Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

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

(123/56/11); Placed on hold by WJBscribe at 11:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC) to allow for consultation with other bureacrats and closed per that discussion by Andre (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww (talk · contribs)

I am proud to introduce Kww to the RfA community. Some of you may know him, as he has had two prior RfAs, I won't spend much time discussing them, I believe he will in his acceptance and statement, but I will note that on each of the two times he was unsuccessful (although receiving a majority each time, consensus was not achieved) he has taken his licking and gone back to the serious work which he has done in many areas of WP, from vandalism prevention to his invaluable work on charts, which, since I am involved in several band articles, I've taken advantage of on more than one occasion. He's also a strong article builder; he and I worked together on Natalee Holloway, a controversial and difficult project which we and AuburnPilot took to FA and then to the Main Page. Whenever they show that movie about her, the article gets about 10,000 hits, so it is a valuable article for WP. Since the last RfA, Kww has waited six months and continued his work. He will be a tremendous net positive with the mop and I strongly urge the community to give him the equipment to clean up that mess in Aisle 12. This is my first nomination, and I really believe it should succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept the nomination.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, no one can help but notice the little "3" there on the nomination title, so it needs explanation. Yes, I've gone through this twice before. The first was around 50%, the second was around 60%. Both RFAs failed primarily due to a statement I made in April 2008, and a subsequent attempt to topic ban me from all arts related articles. Those events are real. I can't state that they didn't happen, so I won't. I am wholly responsible for the wreckage that is my past.

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

The blocks in my block-log are quite old. The Sept 30th, 2008 one is easy: an admin noticed a series of reversions, and did not notice that the thing I was reverting was an explicit exemption to the 3RR rule: the other editor was making obvious violations of non-free content policies. You'll notice he reversed the block and apologized quite quickly, with the explanation in the unblock as "my error".

The older block is a tad harder to explain. I discussed it with User:AuburnPilot, and here is the link to his talk page discussion. I'll let that discussion speak for itself.

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

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

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

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

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

As for administrative contributions, I'll let them speak for themselves. These tables show my activities on the major areas (SSP, AFD, ANI, AIV) over the last year. These are manually constructed, and believed complete. Let me know if I missed anything.

• My participation in AFD discussions since October 2008 is here
• My participation at WP:SSP is here
• My participation at RFPP since October 2008 is here
• My participation at WP:AN and WP:ANI is here
• My participation at WP:AIV is here

—Kww(talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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. Socking is an area where I am specifically hampered by not having administrative tools: right now, I can't even see where someone has made deleted contributions, much less see the contents of them to use them in putting together evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

That whole surreal arbcom experience.

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

Question from Peregrine Fisher

4. Are you going to close fiction AfDs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A: AFD closing in general isn't an area that I'm going to rush into: I'm well aware of my reputation as an exclusionist, and I know that the first AFDs I close are going to head straight to DRV just because of that reputation. That said, I won't make campaign promises: you will have to evaluate me as if I will participate in all activities. There is no method to hold any admin candidate to any promise he makes during RFA, and I won't make empty promises.

What you should take note of is that I am a rule follower: it's what I argue for, it's what I do. You won't find me closing AFDs in any direction where my closure isn't according to consensus, as reflected in the AFD discussion, with the arguments weighted in accordance to guidelines and policies. Any AFD I close, it would be with confidence that if that AFD were taken to DRV, my decision would survive the DRV process. Not closing AFDs that way is a waste of everyone's time.

It's not as if I simply dislike the existence of articles. Take The Paradiso Girls, for example. I argued for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/The Paradiso Girls. When events changed so that an article could be created that met guidelines, I went to RFPP to undo the creation salting and notified the creator of the original article that he could create a new version if he chose.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

what I said in my own afd was similar " I think it totally wrong to close debates to favor one's own argument, no matter how strong one thinks the argument: someone else should evaluate it. (Does this mean I will not close debates on academics or elementary schools unless opinion is essentially unanimous: yes, it does, I would not close any debate where my own opinion might conceivably influence the close." (fiction was not a key issue at the time--If I were to say it now I would add fiction, & bilateral relations) I have never closed a debate on fiction and I never would. -- & the one time I closed on bilateral relations over what I thought was a purely routine technical issue , it was taken to Deletion Review and overturned. No matter how sure I might be that my close would survive Deletion Review, if someone neutral closed, Deletion Review wouldn't be necessary. I suggest you should promise something similar. (and, looking at your afds,it should include the entire field of popular musics) DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:Blocks are a technical measure, used against an account to prevent it from editing. Bans are directed against a person, and are a statement that that person, regardless of method of access, cannot edit.—Kww(talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A:Policy says not to use them, and I tend to agree. A block does little or nothing to make someone calmer, and tends towards the opposite effect.—Kww(talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

7. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: As a policy statement, WP:ADMIN is the guiding policy. As a concept, I think the most important thing is even-handedness. An admin has to enforce the same rules the same way over people and articles he likes as he does over people and articles he dislikes. We're all human, and we all have likes and dislikes, but you shouldn't be able to detect them from an adminstrative log.—Kww(talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from Hobit

8: Picking an AfD nomination of your out at pseudo random (that list you created was quite helpful, thanks!) could you examine this AfD? Do you feel that the article should have been deleted? Is the current article one you feel should be deleted?

A: The reason I nominated it has been corrected: it was a copyright violation, now it is not. Judging from Google, it appears that the article could be improved further to provide some audience reception figures. Not much more than that, though, so I could never be enthusiastic about keeping it. It falls into the general class of TV show articles, now: I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, and if it came up for AFD, I wouldn't bother to comment.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from Leaky Caldron

9: Do you think existing accountability measures are adequate to protect the community from aberrant Admin. behaviour and if not, what could you do as an individual to improve the situation? Leaky Caldron 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A: The primary missing thing is a standardized admin recall system. I believe one should be developed, and applied to all admins. Our current system of voluntary recalls run according to privately generated standards that are only interpreted by vested parties doesn't serve anyone well. That said, I haven't seen a proposal that didn't seem subject to being gamed. If I saw a promising one, I would work to fine-tune it and achieve consensus for it.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

follow up question. No plans for unilateral action then? Leaky Caldron 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that attempts unilateral action around here gets some body part handed to them on a platter. May be immediately, may be eventually, but it is inevitable.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Amplifying a bit here, as I see my answer caused concern. I'm familiar with several proposals (and even participated in the RFAR discussion I'm said to have ignored), and, as I said, am concerned that they can be gamed in various ways. As to voluntary recall procedures: I've said that I won't make campaign promises. I said that in my last RFA, I said it in Q4, and I will say it again here in Q9: I won't make campaign promises. If there's turmoil of some kind, and no established procedure to strip me of the bit, then I will have to make the decision as to whether or not to relinquish it. In practical fact, every admin that is an admin today is in exactly that position, because it has been established that an admin that claims to be eligible for voluntary recall is under no obligation to follow through.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, in Oppose#13 I accused you of providing a hasty response (8 minutes) but I did not accuse you of ignoring the back-story I was referring to, so let’s get back to assuming GF. I have read your contribution to the and applaud the uncomplicated way in which you made your point.

My point is about trust. If you say something here which garners community support and later fail to follow that action, well – I just cannot see anyone doing that. I just don’t see the “bit” (why is it called that?) being so important that someone would be willing to make themselves a liar over something so relatively trivial. I don't think you would do that, nevertheless, I respect your choice not to make a commitment here which might need to be relied on later. Good luck. Leaky Caldron 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Question (pro forma) from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

10. At the beginning of your acceptance statement, you say that support in your most recent RFA "was around 70%," which would be on the borderline of succeeding. However, the actual count, as far as I can see, was 76/49/9, which would be only 60%, well below the success level. Have I missed something? (I ask this because, in deciding on a !vote here, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a candidate who'd reached the borderline level of support previously, followed by an extended period of problem-free editing; but would be more cautious about supporting a previously controversial candidate who hadn't reached that level of support before.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A: Corrected. As I get older, my ability to do math in my head fades.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Question by Sandstein:

11. In the "oppose" section, Ikip links to your statement of August 2008, at , where you said: "If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly." Do you stand by that statement? If yes, could you explain why you believe that approach conforms to WP:NPOV and how you intend to approach such topics (and editors involved with them) as an administrator?  Sandstein  20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A: First, let me be clear that I was advocating a change in policy, not expressing what I believed it to be at the time (or today, or at any time in the foreseeable future). As such, it would require modification to the wording of several policies and guidelines, but I would view it as strengthening NPOV, not damaging it. Editors take advantage of it to insert what is blatant advocacy for fringe points of view. Since this appears on the surface to be a content dispute, admin action is difficult to justify. That means it falls upon individual editors to fight it, article by article. That burns them out, which leads to behavioural problems, which leads to blocks, which ultimately leads to the fringe advocates prevailing. That is a structural problem of Wikipedia, and one that needs addressed. We can't ignore it. My proposal may be too harsh, but, in the end, we have to have a system in place that assures that things are expressed in a factual manner, not a superstitious one. Things are better today now that we have some of the major players banned or under editing restrictions, but that doesn't mean we have fixed the underlying problem.

As for the existing framework, the only thing that can be done is to monitor the articles that have problems with WP:FRINGE violations, and carefully revert those edits that can be non-controversially be established to violate it. Chronic violators of any guideline can be blocked for repetitive, willful violations, and our normal system of escalating blocks can be used. The chief problem with this is the blowback. Historically, pseudoscience advocates have successfully gamed WP:INVOLVED to attempt to demonstrate that the admin that initially reverted the WP:FRINGE violation automatically became involved, and thus was ineligible to establish blocks. That results in going through admins pretty quickly. This is an area where I would be careful to keep to extremely strict interpretations of policy, because that is the only way to avoid having efforts to keep an article healthy from being turned against me.

Somehow, we have to determine a way to determine the difference between a legitimate content dispute and fringe advocacy, and empower admins to combat fringe advocacy. I can't claim to have a perfect answer, and, if I did, would be unable to impose it on the community.—Kww(talk) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

12. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: Very unlikely that the situation would ever come up: I don't have an alternate account, have never had an alternate account, and the only scenarios I could envision where I would get one would be for things like bot operation, which would be a public account. I'm on record as saying that we should prohibit the use of alternate accounts that are not publicly disclosed. I expect that I would disclose any alternate I might ever be compelled to make publicly.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from DGG

13. Most of the afds you have participated in lately deal with subjects I cannot rightly judge, but I notice that a good number of them conclude with a merge. Under what conditions is is acceptable to bring an article to AfD if a merge will be satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A: Merging and AFD is a messy topic. In theory, if the nominator thinks merging is the right answer, it shouldn't get brought to AFD at all. In practice, that is doesn't work as well as it should. For example, most of the articles that I have nominated are nominated for being violations of WP:CRYSTAL or for the charting provision of WP:NSONGS: the article having either been created so far in advance of the release of the song that it is pure crystal gazing or, failing that, enough in advance that the song hasn't established notability. These articles are generally produced by avid fans and novice editors. The avid fans frequently don't care if guidelines and policies have been breached, and the novice editors sometimes don't even know how to look at a talk page, much less participate in a merge discussion. That makes AFD the only viable alternative to actually get consensus for a merge.

Beyond that, there is the fact that these requested "merges" are actually not required, and are rarely done. A "merge" states that there is valuable text from the article being removed that needs to be retained. For these AFDs, that basically isn't true: the reason the article was nominated was because its content was unreliable. In general, the parent album or artist article already contains sufficient discussion of the single or album that is on the horizon. What people that say "merge" are actually requesting is that the search term be retained in the form of a redirect, and that the parent article contain mention of the topic. No material from the old article should be moved, and none usually is.

This is an area that needs work, but the various proposals to have a unified merging discussion area have never caught on. Most of the articles I nominate still wouldn't go there for, as I stated above, merging usually isn't the desirable outcome. I think a bit of education on the part of AFD participants is required as well: before asking for a merge (as opposed to "redirect"), it is necessary to examine the two articles and identify text that should be moved.—Kww(talk) 12:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

14. This is partially a follow up to your answer to Q11. You seem to be saying we should have a policy banning coverage of homeopathy, the paranormal, and other things considered pseudoscience. Or more precisely, a policy that prevents treating these things as having any merit. Irregardless of what the scientific community believes, a very large number of people believe in the truthfulness of one or more of these fields. By policy, we as editors can make some judgment calls, but for the most part should stick to what RS say. Considering all this my questions are as follows:

14a. Even assuming we only a small percent of "believers" care enough to edit Wikipedia in regards to these topics, is it worth permanently losing these contributors to prevent coverage of "pseudoscience."

A: If someone repetitively inserts false information, losing them isn't really a loss.

14b. Who gets to decide what is "pseudoscience" and what is "real science?"

A: This is the hardest part. Quoting myself from Q11:"Somehow, we have to determine a way to determine the difference between a legitimate content dispute and fringe advocacy, and empower admins to combat fringe advocacy. I can't claim to have a perfect answer, and, if I did, would be unable to impose it on the community." I remember arbcom trying to set up a committee to deal with that, and that went over like a lead balloon. I lean towards a committee of people with real-life identities and real-life credentials, but suspect the method of election, scope of power, and method of recall would be such thorny problems we could never get consensus.

14c. If several RS newspapers report on say the healing power of parsley (for clarity, I made this up), why is it not appropriate to at least mention those reports? Assuming said reports are contradicted by scientific research, you appear to be saying they should not be mentioned at all. Why is it insufficient to mention those contradictions within the article and let the reader decide for themselves?

A: We should mention such reports. That's what WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. However, imagine that a group of five or six editors changed the lead of parsley to read:

Any editor that tried to correct it would quickly run into 3RR problems. He couldn't use the fact that he was right to justify his actions, because being right specifically doesn't entitle one to edit war. He couldn't get consensus on the talk page, because the band of five would thwart it. Any admin that attempted to correct it would then find that he couldn't issue blocks, because there would always be another group of admins claiming he violated WP:INVOLVED: after all, he had reverted a change in what is technically a content dispute, making him an involved admin. If the original editor recruits friends to help, he simply creates a larger, longer edit war, with the article frequently getting protected, often with the claim of being a lifesaving herb prominently displayed in the lead. With careful strategy, the group of five can keep the article in or near their preferred version indefinitely. This is a structural problem, and the lack of an easily implementable solution doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the existence of the problem.

14d. Wouldn't a policy like this create a slippery slope where sooner or later people to try to ban, or more likely drastically alter the way religious articles are handled?

A: I don't think our currently policies permit the presentation of religious beliefs as facts, but yes, the two issues are related. Any policy changes in this area have to be sensitive to not permitting denigration of religious beliefs in the effort to make sure they are not presented as factual.

15. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: WP:N sets a minimum standard. It does not create an obligation to have an article on a topic. We should have an article on a topic only when that article is the most logical and reasonable way to present important information. We should avoid creating articles for the sake of creating articles. Note, for example, that we could create an article on nearly every home in the US: combining the reliable information contained in every county assessor office with the reliable information from the MLS, we could write an article that listed every owner, selling price history, construction and building permit history, taxation history, and more for every home that has sold. I don't think anyone would think that was a good idea, but such articles would survive WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and any other alphabetic construct one could throw at them.

We should stress the organization of material in a logical fashion that emphasizes important information, deemphasizes unimportant information, and reduces redundancy. As an example in my general field of editing, I don't believe that most musical singles should have independent articles. We would be better off with redirects to parent albums, with the album article containing a larger amount of information about each single. Less redundancy, a better grouping of material into a locus of common interest, and an easier article to maintain. I've tried that, and was quite pleased with the result. Consensus was against me, though, and the information was split back out into multiple articles.

I firmly don't believe in inherent notability. If no one disassociated from a topic has noticed an item, it shouldn't get an article. This, again, is an area where consensus is against me. The most noticeable one is geographic place names. I don't believe every speck on every map should have an article.

I'm disinclined to accept the "there must be more sources out there somewhere that we just haven't found yet" argument either. I don't reject it absolutely, but it gets used as a shield for articles that are very difficult to justify. The best way to handle that is generally to place the material in a related article, with a redirect to it. That places the information in a context where it makes sense and the standard for completely independent sourcing is more relaxed. That's how I handled cello banjo, for example. As a cello banjo player, I had that normal motivation to create an article about it. I suffered from a dearth of independent sourcing. What I found was that most of the bass banjos suffered similar problems: not a lot of independent sourcing is readily available on any individual variant, but there is sourcing if you examine the class as a whole. I took this version of bass banjo, which had clear notability problems, and expanded it with multiple variations to create bass banjo, an article that, while not being a poster child for image formatting, has sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:N.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I find your answer to Q15 to be excellent and very thoughtful. I do have a couple follow up comments/questions though.

15a. I think you are right that our primary focus should be how to organize things, not which things to include (everything must meet WP:V, of course). The benefit of having WP:N is that it gives a concrete line (two significant sources) that helps prevent AfD from being widely inconsistent. Do you have any suggestions on how to maintain some semblance of consistency, while opening up policy to greater intrepretation? (There is no easy answer here, so if you don't have anything to offer that is OK with me.)

A. I think mainly to reinforce the concept of WP:N as being a minimum hurdle, not an entitlement. If people consistently insisted on passing it, and then focused on the question of whether the article in question was the best way of presenting the information, I think things would eventually become more consistent.—Kww(talk) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

15b. I think your "merge most singles" policy is a good thing to have, allowing for splits primarily when article size becomes a factor rather than saying "this single charted, so it must have an article". Based on this RfA you seem to have an anti-fiction reputation (whether just or not I cannot say). The combined article formatting you suggested for singles also works quite well for most fictional elements - that is, merging most characters (or locations, or plot elements) for a given piece of fiction into one article. So, the question is 1) do you agree with this solution? 2) Assuming you are OK with the solution, does a line need to be drawn or can we leave it up to editorial judgment? That is, if the editors of "Characters of X" feel every character can be mentioned but the editors of "Characters of Y" think only the significant ones need mentioned, is it OK for the different articles to have different standards?

A. I certainly have an anti-fiction reputation, but it comes about primarily because I view independent sourcing as mandatory. It's not that I have any special dislike for fictional articles, I just try to hold them to the same standards that I do other topics. As for the "Characters of x" and "Characters of y" contents being different, I think it's inevitable. The "List of episodes" and "List of character" articles have been given a de-facto exemption from WP:N, and I don't fight that. They provide a combination of a navigational aid and a necessary pressure relief valve. They still need to fulfill the primary goal: present important information in a usable manner. In a show like Defying Gravity, you can make a good argument for documenting every character: it's a bounded list, with only 14 episodes, and the bulk of characters make appearances in each episode. In a show like NYPD Blue, there are over 200 episodes, with a handful of characters every episode that appear for only that one episode: try to list and describe them all, and you drown useful information in a pile of trivial information. Because of differences like that, I think trying to craft some kind of overarching criteria for such articles would be counterproductive.—Kww(talk) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

16. Looking through your recent contributions, I noticed that you always always go straight to level 2 warnings for vandalism (and to a lesser extent for adding unsourced info & other problematic edits.) This appears to be true regardless of whether it was inserting a factual error, standard vandalism, A random talkish message within the article, lame commentary, or even insertion of mostly random characters on a talk page. (I do note that you occasionally use L1, but L2 is appears to account for 80-90% of first warnings you give.) Can you please explain why you usually skip L1 warnings?

A. I sit and ask myself if there is a reasonable good-faith explanation for the edit, even if it involves a complete misunderstanding of the site. Things like "IM RIHANNAZ NUMBER ONE FAN" usually get reverted quietly or given a level 1. Edits on talk pages are more likely to get a level 1 warning, too, because most novice editors just don't understand what talk pages are about. I also look at context and other edits. Your example of standard vandalism had also just had this silently reverted. There just really isn't a reasonable, non-vandalistic explanation for this. Your example of inserting false data had inserted false data into four articles in quick succession. If, in context, I think the intent was a willful effort to damage, I start with level 2 warnings. If I judge that it was an intentional attack on the subject or other editors, I might even start with {{uw-blatantvandal}}. Things like test edits rarely get anything more than a level 1, and generally won't get any comment at all if it appears to be an isolated incident. I'm far from unique in this, and every editor that does vandalism patrol has idiosyncracies: some follow the full 1-2-3-4 warning structures every time, some are 1-3-4, some are 2-3-4. You'll even find a handful that go 3-4.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from BOZ

17. I'd like to get your thoughts on some of the criticism that's been leveled against you. Not only do the Opposes and Neutrals bring up concerns, but even some of the Support votes show the unease that some people have in seeing what might happen if you are turned loose with the tools.

17a. You gave a response to the Meursault2004 situation above, the April 2008 quote in your initial statement, and to other items here and there, so of course feel free to take this as purely optional. Besides the items you have already answered to, what criticisms against you do you feel are particularly unfair or just plain wrong? (No need to name names!)

A: There's an implication that I misbehave at AFD that bothers me. I logged them all before this RFA started, and provided a table at User:Kww/AFD. People that are uneasy about my behaviour at AFD really should take a look. Despite my reputation as some kind of anti-fiction deletionist bogeyman, I barely participate in fiction AFDs: between 9 and 11 in the last year, depending on how you count the "List of 100 Best..." articles. I stay polite, I don't insult people, and I argue based on my interpretation of policy. When things change during the AFD (as they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stay (SafetySuit song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Despues de Todo), I change my mind. No, I don't vote "keep" often, but if people take the time to go through the AFDs, I think they will find very few times that "keep" was appropriate. I could search for AFDs where I would vote "keep" and do so to keep my statistics up, but I've never felt motivated to do that.

There seems to be a belief that I will never change my mind. Presented with evidence, I change my mind readily. Take, for example, this (somewhat long) recent discussion over Latvian charts at WT:Record charts. For context, I had placed Latvia on the WP:BADCHARTS list (after the they had gone through an AFD, and no one was able to find sources that backed them as being reliable), and Contains Mild Peril is trying to persuade me that I had done so prematurely. I

• rejected a long series of sources, but took the time to indicate why for each one
• received feedback about one of my explanations
• changed my mind about the reference
• and then presented a concise version of the argument to a broader audience for feedback, giving fair representation to Contain Mild Peril's argument

That's my main style for argumentation and debate: look at the facts in evidence, and make decisions. I change my mind when the evidence changes. I think it's telling that most of the editors I work with on a daily basis aren't here opposing. The music editors that have commented here have been unanimously supportive. I can't go poll them with committing a WP:CANVAS violation, but if people go read WT:Record charts and it's archives, I think you will see that I discuss things and change my positions when people provide reasons for me to do so.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

17b. It never hurts to accept criticism when it turns out that it is true – it can even make one a better person to understand one's faults. What complaints about you below are absolutely true, or at least pretty close to the truth? What, if anything, do you think you can do to change these things, or at least alleviate people's apprehension about them?

A: It's obvious that I come across as making snap judgments, and I need to focus on presenting my reasoning the first time I post on a topic.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

17c. There are a number of old quotes attributed to you, where you have responded by pointing out the age of the quote. By mentioning how long ago you said something, are you saying that you no longer feel this way? Is there anything which people have said about you below which you can admit was once true but is true no longer?

A: Most of the worst quotes are phrasing problems, or being presented as if I thought being an admin would be magic permission to actually do them. A lot of my views are not mainstream views at Wikipedia, and I know that. I also recognize that that means that while I am free to attempt to persuade people to my point of view, I am not free to act on them. I certainly do believe that we should have a streamlined process to identify advocacy problems, for example, and that editors that refuse to stop distorting content to match their advocated position should be blocked. Do I believe that anything in Wikipedia policies or guidelines empowers me to be judge, jury, and executioner, going on a blocking rampage against editors that I think have crossed some line that only I can judge? No.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

18. Let's go for some admin basics, the sort of things which I have tried to keep in mind when dealing with other users which present a problem to me. Some practical stuff, to let us in on your thought process.

18a. You find that an editor with whom you've had more than a little conflict in the past is giving you particular trouble. They are making a minor policy violation which may be blockable (3RR violation, let's say). You gave them a warning and they seem to be ignoring you. How would you handle this?

A: Minor stuff from an editor that I have a noted conflict with? Hand it over to another admin pretty quickly. This was a big issue in my last RFA, and the answers I made there still hold: I won't issue a 100% guarantee to any editor that our involvement level gives them an absolute shield from blocking. I recognize that there are editors that 99.99% of the time, I shouldn't be the one issuing any blocks. I'd still stand behind the example I gave there: if one of the fiction editors I've locked horns with in the past wrote a bot that was searching out redirects that were sitting on top of character and episode articles and undoing them at the rate of hundreds per minute, I might block first to stop the bot, and report the block at ANI for other admins to review. If he was doing the same thing manually, it would be inappropriate for me to block. There's no situation where it would be appropriate for me to block such an editor without immediately taking it to ANI for discussion.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

18b. You find yourself having conflict with another admin over some issue. Let's say you blocked a user for something, and the other admin decreased or undid the block without discussing with you first. Or maybe the same situation happens with regards to page protection. What would you do?

A: That's what talk pages and ANI are for. Wheel-warring is even worse than edit-warring, because it undermines the confidence of the community in administration. Again, 100% guarantees aren't available: if I blocked a bot account because it was doing something rapidly to numerous articles that I considered damaging, I might consider reblocking. Any damage that occurs at human time scale can be discussed at human time scale.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

18c. Let's say you believe firmly that a particular editor needs to be blocked for something they have been doing repeatedly. Two other more experienced admins have counseled you that blocking the editor would be inappropriate, but you disagree with them even after they present their rationale. What do you do?

A: Generally, that's time for ANI or RFC. Blocking the editor in that circumstance is fruitless: if he wasn't unblocked before the first {{unblock}} request went up, he'd be unblocked as soon as it did. I don't like to waste time on fighting with editors or admins: if I couldn't get consensus at an appropriate forum to block, I wouldn't do it.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

19. Hypo: Assume that an editor complains to you that a particular admin, a nom in AfD efforts, has repeatedly made mistatements and exaggerations to support his position, and also engaged in wikihounding. Assume also that you have suggested to the editor that he try speaking to the admin, and that has not resolved the matter. What would you suggest as the next step? And is the admin held to a higher standard than other editors in this circumstance?

A: A bit late in the game, but finally a question I don't think I can get wrong. First step is to undertake a bit of investigation, and find out whether he has a strong case or not. I would also have to evaluate whether I could reasonably be seen as biased one way or the other. Then it becomes kind of a decision table:

I think complainant is wrong, and there's no reason to believe I might be biased: I'd offer to help him with dispute resolution procedures. Even if I think he's wrong, I have an obligation to help people that aren't familiar with procedures to gain access to dispute resolution.

I think complainant is wrong, but there's a reasonable suspicion I'm biased in favor of the admin in question: Not much different, except I would try to find a third-party admin to direct the complaint towards. If I can't find one, my obligation to provide procedural help still holds.

I think the complainant is right, and there's either no reason to suspect bias: I'd try to get the problem resolved as an uninvolved party. This would probably include working the dispute resolution procedures actively to try to get things resolved.

I think the complainant is right, and I'm biased towards the admin in question: I'd try to get the problem resolved as an uninvolved party. This would probably include working the dispute resolution procedures actively to try to get things resolved. In this case, my actions would be against bias, so I don't have too much trouble with getting involved. I'd have to be careful to make sure someone uninvolved helped, though, because my bias might make me accepting of a resolution that wasn't optimal.

I think the complainant is right, but I'm biased against the admin in question: I'd have to find a third party to double check me on this one, and my actions would vary according to advice received.

As for the question of a "higher standard", yes and no. I subscribe to the theory that the more senior and editor is, the higher the standard one must apply to his behaviour. I really dislike seeing someone get forgiven for bad behaviour on the grounds that he is a senior editor, because it should work the other way: a low standard for newbies, because they are trainable, with a higher standard for any senior editor, including admins.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

• General editing stats have been posted on the talk page. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. As nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Should've been granted +sysop back in April. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Kww is capable of showing responsibility for his actions. He out in the open explains what he did wrong, instead of trying to bury it. Well done. @harej 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. I supported the first one, and somehow missed the second. Tan | 39 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Per Harej, don't know you well but the your statement and answer to Q3 make me feel as though you won't make the same mistake and will be a net positive as a sysop.--Giants27(c|s) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I agree with harej. I knew that Kww had issues in the past, although the details missed me. His acceptance statement and Q3 laid out the past conflicts very nicely, and I appreciate the simple open honesty about it. He's learned from mistakes, and to put it into perspective, the two main incidents happened a long time ago (the first in late 2007, and the second in May 2008). That's plenty of time for one to learn and prove themselves through positive contribs and good judgement. Kww has accomplished just that. JamieS93 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I've been watching the opposes. Some have solid rationales, while others are weaker. All in all, there are a few issues, but Kww is here for the right reasons, he is capable for adminship and I still remain supportive. He's the type that can be pushy when it comes to getting things done, but it's all work toward improvement of the encyclopedia. I, personally, am glad that he actually has a backbone when it comes to content quality. We need more people like that. I find the handful of issues/incidents he's been involved in an unconvincing reason to oppose. He'll do good with the tools. JamieS93 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - I've seen some of Kww's work, and I think I've even worked with him on one thing or another and don't remember anything negative. The "essay" written above is honest and open about past mistakes and I don't hold the past against him. The answers to questions are concise and accurate. I'll support unless someone gives a very good reason not to later in the RfA. -- Atama頭 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Without reservation A more full explanation later (as needed), but Kww is sincere, dedicated and knowledgeable. He understands how to go about improving articles both directly and indirectly and he is reflective on his mistakes when he makes them. This is what we need. An admin who is forthright, helpful and not brittle. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support No present concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. HiDrNick! 01:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    You have not provided any reason. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Reasons are not required for supporting. Majorly talk 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed, but those in need of convincing can check out my nomination statement on his first RFA. Better late than never, after all. HiDrNick! 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am just not persuaded by that rationale. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

11. Support I encourage anyone who opposed the first two RFAs to join me in changing their mind -- I will admit I felt at the time of the first RFA that he had something of a battleground mentality, but I see no evidence that this is still the case. WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS is a brilliant example of someone working to find a third road. It is an effort that is neither deletionist nor inclusionist, but one that creatively, constructively and non-partisanly addressed a problem across thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of articles. It is the sort of effort we should applaud and Kww is the sort of editor we should have as admin. --JayHenry (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
12. I went neutral last time in response to points made by DGG and A Nobody, but those aren't issues now. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Against what I said on his talk page, I decided to look closer at him... mistakes happen, people grow. 18 months has passed, so I'll support at this juncture.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Move to Neutral---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

13. Support. Easily one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable users around. Kww has become a great asset to the community and I believe he will become even more so with the tools. — ξ^xplicit 04:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support per the improvements noted by others in support and also per the diffs provided by Ikip. Crafty (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Could you explain that last part please? Hobit (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sure. Far from persuading me that Kww is unsuitable for Adminship, Ikip's diffs crystalised my support for this RfA. I was leaning towards support and they just sealed the deal. Crafty (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

15. I'm trying to take a Wiki-break and have seen some success so far, but one simple support won't hurt, will it? Kww will do just fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
16. I still wonder why he didn't pass the last one! ceranthor 10:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Should have passed previously. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
18. No recent causes for concern.  pablo_hablo. 11:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that this is the first RfA that I have participated in. My original comment was "no recent causes for concern, " and I am amending that slightly. Jack Merridew's concern is, I think, the only valid one here.
    Even taking that into account, however, I think that Kww will make a good admin. If you look into the diffs supplied plentifully here by all hands and concentrate on the substance of the debate in each case, I think you will agree that he tends to argue his case logically and is prepared to listen to, and be convinced by, the opposing point of view. When unconvinced he 'agrees to differ' and goes and works on something else.
    We are told that we need more admins. Kww will be a good one. I am saying that not because I expect to agree with all of his decisions, but because I trust him to make them honestly and use the admin tools responsibly. (There are other admins making decisions with which I disagree every day - doesn't make them bad at their job).
    (Note - wrt DGG below - I have also been contacted and exhorted to change my position. I read nothing into that apart from the fact that a lot of people seem to care a lot about this RfA.) amended   pablo_hablo. 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Anything recent, opposers? Almost a year is a long time in wiki-standards. Otherwise, I have to default to support. Majorly talk 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support again. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support because there's really no compelling reason to oppose. The objections below seem largely based on speculation and other various flimsy arguments rather than definitive evidence, so in the spirit of AGF I support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per Harej. Sluggo | Talk 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support per my last support. KWW meets my criteria for an admin. Kww shows a solid understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. His dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Yes, he can abrasive at times, but he has continued to work on improving this and I have no problems with an admin who is human so long as they work on correcting that flaw ;-) None of us are perfect, and I don't believe Kww would abuse his tools. Certainly having more admins willing to deal with anything Disney is an extra perk, and recognizing the serious problem with have with that sock puppet is a perk. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - I misread those diffs as being from 09, if nothing more recent can be found, I can do nothing but conclude that such issues are resolved. — neuro 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Good answers to Q1 &4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. 88.108.233.96 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. I don't care what happened in 2008. 2009 looks good enough for me. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I am satisfied that this candidate will not break anything, and am satisfied with the answers to my questions - candidate seems knowledgeable, and we need more peeps like that around. ArcAngel (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Is being opposed by all the right people. Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Insulting a dozen editors is a pretty lame reason to support. Candidates should stand on their own, not on the merits/demirits of the others in the discussion. Fastily and I, for example, both oppose in this RfA, but support in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tcncv#Support, so are you going to oppose because "the right people" support there? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed they should be left to stand on their own, and not be treated as a proxy for interminable wars over marginal content. In other news, I'm glad to see that you've made a full and timely recovery. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks; it is good to not feel sick any more. Happy editing! --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    As an opposer, I have to take exception to Badger's comment as being overly hostile. This is a serious issue, and I don't think snarks are appropriate to this debate. Yes, my own oppose was indeed strongly-worded, but I took care to give my reasoning and the reasoning I agree with. Here is where the line should be drawn in RfA discussion, at least in my view. Jusdafax 19:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I totally agree with you, his words are hostile and combative. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Ridiculous reason to support IMO, it's not like I have a grudge against Kww... just !voted based on his recent contributions. It's best if Badger Drink tries to keep this type attitude away from RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

30. Support per Badger Drink. Ya'll tried this same tactic of dredging up ancient history from before a previous RFA on me, and it is not cool. Some users have the perseverance to actually listen to the criticisms from their previous RFAs and learn from them. How is it that a certain crowd is willing to assume good faith and keep almost any article, but perpetually oppose someone they have had a disagreement with. KWW seems to have a strong understanding of the admin approach to decision making, which is based on an understanding of Wikipedia policies and current consensus, not personal feelings. I trust him to use the tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    As I note below, my concern is based not on behavior before the last RfA, but from this very month. Editors who create and argue to keep episode articles are still in October 2009 are dissmissed as ignorable. How can we trust someone to be neutral when closing AfDs if a group of hundreds, maybe even thousands of editors who contribute in good faith are just ignored outright. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    What he is saying with that remark is that we should follow current policy and not our own feelings. That is exactly what an admin should do. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    He is dismissing advocates of such articles as a "small minority", which is factually incorrect given the sheer number of unique accounts and IPs who create and work on such articles and who come here to read them. The other concern with that comment is that it is saying we should follow one interpretation of the policy, not necessarily the only reasonable interpretation. In this particular case, it concerns an article that could be merged/redirected instead of redlinked per WP:PRESERVE or better yet could have been improved to include out of universe development information from DVD commentary and reception information from reviews per WP:BEFORE. Put simply, we should not adhere to so strict an interpretation of one disputed policy at the expense of ignoring others. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I don't badger opposes, but hopefully one comment in the support side based on an argument from someone named "Badger" will be acceptable. WP:NOT#PLOT is policy. People are free to say that it should not be policy, and their voice should not be ignored when they do so.

    I would also point out that in the last year, I have participated in ten fiction AFDs. Ten. Out of 180. Of those ten, four were WP:CRYSTAL violations and two were hoaxes. To argue that I am participating in some kind of battle in fiction AFDs is also fallacious.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Then why say, "I suggest that you ignore them"? That seems pretty explicit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Because there is a difference between discussing a place where NOT is to be applied and discussing how NOT should be comprised. When we are discussing how NOT should be comprised we should obviously listen to folks who say that it should not include a prohibition on plot summaries. When we are talking about how NOT should be applied we should ignore people who suggest that we apply NOT as though it was already changed in that debate. Protonk (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Editors in that AFD can still WP:IAR with regards to something that is constantly under dispute as evidence by Not's talk page and the reality of article creators, editors, and readers acting in good faith in practice. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    They could. Editors could also review admin candidates on their merits instead of just applying a litmus test vis a vis fiction articles. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I just think it's deeply flawed logic to suggest that someone who was on the opposite side of an AFD debate from you will automatically go on a deletion rampage if they get the tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I did not comment in that AfD on "The Last One" episode in which he said to ignore those with whom he disagrees. I was on break for its duration. I therefore was not part of any side in that discussion. And even if I were to comment in it, I would have advocated adding out of universe information rather than just keeping a plot only article. Anyway, based on a review of this admin candidate based on merits rather than opinions toward fiction articles, I see too great of a certainty of being "right" and too unwillingnes of making efforts to reconcile or even treat fairly those of opposing viewpoints. I had really hoped after the last RfA, more would have been done to make peace with those who opposed and that dismissive "ignore" certain editors' mindset would not have persisted. We need to stop seeing those of different viewpoints as vandals as he said in 2008 or ignorable as he said in 2009. If I see such a good faith change, I will gladly reconsider down the road. I hoped such a change would have occured after the last one. My concern here is not inclusion philosophy, but rather how he views and treats those with whom he disagrees. I supported two other candidates today who have at times expressed opinions different from my own and yet as a whole do not seem dismisive of those with whom they disagree. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    @ Kww: I don't badger opposes What is this then: Kww, didn't you support a recent RFC against an editor in which one of the complaints was an editor doing the same thing? Ikip (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Point of fact: he's not listed as a certifier or endorser of the main RfC. He authored a summary and endorsed that. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

31. Support One or two opposes make a reasonable point. Most, however, don't - dragging up diffs from over a year ago assumes bad faith that the user can modify their editing - and some don't give any reasons at all, and can be safely ignored. In the end - does Kww have a solid grasp of policy, and would Kww abuse the tools? To the first, I believe so, and to the second, I very much doubt it. Black Kite 19:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    This is from earlier this month, not over a year ago. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    There's nothing wrong with that diff. Indeed, I agree with the gist of it, if not the way it was articulated. I was talking about the "vandalism" ones in regard to creating non-notable articles. Black Kite 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    There are two major things wrong with that diff. First, it is false that only a minority of editors disagree with not plot as demonstrated by the thousands of editors who create and work on plot based articles and the millions of readers who come here to read such articles. These people are far more numerous than those who comment for or against on the talk pages. We may not be a democracy, but it is not a small minority's opinion that challenges not plot. Second, saying to ignore these editors is needlessly hostile and aggresive and if it were a true statement, one would indeed just ignore and not have to comment that he or she does so. Saying as much only antagonizes those editors rather than actually help return focus to the discussion of the article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

32. Support. I see nothing which leads me to believe that Kww would abuse the tools (in fact, quite the opposite). The reasons given in the various oppose opinions are not convincing. Kww has shown a solid grasp of policies and guidelines, and I think would do a good job as an admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support because some of the oppose votes are ludicrously unfair. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Support, a thoughtful, seasoned contributer. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. I opposed the last RFA, but on careful examination I believe Kww has improved a great deal as an editor since then. His contributions to the noticeboards (ANI, AIV, RPP etc) are positive and useful, and his attitudes towards other users are generally civil; he no longer seems to hold the 'battleground' approach for which I opposed him before. Based on what I have seen, I trust him with the tools. The worst I could say about him is that he tends to prefer indefinite semiprotection of highly vandalised articles - but then, I support Flagged Revisions, which is essentially that. I see nothing concerning in the opposes thus far - the only diffs which raise a few problems are from a long time ago. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Support AniMate^draw 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Badger Drink has it right. – Steel 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong Support As a known fact Kww has been my probation officer for the past 3 months because of my prior vandalism and sockpuppetry. And to all those who bash Kww about being unjust or harsh, let me tell your wrong. He has patiently waited and mentored me for almost 4 months until my mentorship is complete. In the initial arrangements seen HereI was supposed to be blocked from even 1 false edit, and as you see Ive had my fair share of mistakes and have gotten some chances. This proves that Kww is not 'too harsh' or 'quick to block' because he's fair and is does compromise, and just because of past mistakes doesnt mean he hasnt learned from them, or else 'where would I be'?.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please note: Peter canvased an editor with a non-neutral messages to !vote for Kww. Ikip (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Permission granted to mosey on over to the talk page of this relatively new editor and explain the problems with his actions. Take this as a chance to have a teachable moment. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, after his one post, I explained and asked him to stop. That was well before Ikip posted here. Given Petergriffin9901's response, I'm pretty sure he understands.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

39. Support. Definitely someone I'd like to see as an admin. Note, I'll be ignoring responses that are merely badgering or simple repetition of the below opposes. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support based on my experience of this editor's article edits, discussion comments, and answers in this RfA, all of which demonstrate experience and good priorities. Would be a fine admin. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I believe his receiving the tools will be a net positive to the project. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Having opinions does not disqualify one from adminship. A candidate should be opposed only if there is evidence that he or she would use the tools improperly to advance those opinions, and I see no such evidence in this case. From what I've seen of Kww, he would hold off and seek consensus before using the tools in any manner that might be construed as controversial. Deor (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support: I'm impressed by his contributions. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I believe he would make a good admin. I believe he wouldn't have made a good admin in 2008, but that was a while ago - people do learn from their mistakes and I see sufficient evidence that this one has. Orderinchaos 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Support per Ikip. If the worst that you can dredge up is comments that are over a year old, then the candidate can't be too bad. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

    Just to reiterate a point: it's apparent to me that the reason the editors that oppose this RFA included year old material is not to unbalance the RFA, or to punish Kww for past sins. It's because the essential nature of Kww's behavior has not changed in a year. If people want to point at something and say "that's a years old", be specific: I'm sure that a quick trawl through Kww's contributions will reveal a close parallel that is much more recent. This problem is not a years old, it's a year long. Ikip (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

46. Support Having opposed the last times over the April 2008 "vandal" statement, I think Kww has gotten it this time. Moreover this posting about the need to keep the speedy deletion criteria tight is so good that I'm putting myself in this column this time round. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Recent contributions are of good quality. Kww has a good understanding of policies/guidelines. I think that he is unlikely to misuse the tools. Axl ¤ 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Per lankevil, and the fact that Kww will be a net positive. AtheWeatherman 13:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, Kww is a dedicated and sensible user who could make excellent use of the tools. He has indeed been controversial at times but has generally acquitted himself well, and will be an enormous net positive. ~ mazca ^talk 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
51. Support We canl make mistakes, and most of us have. And we can learn from them, and I believe this editor has. Too many of the oppose comments relate to behaviour before the last RfA, which IMHO is water under the bridge. Let us move on; this editor will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
52. Support there appears to be quite a past history motivating lots of opinions here, but judging by recent contributions, seems like someone I could trust and who wouldn't abuse the tools. It seems a little bizarre to continually go back to past RfAs; people can improve, and inmy opintion this person has. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Support User has clue. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
54. Yep. Per harej mainly.  GARDEN  21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. I see nothing recent that would make me pause. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. You may call it a political vote (as I share a lot with Kww's agenda). NVO (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
57. Support as per Balloonman and Crafty. Horologium (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong support Not your typical bland RfA candidate -- and that's a good thing. RfA has deteriorated to the point that the main qualification is not to have done anything controversial or to have held any views that anyone could disagree with. How about promoting someone who will make Wikipedia a better place? Even -- or especially -- if they sometimes speak their mind? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
59. Kww is honest and open. You always have the best intentions at heart for the encyclopedia and I think you would be an effective admin. Seraphim♥ 01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
60. Yes, of course. The opposers give some pretty lame reasons, so I don't see any major problems. iMatthew ^talk at 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. As I have said previously, I support this nomination with no reservations. Having worked with Kww in many areas of the project, I have no doubts he will make a great admin. Best of luck! --auburnpilot talk 03:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
62. Support from a (rather long) break. Not always perfect (none of us are), but, especially as shown by answers like the one to #11, certainly willing to consider needed changes, and enforce policy even if it involves a few stepped on toes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I see no issues, as, strong opinions and all, the Kww has recognized that it isn't a good idea to use the admin bit to carry out those opinions. Ray^Talk 05:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. Many opposes, but nothing there that's worth opposing over. Fram (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
65. Thought he was already one, blah blah blah hoopla. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
66. Good outweighs the bad, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
67. Support, support, support. - eo (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Trustworthy individual. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
70. At first glance, I expected to oppose this. However, I've read the diffs in the oppose section now, and the things people are saying are problems are not actual problems. We need more admins who are willing to express their actual opinions, rather than just doing what's easy or popular. I believe criticism is necessary and helpful, and I don't like to see people being all mealy-mouthed in a misguided effort to never offend anyone. He apparently pissed off a bunch of kids who want to fill Wikipedia with fancruft, but that's OK. He seems clueful, and the willingness to speak his mind plainly is an asset, not a deficiency. Friday (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - per my criteria, and because I find the opposes to be unconvincing. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
72. Strong support Due to the way you are taking all of this with a level-head. Your calm and reasoned participation in this mostly contentious RfA, along with your acceptance that your opinions will not guide your use of the tools lead me to believe that you will be an excellent admin. All of the evidence on display here points out that you have a thorough understanding of our policies and guidelines, especially when it comes to deletion. The points brought up by the opposers don't amount to anything as long as you judge consensus from the community and not from yourself, which you have promised to do. The diffs are all attacks on your opinions, but admins are allowed to have their own opinions as long as they don't use the tools to promote them. ThemFromSpace 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Cardamon (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

74. Support — This is a change from oppose. The concern I expressed in the oppose section is of concern as is attested by some of the opposes per it. I have supported Kevin in the past and do believe he can be a successful admin if he takes valid concerns on board. It is my hope that he will do so. This RfA should pass; part of why I'm revising my 'stance' is that I consider a fair chunk of the opposition to it to be pure tosh; this is also part of why I'm moving all the way to support instead of to neutral. Factor out the battleground opposition and we're left with an admin candidate with better than 80% support and some feedback on offer.

    Editors such as Ikip and A Nobody are endlessly disruptive as is shown by their tag-team approach and the endless distractions from core issues and their attempts to entangle threads with other issues. I, for one, do not wish to be associated with their aggressive effort to scuttle Kevin's candidacy and would hope that those who opposed for the reason that I initially did, will take another look. I hope that Kevin will take another look, too. Editors are known by the company they keep and I feel more comfortable up here.

    A degree of 'hard-ass' is needed to be an effective admin; there are many editors with which no other approach will be effective. But adminship is not a cop's badge or a gun with which to put down the rabid. Too many wannabe admins are only after the block and deleted functions. Adminship changes the way you see the wiki. One of the obvious ways is all the 'block' links on offer; really, there are too many, as is shown by folks occasionally blocking themselves, Jimbo, or some innocent by mistake. But it also brings a sense of responsibility. Adminship is 'tools' on a technical level, but it is about 'voice' on a social level. The best admins are people who listen and are listened to. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Jack, what you are essentially doing is voting for an admin on the basis of your opposition for third parties, and to neutralize their votes here. Is this a good faith vote for the candidate. You had good reasons to oppose, that multiple others endorsed. But now you are letting wikipolitics interfere with a fair evaluation. I enthusiastically like some of the of the candidate's friends who are among my best friends here also; it's probably fair to say I dislike one or two of them. But I'm voting on what I think of the candidate. (Ditto with DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    With all due respect, I don't think he is voting on the basis of opposition. Factor out all the comments about others and what you see is that he analysed the situation, decided to oppose, and on further analysis, although still concerned, has changed his vote to support because his evaluation changed. That's allowed. In fact it's to be encouraged, we want thoughtful votes, not reflexive ones. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    And, frankly, I'm not sure that your assertion that Jack is being governed by 'wikipolitics' holds any water at all. I find it amusing that in your mind, Jack can make a cogent and thoughtful oppose but only a slavish and shallow support. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    I have trouble understanding how "I for one, do not wish to be associated with their aggressive effort to scuttle Kevin's candidacy...Editors are known by the company they keep and I feel more comfortable up here." could not be a statement about Wikipolitics. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    It most surely is. But there is a difference between making a statement like that and having all agency consumed by the desire to make that statement. I'm also of the opinion that the aggressiveness and mendacity evidenced in some of the opposing statements offers sufficient cause to want to not be in their company without resorting to inc/del politics. Lastly, compare DGG's insistence of the soundness of his judgment with his willingness to lecture JM on his judgment. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    @DGG; I have not change my stance in opposition to third parties; indeed I initialy opposed below Ikip's pure battleground oppose that I strongly disagree with. Do recall that I previously supported Kevin at his second request. If I were taking a political view of this, I'd oppose simply because Kevin is a critic of mine. I shifted my weight for a number of reasons; because my oppose could be seen as self-serving, because some of the arguments in the oppose section *are* pure politics and need to be hightlighted as such, because I do believe Kevin can be a good admin if he takes the legitimate criticism aboard (and I have no doubt that he'll ignore the illegitimate shite), and because having reviewed all of the discussion here, I believe this reguest should succeed and I trust Kevin to use the tools, and his voice, appropriatly. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    No surprise that Jack supported Kww in this RFA, Kww did last time too. I could have predicted the 180 from oppose to support. Ikip (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    Ya, I mentioned that I had previously supported. Is there a question for me here, or are you just trolling? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

75. Support. I thought that I had supported last time, but find that I did not. While I still don't agree with Kww about the best way of dealing with advocacy (of pseudoscience or other topics), I don't think he would abuse the admin tools. Both his answers to the questions and his behaviour since RfA2 lead me to conclude that he understands consensus and the proper role of admins in implementing it. Also, while DGG raises some valid concerns about how best to proceed in AfD, I don't think that he call for a broad recusal is either wise nor necessary. Kww will close AfD's (when he does so) in line with his reading of consensus not his own personal beliefs, just as DGG does. (I likewise view DGG's self-imposed recusal as unnecessary and overly limiting.) One should avoid closing AfD's in an area where one has advocated an opinion that is the equivalent of a vote on the AfD, but general opinions (even if strenuously advocated do not create a COI or a reasonable appearance of one. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
76. Support. Kww is patient, fair, reasonable and helpful, making many useful edits. Max24 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
77. Support. Hal peridol (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong support mostly due to answers to questions 14a-d and 15. No evidence that Kww will start deleting anything against policy, and I don't see any other real concerns that are current that have been brought up. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. Answers to questions show level headedness. Quantpole (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
80. Support as Kww seems to have a grip on policy and process, as well as being responsive to both sides of any argument. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
81. Kww knows what he is doing. There are several valid points in the Oppose section (in particular, the aggressive over-reaction on the Meursault2004 / BambiFan ANI thread, which left a bad taste and almost kept me from participating here), which I hope and expect Kww will take on board. Ultimately, I am swayed by his answers to the questions, the way he's handling this RFA, and his overall pattern of helpful, clueful behavior. Net positive, assuming he takes on the constructive criticism below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
82. Support – I have to chuckle, we currently have 5 RFA’s ongoing. 2 are definite shoo-ins, two are definitely not going to succeed and Kww that is borderline. Interesting to note that the two shoo-ins have a grand total of just over 10,000 edits combined (one at just over 6,000 and one at slightly over 4,000), while the candidates in each of the failing candidacies individually surpasses the grand total of the passing individuals combined. We look to Kww contributions that exceed 31, 000 edits (3 times the amount of contributions of the combined 2 other successful candidates) and we pick out this edit in or this edit (both over a year ago) and hold them up as examples of his intolerance. My question is did any of the opposes read Kww statements and the circumstances they were delivered in? “…we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate” or “…"Suffering fools gladly" is an important skill, and one that I agree that SA is deficient in.”. Where I ask is the intolerance. In fact we have all run across similar situations, or should I say only, editors that have contributed over 10,000 edits have come across those situations? Yes are the remarks a little biting, yes, so? Sometimes the truth hurts. Does that mean we should not speak the truth now? Because it may hurt someone’s feelings. I didn’t realize that Wikipedia was now a social network site where we all sit around the campfire and sing. I have always believed we were building an encyclopedia. Best of luck to you Kww you not only have earned the extra buttons, I fully trust you with the added responsibility. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
83. Full Support per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
84. Support. Yes, he's a deletionist. Yes, he's occasionally too abrasive. Yes, I trust that he will use the tools fairly. I will say that I gave the oppose camp a good long look, and I consider the concerns raised there to be non-trivial; I just consider that KWW is capable and willing to lay aside his advocacy when using the tools. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
85. The Meursault2004 thing could have been handled better, but admin candidates are not expected to be perfect. Kww's strong intolerance of socks, and users who abuse community-imposed sanctions, is a perfectly acceptable opinion for an editor in good standing to hold. I don't have a problem trusting that he'd be able to recuse himself in cases where he's personally involved. Anyway, he's more than competent and the current situation where you're better having less than 10k edits when running for adminship because after that you're going to make too many enemies is far more likely to lead to poor decisions by admins than handing the mop out here. I'd hope that whoever the closing 'crat is has the sense to ignore the more obviously retaliatory opposes, which should be trivial to identify given any familiarity with Kww. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
86. Yes, we need more admins who work in the field of music. I respect and admire Kww's efforts in overhauling WP:CHARTS. — R² 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
87. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
88. Support from me. I've always seem him as a responsible, valuable user, and his work in WP:CHARTS and related fields is clear evidence of that. I know there are a few issues that have been brought up, but Kevin appears to be an editor who will admit previous mistakes/issues and learn from them. SKS (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. Kww has been around and he understands the inner workings of the project so he could be a capable admin. The question is basically: will he? I'm not 100% certain but I am 100% certain that we need admins. Badly. So I'll take my chances. A word of advice if the RfA does succeed: "take no hostages", however tempting, never works too well around here. Things move excruciatingly slow but they do move eventually. More to the point, overreaction and grandstanding slow things down further, block or delete buttons used impulsively make it even worse. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. in my opinion the statute of limitations has passed on anything negative from Kww's past. Kww has worked to improve and has made strides. Valley2city^‽ 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
91. Support I'm not seeing any kind of conclusive evidence of an attitude problem, especially not one that would make it seem like Kww is honestly untrustworthy. Otherwise the candidate is obviously experienced and would be of great help to the project. Steven Walling 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - I believe he has the wisdom to use the tools properly. - Josette (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - Weighed past behavior against present behavior. Contribs and actions convince me that this editor has reached a point where giving them the tools would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --StaniStani  15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
94. Having taken two homeopathic tablets and consulted a psychic, supporting seems the right thing to do. Sometimes, reformed gunslingers make the best marshals. Ben MacDui 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
95. Support per my vote in his last RFA. I find the oppose rationales to be wholly unconvincing. Skinwalker (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
96. Will be a useful sysop. AGK 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support while I have some minor concerns based on some of the opposes below, it does not rise to the level of an oppose. I believe Kww can be trusted with the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Already !voted already above in #41. Ikip (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    I missed my !vote above when I came back. sorry. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

97. Support per well-reasoned answers above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
98. Strong Support Eusebeus (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
99. Support a changed user Jordan Payne ^T /_C 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
100. Support In answers to questions he has shown an awareness of where it would be a bad idea to exercise his admin powers. I've not seen anything to convince me among the opposes.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
101. Support. Candidate seems to have strong opinions and argue them rationally and politely. Examplary behavior at this RFA and nuanced answers to questions. Most opposers seem to fall in the category of either "you did something I didn't like in 2008" or "I don't agree with your views and therefore don't trust you with the buttons". However, candidate has responded to 1st concern well and not shown questionable behavior since then, and I trust him to keep his views and his janitor actions separate if there would be a conflict. Martinp (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
102. Definitely a good choice for admin. Always sorts issues out quickly and is very knowlagable to have when dealing with charts. It would be handy if Kww was an administrator Jayy008 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
103. Weak support. At your last RfA I saw that you can deal with situations calmly and carefully. I am going to assume you will be able to in the future. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
104. Support Net positive.--LAAFan 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
105. His answers are thoughtful, frank, and to the point. He's worked on improving the wiki in demonstrable ways. This support is a show of confidence that he's learned from past mistakes and can be trusted with the tools. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
106. Support. I trust this user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
107. Support A nod to the opposers, but I'm confident we are not going to see abuse or misuse of the extra tools. Net positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

     Note also that I have not received a canvassing email. I was prompted to comment when I saw the conversation at BN but my choice of supporting has only been influended by the candidates contributions, answers to the questions and a reading of the oppose comments. Pedro :  Chat  11:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

     As you know, the "canvassing" email was not directed at canvassing potential supporters, but inciting potential opposers. Protonk (talk)

     Sorry, yes I do know that. My clarification was in refernce to thisspecifically that several comments had been recently made. I want the 'crats to be clear my comment is indifferent to any inference driven from an email, that's all. Sorry for not making that clearer. Pedro :  Chat  14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

     Seems like we're both in the business of making things clear to others! I should have specified that I thought you knew the nature of the emails. Dizzying, isn't it? :) Protonk (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

108. Strong support ƒ(Δ)² 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
109. Strong support - Direct language is a good trait, not a bad one. I don't find this editor's conduct inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
110. Support - Having gone through the previous RFAs and reviewed Kww's edits, I think this user should be granted adminship now. I see no risk of abuse. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
111. The first time I talked to Kww was when he was helping an, at the time, newbie user build an article in userspace. The article had been merged/redirected at AfD, both Kww and myself opted for a redirect in that AfD. Kww helped re-building the article in userspace, asked other editors from the AfD if they objected a move to mainspace, there were no objections, and it now lives at "Say OK". I was very surprised then to read that he himself would prefer not having a standalone article on the song, but actively pursued its move to main space when he asked DGG for the move anyway.
     This episode is about as long ago as diffs hold against Kww below, but I believe this shows that Kww does respect consensus on includeworthiness of topics even if he holds a different opinion. I acknowledge the concerns of the opposers in that regard, but do trust that he can and will act with the required neutrality even if he closes AfD discussions. Amalthea, not canvassed, 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
112. Support but not without reservations. The "hardliner" and "strong opinions" oppositions are not only not issues for me, they're a reason to support. The issue I find problematic is the "no campaign promises" statement I've seen the candidate use at least twice here. Treating RfA as a campaign is bad; we don't need "politicians" as administrators. Also, "no method to hold any admin candidate to any promise he makes" is no reason to avoid promises (the cynic in me says that's actually a good reason to promise stuff). A promise is a sort of moral guarantee; If it is not technically binding, it is morally. Rami R 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
113. Support No worries - will make a fine admin, IMO. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
114. Support - Changed from oppose to support. After further reading I don't find the whole bambifan drama sufficient to warrant an oppose. Garion96 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
115. Support a trusted user who looks out for the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
116. Support - I see no evidence that Kww treats wikipedia as a game or any other signs of the tendentious game players who do so much harm here: Faux civility, indirect attacks, swirling group think to get "them" are just a few of the poisonous behaviors/traits that he shows no signs of. Kept his cool well here. The McCarthy-esque approach of a few of the opposers is thorougly unconvincing. It's clear this fellow, whatever his personal views, will take his community responsibilities seriously and in the spirit in which they are granted.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

     Off topic thread moved to talk.

117. I opposed Kww's first RfA and withdrew my opposition, I supported his second RfA and withdrew my support in that one. This time, I've decided to wait for most of the RfA before making a decision: I've come across Kww many times, he does excellent work, and is experienced in the places he works in. Overall, I've had positive observations of Kww (I'm impressed with how he's handled this RfA) and my interactions with him have not been negative as far as I can remember, and I think that giving him the tools will be a benefit. Acalamari 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Giving you the benefit of the doubt, although you probably need some more time...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
119. Support If late supports count, this one goes for keeping cool under pressure in the face of what appears to be a nasty canvassing campaign. Whatever way this turns out, you've earned my respect with your aplomb. Durova³²⁷ 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
120. Support Sole Soul (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
121. Support--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
122. miranda 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
123. Spellcast (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose From failed Kww 2 This intolerant statement displays the type of temperament that wikipedia should not have in an admin. Kww called for editors to be blocked for bringing an issue back to Arbcom again. "Suffering fools gladly" is an important skill, and one that I agree that SA is deficient in. It always helps to see a clear path towards being rid of the fools, and that's the most important thing we lack."
   From failed Kww 1, more quotes about Kww's unwillingness to comprimise: "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." These uncompromising views make Kww have a major unwillingness to step away from fiction in specific and inclusion/deletionism debates.
   This intolerant behavior and battleground mentality shows there was very good reasons why Kww's first two RFAs failed. Ikip (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Just providing dates for those quotes: August 2008, December 2008, December 2008, and April 2008.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   The second quote is also from DGG not KWW. Also, is this behavior current? You are reaching back a year an a half for some of these quotes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Several editors went back that same amount of time in the last two failed Kww RFAs. The most recent evidence was 10 months ago, in December 2008. Unless Kww had an epiphany, and Kww's current editing behavior does not show this at all, he still has the same battle mentality. Ikip (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I would prefer to speak for myself about what I feel now, than be quoted on what I said in the past;--circumstances can change. I will add my comment very soon. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I removed the quote, sorry DGG. Ikip (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   What proportion of the candidate's edits have been to fiction related articles? To fiction related AfDs? Protonk (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ikip. (And Bravo Ikip for pointing it out.) Utterly agree with reasoning and conclusion, but I was convinced after reading the first quote. Strongly urge anyone who has not voted for this candidate to read Ikip's links and reasoning. Yes, we need more empowered vandal-fightin' admins, but the self-congratulatory hostility the candidate has expressed toward those he terms 'vandals' is shocking, as is his call for punishment of those who speak out. Again, please read the above post before you vote; I will be surprised and horrified if more oppose votes don't surface soon. Jusdafax 08:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose That was the reason most were against his attempt to become an administrator last year. This is third attempt now. Is there a limit, or can you keep on trying? Dream Focus 09:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   The reason we allow there to be multiple attempts on RFAs is that people can change, so in theory so can the way people edit, and it usually happens this way to be honest; and as RFAs usually tell people what they've done wrong or what they need to improve on, the editor can usually fix the problems and come back in a few months, or a year as Kww has done, therefore it's become rather common for editors to have to wait for a second or third RFA to be able to pass. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - Ikip's links are highly concerning, not least because of the fact that he states that he wishes to work with vandals and vandalism in Q1. Would be willing to be persuaded otherwise. Honesty is one thing, but honesty without changing one's actions is another. — neuro 10:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support, misread as being from 2009. — neuro 14:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Meursault2004 (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Might be helpful if you gave a reason, as RFA is not a "vote". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I believe Kww is a good editor. I reviewed his edits and he's been active since beginning 2007. He now has about 32,000 edits and more than half of them are on main article space. However I don't believe Kww will be a good admin. Recently I have had some troubles here in English Wikipedia as I was tricked by a known vandal to do some edits for him per AGF. I didn't realize it was a serious problem as I am an admin and bureaucrat on several wiki's in Indonesian languages and as such we approach the problems differently. I regret I did some editing for this guy as it appears that he is a known Bambifan101 sock. It was a mistake and I didn’t continue to help him but I blocked him and his socks instead afterwards after this incident. Here on en:wp I got rebuked and got some warnings, which I accept. Yet I am disappointed in Kww's approach regarding me. He refused to believe that I had good intention and that I was not an ordinary vandal or meat puppet. Even after other users and admins pointed him to the fact that I am a respected user on several wikis not only on the English one, he still pushed on to get me banned indefinitely. The most disturbing fact however is that he didn't talk to me directly on my discussion page. He posted messages on other editor's pages instead. This shows not only lack of AGF, but also lack of civility. Meursault2004 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   This is undoubtedly retaliation for . Mersault is well aware of how consensus works, as evidenced by his position at various other Wikipedias, clearly the only reason that a summary has been neglected in this oppose is because the reasoning behind it is so clearly childish revenge. — neuro 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neuro, you have been an editor long enough to realize that it is really counterproductive to boldly explain editors motivations for why they !vote a certain way, especially with such a hyped term as "retaliation" . Your response opens up a huge can of worms about everyone's alleged reasons for !voting a certain way. Ikip (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   It's not so much a supposition as a deducted opinion. Nor is it an assumption of bad faith, because I don't consider that reason to be evident of 'bad faith'. I call them how I see them. — neuro 18:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   It would still be helpful to have a reason though.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well Neuro, I don't consider this as 'childish revenge' nor as 'retaliation'. It just expresses my concern and it is the way how I show my disagreement. As a matter of fact I consider your comment as personal attack. Meursault2004 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'm at a loss as to how Neuro attacked you in any way. He just calls them as he sees it. —Dark 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'll comment on why Revi (Meursault2004) did not initially offer a reason for his oppose: he was being polite. He is not a native English speaker; he's Javanese. English is not even his second or third language. In Indonesian culture, confrontation is considered vulgar. He knew that Kevin would know why he opposed. From his perspective, refraining from explicit criticism was an appropriate and conciliatory gesture.

   He's offered a further oppose rationale, since, and comments that on other projects, things are done differently. I just looked at the jv:wp block log. There are a total of ten blocks so far this year. On smaller projects things *are* done differently. They discuss things calmly, block as a last resort, and are not toxic places. This benighted project would do well to learn from them. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose Per Ikip. While I find the links disturbing, I also have to say i'm inpressed with the way Kww is not trying to hide the past. So it's 51-49 to me leaning opposed. Sorry, but at this moment, I must oppose. America69 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose I think Kww A) is trying to do the best he can for Wikipedia and B) has greatly improved as an editor over the last year or so. That said, I think he is too firm in his own convictions and those convictions are generally opposed to my "too firm" convictions (I'd likely not make a good admin either...) for me to be comfortable with him as an admin overseeing related disputes. I'd say it's not unlikely (50-60%?) he'd be a good admin. Unfortunately the risk of him being another AMiB is too high for my taste. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. I supported Kevin in his last run, and I agree with him on a fair number of issues. And while I do not wish to be associated with some of the opposes above and any in a similar vein that follow, I'm going to oppose this request. A recent incident prevents me from supporting this time. A 'crat, from some of the smaller projects, was 'played' by the Bambifan101 vandal and Kevin was far too aggressive in seeking an indef on a long-term good faith editor. Meursault2004 was taking an AGF approach here and got rather little of it in return. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Bambifan101 and User:Meursault2004 for most of it and User talk:Lar#Continuation of discussion from AN/Dramafest for more. My concern is that he's simply too much of a hard-ass for adminship. Those who know more will know that Kevin is no fan of me, and I very nearly opted for neutral because of that; I had it written and saved while I had dinner. Having thought on it, I realize that I simply have changed my view of him over this incident and so I've discarded my earlier statement. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   addendum; Kevin asked me for a clarification. He was not seeking an 'infinite' block, only a block until a desired statement was made. As Coffee comments, just below, this is not how we do things here. I see it as an attempt to humiliate an editor. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   Changed to support — see reasoning there. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Jack Merridew, I don't like how trigger happy he is , not a bad candidate overall, but still seems to want to do things his way. That's not the way things work here though, everything works by consensus, and to not correctly understand policy or have the common sense to know that you don't block someone to force them to say they won't do something again, just isn't acceptable as an admin. We only block if the actual offense was bad enough to warrant it, and if we fear they'll do it again; the instance linked in Jack's oppose is a pretty straightforward mistake by someone who doesn't quite understand what's what on the english version of Wikipedia, Kww seemed in favor of blocking without giving Meursault2004 enough time to say that he wouldn't commit the act again. I'm sorry but your unwillingness to listen makes me unable to trust you to have the tools and use them effectively. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   While I appreciate you attempting to explain why you thought he should have been blocked, the fact that you still think that he should have been blocked, shows an extreme unwillingness to accept other points of view. Yes it is good to have strong views, but it seems as if you'll take yours to another level, and it gives me the feeling, as Trusilver said, that you'll be a "hard ass" admin. I'm just not certain that's what we need. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose as the behavior in which editors expressed concern at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2#Oppose and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww#Oppose have not dissipated. The candidate continues to promote a battleground environment and I would not trust with block ability with regards to his opponents nor with deletion ability with regards to fiction related discussions. Notice, for example, the bad faith and haughtiness in "There is a small group of editors that believes they can ignore it. I suggest that you ignore them." He dismisses and disregards those with whom he disagrees as if they don't matter. That view of pro-fiction and episode editors being vandals has hardly diminished. And with regards to specific editors who opposed him in the past, rather than try to resolve disputes with them will even canvass against them as he did here. How nice it would have been if I could say instead, "You know I opposed Kww last time, but he really made an effort to address my and others concern and to patch things up with me and others." Instead, it's let get rid of A Nobody and disregard altogether the viewpoints of those who like plot heavy articles. Moreover, he does not always provide edit summaries a la . Finally, thinking that "Remember deleting is a last resort. Always see if an article can be improved first." is "unnecessary and intrusive" is particularly disheartening. Trying to improve content first is hardly "unnecessary and intrusive", rather it is "courteous" and why we are here in the first place, i.e. to build an encyclopedia. Anyway, fails User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   "...continues to promote a battleground environment", *snort*. HiDrNick! 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Which is exactly what you did with such an unhelpful reply... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, but he didn't oppose this candidate with a hypocritical reason. Tan | 39 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Regardless of what you think of me, it does not excuse or negate any other's poor behavior. While I may strongly oppose Kww's candidacy because I simply do not trust him to use block and delete functions unbiasedly, it is not as if I despise him as a person or think he does no good here at all or think he should be blocked or some other extreme or am unwilling to say as much. Just as I noted at User_talk:Kww#Regarding_this..., I am more than willing to acknowledge and show appreciation for positives from this or any other editor. Before today, I took a two week break from editing due to a combination of flu, work, and general need to get away from Wikipedia. I did so mostly for real-world concerns, but also in part so as to not foment needless animosity here and you know these past couple of weeks of neither editing nor actively following Wikipedia have once I got over the flu been relatively happy times for me. I logged back in for a bit today to do a few things that seemed needed, such as responding to an adoptee, updating an article I created, and commenting some RfAs. In two of those, I liked what I saw (see and and in both cases there are probably areas where myself and those editors might not see eye to eye on everything, but so what? Different viewpoints are fine at times.) Now, had Kww made sincere peace feelers to me since the last RfA, I may have reacted differently here. After all, I supported MuZemike and greatly respect him as an admin and editor despite that we got off on a bad foot and moreover even though we hardly share the same inclusion criteria philosophies. In this particular instance, I still fear that the candidate would rather be rid of rather than patch up disputes with opponents and that is my concern. Both with how he usually treats me, but also with the same dismissive attitude displayed in this months episode AfD I cite above. I don't see a willingness to reach out to me or to treat episode/fiction creators as reasonable editors. And thus, it gives one pause for how once we move beyond the RfA these editors and their articles will be treated. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Regardless of A Nobody's behavior, it does not excuse Kww's in any way, especially when we plan to trust Kww with administrative tools. Ikip (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note regarding my challenges to some of the supporters and my absence from Wikipedia for much of this month and likely continued absence in the future: I haven’t edited since the 12th and will probably log back out again after this statement. I have been advised that now that Lar and company have taken their attacks on me off-wiki that current and former editors are uniting against me in both venues and that being around is largely not worth it. Continued on talk page

9. Oppose, is unacceptable. --Aqwis (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   While it may be unacceptable to you, it really isn't a terrible sentiment. If it is unacceptable, it goes back to 2008, and I see no signs that Kww has been a consistent pugilist on this point beyond a reasonable desire to keep the project focused on noteable topics with reliable sources. We shouldn't be looking for people to expand the project with any piece of unsourced nonsense. I realize that you're saying we shouldn't view such individuals as vandals, but Kww isn't extreme for holding such a sentiment. I feel the same way. Someone who repeatedly focuses on creating a nonsense articles isn't here to help. Kww understands that. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   The mindset has persisted into October 2009. The claim that "There is a small group of editors that believes they can ignore it" is not even true in any event. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of editors work on television episode articles and perhaps millions of readers come here to read them. "Small" is not a truthful way to designate such a large segment of our community. We can hopefully all agree that nonsense articles should not exist and I have argued and even nominated to delete articles that cannot be verified by any sources, but we're talking about ones such as the Aqua Teen episodes that are not mere made up nonsense, but that concern an actual episode of a show that appears on a recognizable cable network as well as on a DVD and thus is covered in episode and DVD reviews. Whether it is sufficient to merit a stand alone article or a merge and redirect is legitimate grounds for discussion, but outright redlinking? Not really. Nor is it an instance of pure nonsense or which its defenders and contributors need be dismissed as ignorable. As for those who challenge "Not plot", policies and guidelines and changed and debated constantly and as we are frequently reminded "consensus can change". Why stifle the opposing viewpoint altogether? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating stifling anyone, and neither is Kww. I'm also not badgering (with this badgering...). I'm simply positing that we can hold people accountable for absurd or unreasonable positions. But we need to maintain our perspective when it comes to distinguishing views as unreasonable from those which merely oppose our own. TV episode and character debates, and strongly held opinions on the notability of such, have a great deal of variation and merit. But note that we don't have articles on every page ever published in Time Magazine, even though we do have an expansive list on Time's covers. Strongly held, yet reasonable opinions are a good thing for the project, as well as the admin corps, and I can assure you that the community is not going to let an admin block editors for creating pages such as those discussed here. If I had it my way, there are whole blocks of editors that I would block. But I don't have it my way, which is why we manage to function, albeit somewhat haltingly from time to time. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I am not entirely sure he is NOT advocating stifling anyone. He has called for at least two of the opposers in this thread to be banned on several occasions and has said both in 2008 that fiction article editors should be treated as vandals and in 2009 that pro-episode editors should be ignored. It is one thing to say that you disagree with the inclusion criteria, but to label good faith editors "vandals", to repeatedly call for opponents to be banned, and to falsely say those of an opposing viewpoints are a "small minority" who should be ignored is indeed troubling. In my time off of this site between 23 September and 10 October, I greatly came to the realization that this demonizing of opposing sides just does not help and it is something I greatly hope to avoid/not be part of in the future for the same reason why even a while back I avoided putting any kind of -ist userbox on my page. Had in that time, I seen Kww take a similar approach, to say not feed into the animosity and not say in any AfDs this month that those of the opposing viewpoint should be simply ignored, I might have given him the same benefit of the doubt in the spirit of reconciliation that I gave someone like a MuZemike who does not agree with me maybe even a majority of the time in AfDs, but has proven to grow and move beyond past disputes. I certainly am not calling for Kww to be banned or demanding he change his wiki-philosophies, but none of us can edit colleagialy when we dismiss good faith editors, make no effort to patch things up with opponents, or make incorrect claims minimizing the actual significant number of editors who do indeed believe Wikipedia should cover episodes and characters. What the more recent AfD diff demonstrates and seems to reaffirm from that older diff is that the other viewpoint is not even worthy of serious consideration and for a hopefully neutral admin that stance is problematic. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose. per the above. Kww has made some excellent contributions to the project, but I find the diffs and links noted above to be rather disturbing. Looking back at the previous two rfas, it doesn't seem like much has changed. Sorry. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Ikip et al.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. changing back to original Strong oppose in view of concerns raised about the candidates hardline approach and judgement. Coupled with his vanilla approach to admin. recall, does not inspire confidence. Leaky Caldron 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Re Q6.It would have taken just a little research into the recent major controversy relating to admin. flaunting of policy and a review of the most recent RfAs where similar questions have been answered positively, to come up with a simple set of assurances to set my mind at rest. The answer also demonstrates a lack of willingness to step out from the shadows of the general Admin. cadre mindset and shows no attempt to make a difference.

    Also, a worrying lack of research time into the question (it’s not a trick, it’s all out there) suggested by the rapid, sitting on the fence answer, indicates a lack of thoroughness which is essential when dealing with complex policy issues and the need to handle dificult situations. Too often problems are made worse and escalate because of reactionary Admin. intervention instead of investing a little time understanding wtf is really going on. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    As a matter of ingterest, can I ask what sort of answer you'd have needed from that question in order not to oppose? Because it strikes me as a completely bizarre answer to oppose for. (Edit: did you mean Q9?) Black Kite 19:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Am I missing something obvious? Q6 is fine. JamieS93 19:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    Many apologies - I did mean Q9. Anyway, he did answer Q9 and I am worried about it. I have asked all of the most recent candidates a broadly similar question to which each (even those that failed) gave a reassuring answer. This candidate either didn’t check those out (lack of thoroughness) or prefers to wait for some central change on RECALL. The simple answer was to commit to voluntary relinquish in the event of a proven misuse. Leaky Caldron 19:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    That's hardly the simple answer, for the reasons that the candidate supplied. The existence of a pledge for voluntary recall tells us nothing about the criteria by which that pledge will be invoked. In this case the candidate supports a mandatory recall system, but chooses not to undertake a voluntary recall system. That is his answer. Obviously you are free to disagree and oppose based on that disagreement, but I dispute the characterization that one set of answers is simple and reassuring and another is complex and disquieting. Consider the possibility that it is very easy to elicit a pledge to abide by a voluntary recall protocol during an RfA but relatively hard to enforce that in practice. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    He says it, I trust him. Simple. Just trying to get new admins. away from the U.S.S. Anyfish situation. Leaky Caldron 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose per Jack Merridew. Too many instances of not assuming good faith. This is an editor that plays himself off as some kind of hard-ass and is too unwilling to compromise and work with others. In my experience, this has always led to bad things when someone of this nature is given the mop. Trusilver 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    I appreciate the thought. Yet Kww worked with AuburnPilot and myself to get Natalee Holloway through a very contentious FAC to FA and then on TFA even though we were opposed tooth and nail. This argues against "doesn't play well with others", no? He played well in our group building the article and then in the FAC community.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

    It certainly would to me, given more time. Given a long track record of "playing well with others" over the next six months, I would happily support next time. But frankly, this user just appears to want it too badly. My radar always goes up when I see three or more RfA's in the same year. I think this editor is going to make a fine admin...later. Trusilver 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose You can be good editor. But that's that. An EDITOR not an ADMIN. Per Ikip I have to oppose. Sure, those examples may be from a year ago, but until I see some diffs that your attitude has changed , I will not be convinced to support.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose at this time, with acknowledgement of the concerns voiced by Jack Merridew and Ikip. Past examples of not assuming good faith are indeed worrisome. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Per previous. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose – the guy's been around and has had some good contributions, but the comments brought up by both Jack and Ikip are hard to avoid and do raise some red flags still. I don't think such a mentality displayed rubs well with many Wikipedians as displayed, and the time and effort that would be spent by the community having to deal with similar things while an admin would only exacerbate the current state of things on Wikipedia. MuZemike 02:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per the diffs above, plus some more... it seems that when an ANI discussion closes, Kww begins badgering on the talkpages of editors who disagreed with him – also possible attempt to gang up on another user, etc. Just generally not entirely desirable modes of communication. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Though not a kww partisan (see my oppose above) I think his comments in all 3 cases you list are actually perfectly fine. In the first I see him trying to understand why someone he trusts doesn't see the situation the same way he does and in the second he's asking someone their opinion on the same situation for similar reasons. The third I read as saying, "I realize you are frustrated with user X for quirk Y, but when all is said and done he does good work". Perhaps I'm moving too far down the AGF path, but I don't see any of those as being troubling. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose Candidate seems to often (not always) have difficultly collaborating with others. Having strong views is fine but it must be tempered with the ability to compromise and be thoughtful before reacting, especially when reacting using the admin tool. At the moment I think he would be better suited to focusing on contributing rather than having the buttons, which I still do not think he is yet suitable for. TigerShark (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong Oppose: He is a great editor but does not have the people skills necessary to be an Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose at this time. I am generally not comfortable with opposing people at RfA, especially for those at the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum from myself; in fact, I don't think I have opposed anyone to date, even at Kww's last RfA. Nor do I particularly like to get involved in WikiDrama. But, several comments I've seen here are just too concerning for me at this time. Particularly worrying are the issues brought up by Meursault and Jack Merridew, as these are very recent and display this sort of intolerant attitude that carries back to the items brought up by Ikip and seconded by Jusdafax. Hobit, Coffee, A Nobody, Trusilver, MuZemike, TreasuryTag, and Peregrine Fisher also raise perfectly valid points. Blocks and bans are not things to be given out – or even strongly considered – lightly. Heck, I recently even had to be talked out of putting a couple of pages on protection! Some changes in attitude will have to become clearly evident to me, I feel, before I can trust this nominee with the bit. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please see WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3#Additional statement re Meursault2004.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Having reviewed the Bambifan situation, I can see how the idea of blocking a user helping this person would seem perfectly sensible. It appears that User:OckhamTheFox and User:Meursault2004 were manipulated into doing something foolish and blocked, and then unblocked upon review, however. I will suspend judgment on that case as a result, although at this time I will retain my Oppose stance as responses by DGG ("unsuitable persistence in the rightness of his position on things"), Vyvyan Basterd ("too confrontational and over eager... need to be able to step back and look at things without getting carried away"), and SoWhy ("tend to overreact, to be overly aggressive or impulsive") remind me of why I was inclined to lean that way in the first place. I will continue to think on it, though. BOZ (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am downgrading from my original Oppose at this time; see the Neutral section for more. BOZ (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - Per Jack Merridew's comment, the whole Bambifan drama. Garion96 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please see WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3#Additional statement re Meursault2004.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please see your comment of 10 Oct on this page where you said you dont badger opposers. Please also see your coment on this page where you accidently over stated your support in your last RFA as 70%. Please see at that RFA where you accidently over stated your contribution to audited content. Then please see the recent RFC we both commented on where you moved to get a highly valued user banned on grounds of deceptive behaviour. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    I think this may be considered "badgering" by Kww by the low bar many editors have set here: Ikip (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am one of the people he left a message for. I don't consider this badgering at all. Garion96 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Me neither, but even responding once to a oppose is sometimes labelled badgering by RFA regulars. I mentioned badgering only as i was trying to highlight the candidates inconsistency. That was unfair, anyone can be made to look inconsistent with a little attention. The general consensus seemed to be on RFA talk that discussion is a positive as it clears up confusion on the part of opposers and can identify how candidates can improve. For me the candidates conducted himself admirably, and the input from his many supporters suggests he really has the good qualities they claim for him. IMO if you step up to oppose you should be prepared for robust discussion, especially at times when we badly need more admins. The problem with this candidate is hes excessively hardline , which is why I hope he wont be promoted. Even if he personally avoids blocking those he disagrees with theres a strong risk the candidate will speak up strongly for long blocks on the admin board, and shift the balance in a hardline direction. But there should never be pressure for a candidate and his supporters not to respond to opposers! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    May I at once endorse this important contribution to the discussion by FeydHuxtable, which I agree with 100%. Jusdafax 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose Too much the hardliner and too aggressive. One of several recent examples is on this very page. Badger drink supports on account of the opposers. Beeblebrox supports per badger, and even emphases his low regard for the opposers with a thinly veiled attack. Poor judgement considering Beeblebrox is an admin, yet KWW trys to argue in support of Beeblebrox , further contributing to the combative nature of this discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    Striking most of my comments per remark on my talk and seeing I wasnt AGF. The candidate doesnt bring out the best in me , but theres reason to think hes honest and a valuable editor,but i remain convinced hes too hardline to be an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose I continue to feel as I did in the past. It's partly about my general feeling of confidence. I waiting to see if my comment on Q4 would be answered, but it seems it will not. I hope that declining to make a commitment there is not an indication that the candidate avoids doing so because he intends not to follow it. I notice that among the recent AfDs on his user page, he has voted keep on 1% of them (the one I found, curiously was against the consensus). I cannot judge the issues for most of these articles & almost never !voted in the same AfDs as he did--but from what I can judge, I would have agreed with him at least 80% of the time, for it seems he was most of the time making an appropriate concentrated attack on a particularly bad type of articles. However, there's a hugh difference between a keep percentage of 10% and 1%; one is the proper response to the large amount of junk we have here, the other illustrates dogmatism. But I do not think this is only about deletionism/inclusionism. I think his attitude towards Fringe science shows a similar dogmatism. And, after all, Jack Merridew, who profoundly disagrees with me on that issue, also is opposing this AfD nomination; there is a common element in our two reasons--an unsuitable persistence in the rightness of his position on things) I think Kww a very valuable person to have on the project. I admire his work in his subject, and his effort at finding articles worth a delete discussion. He should let others judge them, though. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    I find it necessary to mention I have been receiving multiple attempts to persuade me to change my vote, on and off-wiki. It's not usual to receive a request for them candidate to reconsider--and I have sometimes done so--but never before have I received such a barrage. I think it shows the weakness of the candidates case for adminship and the manner in which he would conduct it if he received it. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    I will point out that I have placed one message on your talk page. I have also responded to two e-mails initiated by you. If anyone is "barraging" you with anything, it is not being coordinated or instigated by me. There was one unnecessarily hostile comment made here by one of my supporters, and it was reverted at my request.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    I did not mean to say it was you who was doing the badgering & I apologize if it read otherwise. The messages you yourself left for me were appropriate. I recognize that this nomination has unfortunately gotten involved with disputes involving other editors, and that there has consequently been much more than the usual amount of irrelevant comments here and elsewhere. There is no one individual to blame for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    If you want to blame someone, blame me. I was the one who placed the intemperate comment here and reverted it at KWW's request. I was the one who gave a strident denunciation of your position on your talk page. I have no idea who emailed you, but it doesn't seem relevant. You seem to be insinuating that a discussion over your vote is out of bounds or illicit--at least tacitly by placing a declaration about it on the RfA and saying "I think it shows the weakness of the candidates case for adminship and the manner in which he would conduct it if he received it.". So you can't just walk things back and say no one is to blame. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose: borderline behavioral issues.. South Bay (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose, hostile attitude. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose per what Jack Merridew wrote in his oppose. You're too confrontational and over eager. That's not always a bad thing if you're a regular editor and not the guy making the final decision but when you're an admin you need to be able to step back and look at things without getting carried away. Judging from what I've seen and from what Jack wrote above you're not able to do that. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Per DGG and Jack Merridew. From what I have seen previously and at this RFA, I am having great doubts that the candidate is able to handle the tools in the necessary calm manner and to use them without bias. I think Kww is a great editor, no doubt about it, but sadly there are some editors who are simply better as non-admins because sometimes they tend to overreact, to be overly aggressive or impulsive and in those situations, they should not be able to make administrative decisions. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Although probably not his intent, the candidate has given me a good example as to why I would not trust him with the tools (specifically with the delete button) while commenting on another oppose. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men) for example in which the candidate participated in. Kww argued "delete" based on WP:NOT#PLOT after a number of participants in the discussion have established that this fictional character is notable and thus worthy of inclusion. This shows, imho, a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOT as well as the editing and deletion policies, which all favor improvement over deletion where possible. So in this case the candidate, despite being confronted with a number of reliable sources to draw from, argued deletion instead of even attempting to rectify the problems with the article (and WP:NOT#PLOT violations can easily be rectified if reliable sources are accessible) or tagging it for the problems (per WP:ATD). This example might be 8 months old but I have not seen any shift in his approach to deletion, which he seems to see as a better alternative than editing (even arguing to delete articles that are clearly merge- or redirect-candidates and thus could be resolved outside AFD). Regards SoWhy 08:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

27. Oppose per above. Too many concerns remain from prior commenters. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
28. oppose per difs given earlier it appears that Kww is still intent on treating people he disagrees with as "vandals" and feeling free to tell people to "ignore" them. (His words not mine from difs linked to earlier in the oppose section). This view hasn't changed substantially. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per DGG and per my own less-than-stellar experiences with KWW's approach in AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Jclemens and I have interacted at 3 AFDs in the last 12 months:—Kww(talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

30. Oppose - The oppose side have raised some valid concerns. AdjustShift (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose I've been going back and forth in my mind, should I oppose or just sit this one out. I believe that KWW has all the best intentions with regards to his editing here. But I keep coming to the same place, with all the facts on the table, I feel nervous about this RFA passing. So i feel I need to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose Per DGG and even more per SoWhy. While I admit that Kww has produced some fine article work, I do not feel confident that they will use the tools in a calm manner. It's clear from the candidate's responses that they have strong opinions about various events, and I am concerned that those opinions will translate negatively into administrator actions should they gain the tools. What I would suggets to the candidate is to consider developing dispute resolution skills, either through offering to mediate cases for the Mediation Cabal or some other similar activity. Rather than vocalising their own opinions, I feel that Kww would benefit from the experience of learning to understand and balance the conficting opinions of others. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose While it seems Kww has contributed fine articles, I am concerned with his prejudice against his opponents. I am afraid that if he is given the tools, he will further his own agenda instead of the community agenda. No offense intended, it just seems like a trend. I applaud you for your strong convictions, we need people on both sides of any disagreement, but we also need nuetral parties and those are the admins. I just don't think WP:DGAF is applied enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose Not much seems to have a changed from the last RfA. The candidate still does not possess the type of temperament I would like to see in an admin. Artichoker 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose The answers regarding pseudoscience articles and NPOV concern me considerably. Contradicting theories should be discussed in proportion to the existing verifiable sources - what other policy is needed? If I'm editing the article on homeopathy, I am probably going to find considerable verifiable sources in support of the discipline - nothing in Wikipedia's policies suggest that those sources must be developed via the scientific method, so in my mind as long as they're verifiable and reliable, they're good to go. The example given about five editors ganging up on the one who believes in science is a bit tough to swallow - Wikipedia already has tools for addressing content disputes, and one doesn't have to revert three times to use them. Requests for comment, an area of Wikipedia that the candidate is already familiar with, would probably be an excellent place to start if outnumbered five to one in a content dispute. This candidate appears far too hasty to use criteria other than neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliability to evaluate sources and how they should be used. I am not forming this opinion based upon past behavior, but that behavior appears also to be based upon this mindset, and could be problematic if the mop is granted.--otherlleft 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Policy and guidelines are a bit more complicated than that. It might help to read WP:FRINGE. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm familiar with it, and how it is used to ensure that "fringe theories" not be made more notable in Wikipedia's articles than they are generally regarded in the wide world. I read of this candidate is that he prefers to make non-scientific theories (fringe or not) less notable in Wikipedia than they are in the wide world.--otherlleft 11:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose I don't believe that Kww is even a good candidate for adminminship. I find him to be far too rigid in his views. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Desperately though we need admins at the moment, in the current environment admins have tenure and it is much too difficult to rid ourselves of a problematic one. This means that with an RFA, I need to be certain, and having read and considered this one, I'm simply not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
38. With regret, but I feel I must oppose. I am concerned about some of the issues raised above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose Although I feel that Kww has much to offer, I feel that the candidate does not assume Good Faith enough, and is too harsh (I'm not sure that's the word I'm looking for, but can't think of another one at the moment) towards those who oppose his point of view on subjects. I feel that more time needs to elapse, with evidence of a change to some of the attitudes and temperament the candidate has shown in the above diffs, before I would feel that the candidate is ready for the mop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose per DGG et al. I supported Kww the 2nd time, but not now, due to continuing bitey behavior. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose per DGG and others. Kww continues to exhibit confrontational behavior not conducive to a collegial encyclopedia. GlassCobra 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Reluctant oppose - I have given this a great deal of thought. On the one hand, I don't believe in "punishing" people for having controversial opinions - I only expect people to be able to explain their positions well. In that regard, the answers to Q14-15 were quite excellent and make we want to support. However, I am bothered by a few things: 1) the implicit refusal to give clear reassurance about not closing fiction AfDs. I don't doubt that Kww could close them accurately, but if they are truly guaranteed to head to DRV as his answer suggests, there is no need to close them himself. The attitude that as long as it will hold in DRV there is no problem closing it is less than ideal. If a hypothetic fiction close were truly accurate, the next admin would make the same close, but without the unnecessary drama. 2) What I view as an occasional tendency to snap judgment/biteness. I think that L1 warnings should be used the majority of the time, because L1 is quite friendly about it and you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 3) The large number of responses/talk page follow-ups by Kww during this RfA leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I most certainly do understand the desire to defend one's self and do note that this has been an unusally contentious RfA (on both sides). However, I am bothered by the assertion on DGG's talk page and elsewhere that Kww's low "keep" !vote % was due to mostly only participating as nominator or on CRYSTAL/HOAX violations. By my count 7 of the last 20 AfDs Kww expressed an opinion on fell into neither category (mostly songs that never charted). To be clear, I don't view the votes themselves as problematic (although they really should be redirects not deletes), but rather the slight mis-categorization as why so many votes were delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    As an aside, I would like to make it clear that I do not agree with the rationales or the aggressive behavior demonstrated by a few of the opposes, nor do I agree with the counter-aggressive behavior by a few of the supports. This RfA, through no fault of Kww, has really brought out the worst in some of you and I am ashamed on your behalves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Weak oppose. I don't feel as adamant against Kww as I did during his second RfA. I appreciate a tough stance against fringe theories, and while I do not always agree with him about fiction guidelines or similar issues, I don't think he is much more likely to abuse the tools than many current admins of similar persuasion on this issue. That said, there is still too much of a battleground mentality here. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been canvassed here via e-mail by a single purpose account. This canvassing did not change the direction of my !vote or the fact that I am making a !vote. I have been following this RfA for quite some time, mentally waffling between neutral and oppose. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    Some philosophical points made in the support section have me reconsidering. Still thinking... IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

43. Oppose. Sorry, I want to be positive and support anyone willing to take up extra work. However the me vs. them battle attitude - while unfortunately common on Wikipedia - should be shelved altogether. We have a problem with many admins who creep into abuse and I'm afraid I think this would be another case of that likely happening. I wish them all the best and would likely support if a clean track record showed a change of approach. I also hope that although this process likely has been frustrating they will take the criticisms offered up as that people care enough to speak their views to actually help and not discourage. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Strong Oppose, per DGG, SoWhy, and many of the other concerns raised above. Kww does indeed display an unsuitable persistence in the rightness of his position on things; and he continues to show a confrontational, battlefield mindset which make me very concerned that his strongly held opinions would negatively impact his actions as an administrator. At this point in time, I do not trust this editor with the tools. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose Per evidence of battleground mentality, proud, stubborn hardline stances, etc. evidenced in various diffs above. And also, ironically, touted as a reason to support the candidate in an emailed solicitation. Just the sort of thing we don't need in more Admins, who, in my humble opinion, should be teachers and guides, rather than battle-hungry authoritarians. Dekkappai (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    No comment on the other issues. On the email, see WP:BN#E-mail Canvassing at Kww's RfA. Tim Song (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    The email looks suspicious, but only notified me of the AfD. Its message didn't influence my opinion. I'd forgotten I'd ever encountered the nominee before and participated in the last RfA. This !vote was based only on reviewing many of the nominee's statements linked above. And the !vote stands. Dekkappai (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

46. Strong Oppose, per the edit history. I'm so over sysops with these tendencies befouling the 'pedia. ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    And what tendencies might those be? Which edit history are we referring to? I'm sorry to bother you but I can't comprehend what you are trying to say. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

47. Oppose per Ikip, Jack Merridew but in particular DGG. Problems with people skills. (I do trust DGG with an excellent judgement and balanced views.) MaxPont (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    To add: admins should be elected by consensus. KWW has been rejected twice and the fact that we are now into a third nomination with a high level of controversy and many substantial objections is in itself an argument to oppose. Even if KWW is made an admin, I doubt that he can function as his administraterial actions always can be challenged and questioned with reference to the strong opposition in these nominations. KWW should accept that he will never be and admin and stop pushing for it. There are already enough admins. MaxPont (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

48. Oppose need to practice being nice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose The hostile comments in the links offered by Ikip confirmed that this man is not suited for this type of work. Warrah (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose Sorry, but still issues that are concerns. (olive (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
51. Oppose, reluctantly; KWW is an editor I find myself usually agreeing with. I'm particularly bothered by the answer to 18c, which suggests the tendency to the combative that other editors have expressed concerns over. The candidate didn't express any willingness to step back for a minute and weigh whether pressing the issue, after being discouraged by other admins, would be worth the time and trouble involved. And as someone who's been badly burned by admins who reached snap judgements, then refused to back down despite being proved wrong (even after intervention by Jimbo), I'm sensitive to the concerns in that regard as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    That's an interpretation of 18c I hadn't considered. I think the way the question was worded is problematic; the time to take a step back is probably when the other two admins counseled against the block, but the question presumes that Kww has reflected on that fact. In the context of being counseled not to block, and disagreeing for whatever reason, I think the response of pursuing it via other avenues to seek consensus on blocking is appropriate. I don't want to put words in the candidate's mouth, however, so perhaps you should invite him to clarify a bit on the subject. Hypothetical questions are a tricky lot, and contain tons of hidden assumptions that we should take care not to judge a candidate on.--otherlleft 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    KWW has clarified his response on my talk page, but unfortunately his clarification didn't relieve my concerns. I'm not sure I stated my concern clearly enough, so let me try again (probably at too much length). One of the most significant problems I see/have encountered on Wikipedia is the extent to which disputes are pressed and prolonged without editors ever balancing the amount of effort consumed by the process and the bad feelings that are so often generated against the expected benefits to Wikipedia. (I've been more sensitive to this since a speedy deletion I proposed, thinking it uncontroversial under policy, mushroomed into a gigantic, multistage dispute. There were some very well-taken comments in this regard by one of the ArbCommittee members (NYBrad?) that I can't find right now, since I can't figure out how to access declined arbitration cases right now, although that's probably easy.) What I was hoping to see in a response, but didn't get, was a recognition that, even when you're right on an issue, and even though you're likely to prevail in a dispute, sometimes there are better things to do (and much better ways to improve Wikipedia) than to fight it out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

52. Oppose per Ikip, DGG, SoWhy, and many others here. From what I've read by following the links in this RfA, there are strong repeated indications in his comments that he places his own ideas above community consensus about how Wikipedia should be run, and that there would likely be significant problems from what appears to be a tendency to a short fuse. There also seems to have been no in depth learning or changes based on the previous RfAs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Oppose Sorry, inclined to oppose per DGG, whose judgment I've come to trust. TimidGuy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
54. Oppose The candidate's judgement seems too weak for this position. As an example, please see this AFD. The topic was a double-platinum, number 1, hit single produced by Simon Cowell. As popular music is the candidate's specialist area, one would expect him to have no difficulty with this. But, alone of the editors who opined on this matter, he was unable to agree to keep this article. Why was he marching to the beat of a different drummer? I cannot say but it causes me to lack confidence in the candidate's ability to decide such matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    God help us if someone marches to the beat of a different drummer. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so we may expect all sorts here. That's fine but the point of this RfA process is to filter out those who would not be satisfactory admins. One way we do this is to observe their behaviour. If they behave in a way which makes their judgement suspect then that seems quite pertinent. I could provide more examples and commentary but prefer to be brief. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

55. Oppose Not crazy about some deletion issues above and attitude. RxS (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Oppose. Shoot first, ask questions later is generally the wrong attitude for an admin. The details have been spelled by others above, including DGG. Pcap ping 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral for now, I couldn't find anything that stood out recently that would make me oppose, but I'll wait to see if any relevant opposes are made before I decide. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to oppose. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral - I respect Kww a lot, and he does great work. But, he's too sure of his opinions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Very worried by Jack Merridew's and Coffee's opposes, seemed too eager to block without asking for confirmation beforehand. However, most of his edits have been positive and help keep content safe. Will revisit later, and am able to be swayed either way. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, revisited, taking into account both sides; still neutral as while the majority of the edits seem to be good there is an underlying worry that hasn't gone away. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Looks promising in general, but the answer to Q11 reveals a battleground mentality with respect to fringe science topics that I believe is at odds with WP:NPOV, even though I, too, have what I believe is a healthy skepticism with respect to that subject matter.  Sandstein  06:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I am with Casmith 789 on this one. I am willing to move on from Kww's mistakes from a long time ago, but Kww's handling of the Bambifan affair which was very recent leaves me rather concerned on his eagerness to rush straight into serious admin actions. The additional statement from Kww on the issue does not alleviate my concerns. However, I recognise that this is only one incident and Kww has done many good things for the project. I am going to give this a good think about, review the evidence even more, and decide if to stay neutral or move into supporting or opposing. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well this RfA is due to close today, so I thought I should weigh in again as promised. I have decided to remain neutral, I can see where both sides are coming from here. Kww does seem to have made progress from the past but some of the oppositions concerns, based particularly on my own experiences, I cannot ignore. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

5. We disagree on way too much for me to support (namely fiction). But he does a lot of good work outside of those areas where we disagree, so I won't oppose. Wizardman 20:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. KWW is a good editor whose contributions are a net positive for the project, and I'm inclined to support - but want to look into the Bambifan thing, since I missed it. The fact that multiple editors complain about a Battleground mentality from the candidate, and yet we have multiple editors badgering supports and opposes, is bothersome. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - Kww has shown civility issues in the past. It seems he might have improved during this time, but I don't have enough confidence to support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Leaning oppose. Abstain While I realize that we need to have lines that can't be crossed, and there are times where a firm hand must be applied, I'm not convinced that this is the approach we should be taking on a daily basis. I greatly admire Kww's editing work here, and I do respect his dedication to the project; however, I'm not sure the "approach" is one I'd like to see in an admin. I'd prefer to see administrators acting in a welcoming and helpful fashion, not the bitey "you can't do that" manner. Coffee, SoWhy, Ikip, DGG, and others simply bring too many factors to light for me to support. I realize that the "Take no prisoners no exceptions" statement was over a year ago, but I'm not convinced that this attitude has changed, and it's not what an open project such as Wikipedia needs in those with the tools that come with the mop and bucket. — Ched :  ?  11:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   After considerable contemplation, and a fair amount of research of the last 3 months, I am no longer leaning towards oppose. While Kww and I have a fundamentally different view and approach to Wikipedia, I simply can not find any objective reason to even lean towards an oppose of this candidate. While we are diametrically opposed in two distinct areas (XfD and treatment of disruption), my search of his editing history these last few months only turned up one minor mistake. That being a warning issued to the wrong party, which he quickly noticed and retracted with a note in the edit summary. I would have issued a full apology on the users talk page, but this is not required. In general I've gotten the impression that Kww has mellowed somewhat in his approach to some things, and I do hope that this pattern continues. I may not wish to support, yet I can find no objective evidence that allows me to conclude that Kww would abuse the extra tools here. I'm fully aware that a move from neutral/lean anything to an abstention of !voting does absolutely nothing to the "numbers", but I think it only fair and reasonable that I note that my previous consideration was "subjective", and as such, an unfair assessment of the candidate. — Ched :  ?  15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Ugh, Neutral This one's tough for me. The few times I have run into KWW, I have been impressed overall. Dredging items up from a year ago in order to strengthen opposes is generally revolting: we all WP:AGF that people can improve based on positive commentary - especially from a previous RfA. The occasional "outburst" happens, and as long as it's not a regular pattern, that too is okay. I see a hell of a lot of positive change - but there's a niggling pattern that I'm less than comfortable with, but it's not one that I can oppose over, nor can I provide the 55% support to. I believe that KWW is a net positive, but this little pattern is just unfortunately enough for me to stay neutral, even though I believe this should be overall successful. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   Your ¬vote is your business, I don't wish to hound you. But if you feel that the RfA should be successful, shouldn't you support‽ It just seems to me that if you wanted the RfA to succeed, you'd want Kww as an admin, and would, therefore, support. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

9. Moved to neutral per DGG and SoWhy's comments. Leaning towards oppose, but won't put myself there unless I validate their comments myself.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Not so neutral – I have given the matter much thought, and I am removing my oppose vote at this time as a sign of AGF. This is far from an endorsement for the candidate, of course. Kww is a man of strong opinions, which is fine, even though many of his opinions seem to differ strongly from mine. The fear seems to be that as soon as he gets his hands on the tools he will run amok trying to use them to impose his beliefs on others. Naturally, there are systems in place to prevent such abuse, but then the concerns trickle down to the idea that he may try to further his own agenda in more subtle ways. I do not at this time have sufficient cause to believe that any of this will be the case. His answers to my questions show me that he is at least capable of being more thoughtful than that. In the end, he is only one man and he must bend to consensus like the rest of us rather than his own personal desires – in fact, even more so than regular editors if he becomes an admin. ArbCom has a way of smacking down any admins who get too big for themselves. I am certainly not imploring anyone else to change their vote; if your convictions are stronger than mine were then you should stick to that. What I will implore is for Kww to pay strong attention to the more sensible criticisms laid out in the Neutral and Oppose sections, such as the part about making snap judgments to which he has acceded needs improvement, as well as any issues that arise from what is perceived as his quick temperament, confrontational aggressiveness, and sometime lack of tolerance. Sometimes honest criticism is more helpful than generic compliments. I would urge Kww, whether or not this nomination succeeds, to seek a more experienced and willing administrator to show him the ropes and function as a mentor for situations where he may need guidance. An absolute must for an admin is the ability to be patient, to listen to others with an open mind, and to know that you do not always know what is right; stirring up controversy only makes it that much harder for an admin to do his job, and can even lead to losing the bit, so avoid it like the plague. In my opinion, the blocking tool is best held by a person who does not seek to use it, because you can trust that this person will not use it lightly. If Kww is sincere in his stated intentions then he would made a fine admin; if he turns out to be less sincere than he sounds, then it may be a train wreck waiting to happen. Regardless, if there is a Kww 4 I have no intention of speaking again unless there is some substantial new thing which occurs between now and then, as I have already said a lot. So prove us wrong; show us that we really had nothing to worry about to begin with. Best of luck, whatever the outcome. BOZ (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    I want to expressly associate myself with these thoughtful comments. It is to be hoped that whatever the outcome Kww takes on board the constructive criticism and continues to improve as an editor. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

11. Neutral. Responsibility can bring out the best in people. Equally, power can bring out the worst. Without a working recall procedure, it's a risk to see what might happen in this case. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 15 October 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.