regretting my support in this candidate's previous RfA after it closed, and so far this candidate seems to have done nothing to attempt to address the grievances from last time around. Combative and unnecessarily hostile in many situations. The answer to Q8 really sealed the deal for me. While it is of course not required for RfA candidates to make "campaign promises," as it were, Kww asked to be evaluated on his "suitability as an admin based on...how [he] would perform in all aspects"; when it comes down it, the answer is that I do not trust him to be impartial in all aspects of admin work. GlassCobra 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose I simply don't trust this editor to be impartial when it comes to inclusion criteria when closing AfDs or doing other deletion work. We already have too many admins that substitute their own opinions instead of actually evaluating consensus. If Kww would give some sort of assurance that he won't be using his admin tools in this area or at least explain how he would evaluate AfDs, I could shift to neutral, but his refusal to do even that (per DGG) puts me in the oppose collumn. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Response re: using tools in AfDs sufficient to move me to neutral. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

25. Strong Oppose Kww has made it clear that he considers a person with an alternative point of view to be a charlatan or an idiot. [24] Wikipedia needs centralists, not proponents of a radically skeptical point of view. Tom Butler (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Enough valid concerns have been raised so that I must oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Regretful Oppose per just about all the above. While I really do believe Kww 2 has made excellent contributions to the project, the points brought up by users John, A Nobody, DGG, Dreadstar, and Scarian are, unfortunately, enough to reason for me to vote oppose. Perhaps next time - Sorry - Fastily (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    haven't had much interaction with the editor except at WP:FICT, and while we were more or less on the same "side" I'm not sure I agreed with his approach in terms of moving the discussion forward. The refs pointed out above sway me. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to neutral, 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Shall we swap sides then? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose strongly. I consider his recently cited statement even less defensible than that of the bulbasaur. Also: "I would have no objections to semi-protecting all BLPs. This would go a long way towards encouraging account creation as well… Anything that encourages pop culture editors to get an account and use it is a good thing." ← surely we'd all like to believe that this will magically improve the quality of their edits—as this is the only thing that would outweigh the disadvantages of a "you must be this tall to edit BLPs" system (for maximum effect, repeat this 3–4 times with your finger and thumb almost touching)—but I do not believe the criteria are enough to make a practical difference. Consider how many pages on your watchlist have seen page-move vandalism in the last week or month, then try telling me with a straight face that the same criteria will stop anyone with the knowledge and determination to add content that would credibly defame a person. On top of that you'd have the arrogance to expect the subject of an article to wait four days and make ten edits to pages they don't care about (bulbasaur perhaps) before being able to remove libelous statements introduced in the eleventh edit of some other user who registered four days earlier. You would also eliminate the possibility that a particularly bad edit can be traced to an ISP without the need for checkusury and subpoenas, and increase the likelihood that the same content would instead be added to a non-BLP article closely related to the subject, just like any burglar would try the windows and the cat-flap too after finding the door locked. I can sense already that you don't like my metaphors but FlaggedRevs would at least provide a "leave it on the doorstep" mechanism if the person has instead come to deliver gifts, such as… I don't know… human knowledge.
    — CharlotteWebb 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose We absolutely don't need another admin who would happily treat good faith editors as vandals. We have enough of that attitude already. This would be a receipe for drama and conflict. RxS (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Sorry to oppose, but that's what's needed based on the significant concerns raised by several others here, in particular, DGG, A Nobody, and the succinct summary by GlassCobra. Also, the candidate's answer to question 15 is less than reassuring. Willingness to accept and learn from community feedback is an important quality for administrators, and that reply showed a lack of openness to or understanding of the feedback on his behavior offered during his prior RfA. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose due to all the drama outlined above. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose - switched from Support. Having read the 'Oppose' arguments more carefully, I'm not convinced Kww has the right attitude to be an administrator after all, and I can't in good conscience let this one pass. The diffs brought up by A Nobody are more troubling than I first realised, and there's a difference between 'believes in strict enforcement of the rules' and 'stretches the application of the rules beyond what is reasonable in order to enforce a particular POV' - I think now Kww is more of the latter. I was supporting because, frankly, I agree with his stance on pseudoscience and pop culture topics, but on further thought his stubborn, combative approach is not the one desired in an administrator. Robofish (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Robofish and DGG primarily. If it were possible, I'd be willing to let this editor use the protection tool, but definitely not the block tool. I'm uncertain on the deletion tool. Since it is a package deal, this is the outcome. GRBerry 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Strongest oppose Strong oppose for "Anything that encourages pop culture editors to get an account and use it is a good thing." Why the antagonism towards pop culture editors? This is one of en.wiki's strong areas with some good admins watching over pop culture articles. Whenever I find a BLP that concerns me and, imo, it needs more watching I ask one of the pop culture editors to watch it--this includes articles about scienctists, heart surgeons, chefs, race car drivers, and cricket players. And, I trust they'll do a good job because I watch their care with edits on the article they watch, and, I watch that they treat well-intended IP editors in their areas with respect. I'm overdone with signalling out pop culture editors on en.wiki, no matter how irritated I myself get that a minor biography of a scientist is up for deletion while every character ever thought of for the latest Amererican prime time cartoon show is a solid keep. But I'm not running for A, and Kww is.
    Even stronger oppose for this, "I think requests by the target of an article to delete the article (and !votes stemming from that) should be ignored at all stages of an AFD." The most offensive thing I've ever seen on en.wiki is a woman trying to get a smear campaign about her removed from en.wiki and an admin forcing it to stay up there based on one lame source, because the admin smugly was going to "ignore the target of the article" at all stages of discussion. "Target of the article?" WTF? BLPs aren't hit pieces. Oh, by the way, I emailed an admin and got that issue taken care of immediately--my current method, since the likes of Kww are over at AfD protecting hit pieces from their targets. --KP Botany (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose. Sadly. I had really wanted to support especially since I find many of the issues raised either non-problematic or surmountable. But I really don't like the quote found by Tom Butler. Reliably sourced nonsense is still reliable sourced and the standard is verifiability not truth. I don't think he would abuse the admin tools, but I just don't have the certainty I need to support at RfA at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose Eluchil404 said exactly what I wanted to. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose Many of the above sentiments mirror my own, especially those of A Nobody and DGG. His !vote against Casliber is particularly damning. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong Opposition. The nominee's crude attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with here [25] and his uncivil haranguing (indicating a failure to assume good faith) here [26] and his harassment of/personal attacks on an administrator whose efforts to defuse a content dispute rankled him, see here [27], demonstrate that this abusive user is unfit to exercise authority over others. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just pointing out that this is an exact repeat of the vote from my 6-month-old previous RFA, where the target of what Minos characterizes as a "personal attack" indicated support. As in all previous !votes, I encourage people to actually read the diffs and determine whether the characterization is fair ... being upset because an admin made substantial edits to two different article while they were protected over the course of three days doesn't normally constitute a "personal attack", nor does requesting clarification of an arbcom decision constitute "uncivil haranguing", and recommending that arbcom treat something as abuse of process rarely constitutes a "crude attempt to intimidate." Similar mischaracterizations are scattered among many of the above opposes, so I encourage everyone to read the originals.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

39. Reluctant oppose. He does good work, but alongside other opposers, I just don't have a good gut feeling about this. I was on the fence and didn't vote for a while, but i have to come down on this side. Wizardman 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose not a good candidate for adminship. Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong oppose Considering that the user said that I, along with Hans Adler, Tom Butler, and Levine211, should be banned for life [28], I suppose I'm not unbiased. I'm surprised that such a bad-faith editor is getting the support he is getting. Seems to weigh in on discussions which he has little understanding of with authoritative statements, muddling discussions. Since he contributes mainly on movies and music, perhaps he should restrict his comments to those areas. Further, his "bulbusaur" comment shows that even in his field of expertise, pop culture, he has a very wrong approach. It's interesting that he states that he "doesn't work on pseudoscience articles much, but it disliked by that crowd". In fact, he seems to not work on science articles in general (much less fringe science) basically at all, which suggests that he's not interested in science, one of our most important topics. Reviewing his contributions for the past year or so, I cannot find an edit to a scientific article. As a sidenote, his introduction statement reflects the irritating habit of using undefined acronyms. I don't know what WTB is (or which one of the pages at the disambig, although I'm guessing With the Beatles). While one might think this is minor, it reflects a shallowness in the presentation of one's thoughts which would be irritating from an admin. The most important characteristic an admin can have is the ability to do the research and get things right before making a statement or a decision. II | (t - c) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    "WTB" is used as an acronym pretty much immediately following the use of the full title What The Bleep Do We Know!?" And yes, I rarely edit either science or fiction articles anymore, as, despite my reputation, I don't enjoy daily conflict.—Kww(talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    All I know about you is that you have the tendency to interject in Wikipedia-space discussions about articles and editing which occurs in article space, making broad, presumptuous bad-faith comments with no diffs. I recognized that WTB probably stood for WTBDYK about a minute after posting; sorry, I've had a couple drinks. Reviewing your contributions to the WTBDYK article, they seem remarkably unimpressive. I would not say you did substantial work on the article. You tweaked a sentence or two, added some inline tags, and did a few reverts, somehow adding up to 61 edits. For a second I thought you added a ref to Quackwatch, but then I saw you just wikilinked to it [29]. I've now quickly scanned your entire contribution history. It seems unimpressive. Thousands of reverts, many "BADCHARTS" removals. I couldn't find you adding a reference. Could you provide a diff where you added a reference to an article and engaged in the work of adding sourced content to an article? Also, I'll clarify that you did edit atropa belladonna not to long ago, but otherwise didn't see any edits to science in a year.II | (t - c) 12:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    [30][31][32][33][34] since April 1.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Interesting. You replaced some old references, but added no additional content. Have you ever thought about creating a musicpedia, or maybe a billboardsmusicpedia? I'm skeptical as to whether Thinking of You (Katy Perry song) belongs on Wikipedia. Quite frankly, it seems much less notable than the Bulbasaur creature from Pokemon, and less encyclopedic. Its only references are chart and store listings. II | (t - c) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Being criticized for inclusionism in this RFA has just made my irony meter explode. As I have emphasised many times, I believe in following guidelines. My personal preference would be to generally not have articles about individual singles: the information content tends to be low, and the verification effort is high. Where WP:NSONGS clearly guides me that way, I tend to redirect articles about individual songs to the parent album or artist. However, once the thing has charted, the general consensus is that the single gets its own article. Try nominating Thinking of You (Katy Perry song) for deletion, and see how far you get. I predict a snow keep within 12 hours.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

42. Oppose mostly per the demonstrations of bad faith and per A Nobody. Artichoker^[talk] 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose per all above--particularly DGG. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose DGG makes a very strong case. Dean B (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose Too stubborn and aggressive. Zagalejo^^^ 00:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose Never had any encounter with this editor, until he removed a sourced fact I had added to an article.[35] I reverted it, and gave him the sourcing before he requested it.[36] When he then requested a source, I pointed out that I have supplied it.[37] He did not respond to me, made a huge assumption of bad faith, basically reporting me to an Admin and requesting that all my articles be put on review.[38] This is hugely inappropriate behaviour for an Admin, but, unfortunately, seemingly typical of the way the "leadership" here is heading, to the harm of the project. Dekkappai (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. I'm the one assuming bad faith? The exchange with A Man in Black is here. It was prompted by his discussion at Talk:Airi & Meiri. No "reporting to an admin" occurred.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

47. I hate to pile on, but I want to be sure this will fail (Yeah, that sounds harsh). I'm just not comfortable handing you a mop when I feel at times you'd use it like a pitchfork. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 07:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose, valid concerns raised by A Nobody (talk · contribs), Sjakkalle (talk · contribs), SoWhy (talk · contribs), among others above. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose Kww's "I'm not heavy on the content-creation side of Wikipedia" (above) means he sees himself as a wiki-cop. He's a very bright guy, but that's not such a good thing in a fairly extreme deletionist. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

In the previous RfA for Kww I wrote that "I disagree strongly with Kww about inclusionism/deletionism issues. I am confident that Kww's extreme views on the matter will not impact Kww's ability to use the tools correctly and in accord with community consensus." However, DGG's point and Sjakkalle's remarks make me unable to support this time around. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1. On the fence. I've been rethinking my oppose from last time because I've seen signs that Kww actually is much more capable of getting along with others than I thought. Still, he seems just a bit, well, heavy-handed for my taste, particularly against coverage of fiction (disclosure of own bias: I support the inclusion of extensive coverage of fiction on Wikipedia). On the off-chance I have any free time this week, I'll have a close look at his most recent contribs to see if I can support this time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Solid opposes from A Nobody and DGG, but the supporters are also persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Both sides raise valid arguments, so for now I'm left undecided. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
4. There's something here that compels me to vote oppose, but until I can put my finger on something a little more concrete, I feel obliged to remain neutral. — Ched :  ?  14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) While I haven't found any outright incivility, or even lack of clue - I question the candidate's practices of AGF. DGG and A Nobody bring strong arguments to the table, and I much prefer admins who contribute content than those who make a habit of looking for things to delete. I don't care for big egos, and condescending rhetoric; It isn't always what is said, it's how it's said. So, while my personal preference would be to oppose, I can't see enough objective evidence to do so, and I'll AGF myself and hope that some agenda campaign isn't waged should Kww get the tools. Bottom line? ... I won't oppose, but I sure can't support either. — Ched :  ?  17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
5. I really want to support, but the opposers raise too many issues.--Res2216firestar 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I just realized I was mistaking some diffs for Kww's when they were in fact another editor, I'm terribly sorry. I am troubled by the diffs above, but my own issues were unsubstantiated and cannot oppose without any personal grounds to do so. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral—compelling arguments on the oppose side, though not enough to suggest certain misuse of the tools. — Deckiller 04:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Cop-out Neutral - I really try to come up with a real up/down yes/no in any RfA I comment on, but after spending quite a bit of time on this one, I don't find enough compelling on either side. I am barely inclined (like 51%/49%) to support based on objective evidence; I am more than barely inclined to oppose based on what many have indicated in the oppose section. But I give more weight to what I see than to conclusions others draw from what they see, so I (unhelpfully) land in this section.  Frank  |  talk  23:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral - I am on the fence on this one, I sense that some of the oppose arguments are a little overblown. However there are genuine concerns about attitude and conduct that were not that long ago and hence I cannot ignore. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (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.