Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Stats

From http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Kww&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia at 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Username: Kww
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Jan 09, 2007 22:28:26
Unique articles edited: 9,153
Average edits per page: 3.66
Total edits (including deleted): 33,541
Deleted edits: 1,615
Live edits: 31,926
Namespace totals
Article	18102	56.70%
Talk	2616	8.19%
User	190	0.60%
User talk	6326	19.81%
Wikipedia	3374	10.57%
Wikipedia talk	1119	3.50%
File	61	0.19%
Template	114	0.36%
Template talk	19	0.06%
Category talk	1	0.00%
Portal	1	0.00%
Portal talk	1	0.00%
Graph
Month counts
2007/01	10	
2007/02	19	
2007/03	21	
2007/04	47	
2007/05	129	
2007/06	176	
2007/07	192	
2007/08	199	
2007/09	159	
2007/10	282	
2007/11	430	
2007/12	694	
2008/01	911	
2008/02	639	
2008/03	1049	
2008/04	1196	
2008/05	767	
2008/06	723	
2008/07	1018	
2008/08	1285	
2008/09	1822	
2008/10	1721	
2008/11	3423	
2008/12	2107	
2009/01	1494	
2009/02	1217	
2009/03	1427	
2009/04	1029	
2009/05	943	
2009/06	772	
2009/07	1913	
2009/08	1588	
2009/09	1964	
2009/10	558	
Logs
Pages moved: 66
Files uploaded: 25
Top edited articles
Article

    * 239 - Identified
    * 228 - Raven-Symoné
    * 146 - Natalee_Holloway
    * 129 - Drake_&_Josh
    * 112 - Miley_Cyrus
    * 111 - Headstrong_(album)
    * 111 - Ashley_Tisdale
    * 109 - Another_Cinderella_Story
    * 108 - Aruba
    * 106 - She_Wolf_(song)


Talk

    * 338 - What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?
    * 170 - Natalee_Holloway
    * 161 - Miley_Cyrus
    * 155 - Jonas_Brothers
    * 114 - Lil_Wayne
    * 80 - Demi_Lovato
    * 71 - Lindsay_Lohan
    * 62 - Zac_Efron
    * 53 - Selena_Gomez
    * 50 - Britney_Spears


User

    * 19 - Kww
    * 10 - Kww/charttemplate
    * 9 - Kww/chartproposal
    * 8 - Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Sucker_Punch_(film)
    * 6 - Kww/chart
    * 5 - Kww/redirects
    * 5 - SummerPhD
    * 5 - Kww/Brexx
    * 5 - 4.129.70.150
    * 4 - Benjiboi/Platinum_Blonde_(Paris_Hilton_album)


User talk

    * 93 - Petergriffin9901
    * 72 - Kikkokalabud
    * 72 - Ericorbit
    * 51 - AuburnPilot
    * 48 - Kww/04022009
    * 34 - C.Fred
    * 34 - Samantha1961
    * 32 - Wehwalt
    * 31 - Jayron32
    * 29 - Realist2


Wikipedia

    * 498 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 269 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 119 - Requests_for_page_protection
    * 92 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 85 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Albums_and_songs
    * 85 - Record_charts/sourcing_guide
    * 47 - Village_pump_(policy)
    * 45 - Record_charts
    * 43 - Village_pump_(technical)
    * 42 - Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx


Wikipedia talk

    * 310 - Notability_(fiction)
    * 213 - Record_charts
    * 79 - Notability
    * 61 - What_Wikipedia_is_not
    * 44 - Notability_(Geographic_locations)
    * 34 - Sockpuppet_investigations
    * 33 - Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody
    * 31 - Notability/RFC:compromise
    * 29 - WikiProject_Pokémon/Bulbasaur
    * 29 - Articles_for_deletion


File

    * 3 - Na1guilder.png
    * 3 - 100NAFl.jpg
    * 2 - 50NAFl.jpg
    * 2 - Netherlands_Antilles_10_gulden_bill.jpg
    * 2 - Michael_Goldsmith_circa_78.jpg
    * 2 - Say_OK_Hudgens.jpg
    * 2 - 1932_018tsbful.jpg
    * 2 - Braque.woman.400pix.jpg
    * 2 - Goldsmith_michael.jpg
    * 2 - 25NAFl.jpg


Template

    * 24 - Singlechart
    * 15 - Vanessa_Hudgens
    * 11 - Britney_Spears
    * 8 - Katy_Perry
    * 4 - The_Cheetah_Girls
    * 4 - Jay_Sean
    * 3 - Ashley_Tisdale
    * 3 - Record_chart
    * 3 - Corbin_Bleu
    * 2 - Jack_Johnson


Template talk

    * 13 - Singlechart
    * 4 - Convert
    * 1 - Britney_Spears
    * 1 - Outlying_territories_of_European_countries


Category talk

    * 1 - Oregon_Ducks_baseball_players


Portal

    * 1 - Caribbean/Did_you_know/54


Portal talk

    * 1 - Featured_content

Contribution tables

For anyone that habitually ignores the opening statement, I will point out that these tables can help a lot in making sense of my contributions:

• 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) 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Current policy?

KWW wrote:

"I'm not a big fan of timed blocks, I'm more in favor of "indef until ..." style blocks. All I was pushing for was to block until he said that he understood that he had violated WP:BAN and that he would not do so again. That's not a ban at all: should be a very short block, only as long as it takes to read and acknowledge the policy page."[1] Ikip (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a question of some kind? I'll answer it if you place a question mark or two on it so I know what you need clarification on.—Kww(talk) 11:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

[2] Ikip (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One post, and I posted this when I saw it.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your posting, nice job. Ikip (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment from A Nobody

Continued from main page.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I want to be as comprehensive as possible before I log back out and hopefully can stay away for as long as possible. Among those who have been attacking me on-wiki have apparently been doing so in conjunction with others on an off wiki web forum for which I have never and will never create an account. In the past couple of weeks these editors have coordinated two bogus attacks against me that have disrupted Wikipedia. Please consider the following:

1. 1. An allegedly vanished editor makes an allegation at Wikipedia Review and then posts User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_22#.22This_user_has_a_Doctor_of_Philosophy_degree_in_History..22, which at least one current editor endorses, using a single purpose and obvious sock IP only to have DGG confirm that he has actually seen the degree in question. I stop editing at the end of September, haven’t commented in any AfDs in weeks, and I’m still worth discussing!?

   2. The same allegedly vanished editor next makes a ludicrous assertion that a new account is me at Wikipedia Review and sure enough the same current editor who supported the previous bogus allegation starts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_sockpuppet.3F in which ultimately User:Wizardman writes, “Katerenka's not A Nobody or any of his accounts.” and User:Risker adds, “Confirm that they are not the same person.” WTF?! How many more bogus claims are going to be made against me on and off wiki and while I am trying to break? Can a day go by without someone emailing me about some new nonsense? For the past three years I have had to contend with attacks from the various incarnations of banned User:AnteaterZot, User:Dannycali, User:Eyrian, User:Blueanode, User:Everyme, and at least a half dozen more separate sock farms. Now, I try to break and people are still going after me? Come on now, are we here to build an encyclopedia or what?

   Anyway, it has been brought to my attention that some of these same editors involved with the above also now hypocritically take issue with my handful of comments to supporters in this RfA. This is exactly where some editors lose me as having valid criticisms of me. So, for the sake of objectivity:

   1. I wrote out my oppose: from 15:26 to 15:50 on 10 October.

   2. I did not reply to any supporter until AFTER HiDrNick made a baiting and antagonistic reply to my oppose at 15:51. I then only replied to his support in which he left no comment whatsoever, because it seems a bit absurd for someone who just votes with no rationale to go ahead and mock someone who opposes with an elaborate rationale.

   3. I subsequently only challenged THREE more supporters. First, Badger Drink who wrote the baiting and antagonistic “Is being opposed by all the right people.” Second, Beeblebrox who supported per Badger Drink’s over the top oppose that focuses on other editors rather than the actual candidate. And third to Black Kite who falsely suggested that the opposes are only bringing up diffs from a year ago, which is not true, because I cited ones from September/October 2009. Otherwise, I mainly replied to those who replied to me.

   In what topsy turvy world is it not okay to challenge editors who directly or indirectly challenge and mock you or who make false statements? If [3] and [4] are okay then surely challenging those who outright laugh at you (notice the edit summary) is. In addition to on the RfA itself, if you scour the talk pages of various editors who opposed, you will find far more comments from Kww and his ally Protonk in some cases aggressively challenging those who opposed, far beyond anything I said in terms of wording and determination. It is either all unacceptable, or all okay. And if it is a discussion and not a vote, then we can and should all engage with each other. At least my engagements are civil. I don’t say “oppose per the supporters”, after all. And that despite one supporter dismissing the opposes with “He apparently pissed off a bunch of kids…“ Never mind that DGG and I are adults with PhDs and MichaelQSchmidt is an adult film star. I reckon many of the others in the oppose group are also not merely “pissed off kids.” Oh and, yeah, that line was made by one of those from one of the Wikipedia Review threads who appears to call me a "nut." And you know, if no one replied to me in the first place, I would have left the RfA not to comment again as I did in the other four RfAs I commented in recently. But I get crucified for responding to baiting with the actual baiting being somehow acceptable?! Welcome to crazy land! And are people somehow surprised that I would strongly oppose someone who mockingly referred to me by my old username as I pointed out in the last RfA and who calls for me to be banned every chance he gets? Does no one care about the actual majority of my recent RfA comments: [5], [6], [7], and [8]? I am sure you can find instances in which I disagreed with some of these editors, but I support them anyway and for a variety of reasons. Seriously now, what do you people want? This distorting and mischaracterizing my editing to the point of damn near outright lying is just so over the top and hypocritical it is downright mind-boggling and largely why I am hardly editing any more and debating whether it is even worth it to continue. What will be interesting to see is given that this RfA is at around 69% (below passing) is how Kww will follow up. If he makes a sincere and good faith effort to reconcile with me (if I decide down the road to edit again), I will gladly reconsider in the future as I have done with some other editors I opposed or would have opposed in the past. No, I do not expect us to become buddies, but just something to bury the hatchet. Had that happened last time and he dropped all of this calling for me to be banned and joining in on the other mischaracterizations, distortions, and even lies about my editing perpetuated by editors who outright call me names (see for example [9] and [10]) or worse yet personally attack the subjects of articles under deletion discussion as Eusebeus does here (how can we have a serious and mature academic discussion with accounts who make such provocative statements in AfDs and THESE are the types of accounts who have the gall to criticize me and who Kww tries to ally with?!), I would have been neutral or maybe even supported this time, but instead the totally uncalled for and unjustifiable derision of me (just as we have seen in the AFD I cite from earlier this month of considering certain editors of a different viewpoint "ignorable" and just as we saw previously with considering certain editors of a different viewpoint "vandals") continues. I am always receptive to good faith and honest efforts by my colleagues and I hope that in the future he will join me in doing at least what we can do to not fan the flames of animosity kindled by others. Kww, please see what these on wiki and offwiki people are doing. Please do not let them trick you any further. That is the leadership we need to see in admins and the kind of leadership I would support and hold up hope we will eventually see. I suspect others who opposed would see such good faith efforts also as a sign in the right direction. And I reckon those who are actually here to build articles will do that and those who are not will continue to play games attacking someone who is hardly on Wikipedia anymore. For the former, kudos to all of you and all the best in your future endeavors! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who started the WR thread. I have no idea who posted that question on your talk page. I also can attest (and you can confirm from my account's posts on WR) that I haven't commented in that thread. You'll notice there is an equally childish thread on WR about me. I will say that your insinuation that the authors of your RfC are connected to WR and through them KWW is connected to WR is tenuous at best. I will also say that like the last RfA you offered to "bury the hatchet" and switch to neutral or support only after it was clear that the RfA had dropped below the discretionary band--in other words, after the damage was done. I also know that you made this coy statement (in a reference I suspect to KWW) well before the RfA started (and before your RfC or those WR threads started), making known your intentions. I also know that you have returned from your break and posted here, rather than engaged the ongoing conduct RfC that you face. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I believe A Nobody was expressing that MichaelQSchmidt stars in films, and is also an adult.--otherlleft 01:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is that in reference to? Protonk (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the description including the phrase "... is an adult film star." I concur with Otherlleft: MichaelQSchmidt is an adult, and he has acted in films.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I accept with good faith that with the length of the tome above, he inadvertantly left out the word AND which might have been best placed between the words adult and film. Gave me a chuckle. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That was funny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did get a message about this one (hence why I logged back in now after spending the day first seeing Law Abiding Citizen at the theater with my parents and then watching Drag Me to Hell (a film that features a Lamia...) and Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny on DVD with my brother, newphew, and parents (I liked the horror movie best, the revenge movie second best, and then the musical comedy). And anyway, I apologize for any confusion in my wording. I wrote quickly and as you can infer with some frustration bordering on anger. I had a much more enjoyable day today and hope Michael did not take my wording as any slight to his professional work. Yes, I meant he was an adult who is an actor and not as if he was a pornographic film star, which by the way, no ill will towards any editors who do that incidentally. I can reword the above if you would like (I plan to log back out again after this post...I feel like in The Godfather III, every time I think I'm out, I get pulled right back in..., but can check my email tomorrow if Michael insists), but am not sure if doing so would cause any greater confusion for anyone reading this discussion who then sees the replies and says, "Hey it doesn't say that". So, if you want me to rephrase, just email me. Again sorry to Michael; I am pleased you have seemingly laughed it off and to some extent to Kww as well if my careless wording there caused a distraction/tangent thread not necessarily focused on his candidacy and that missed my original overall meaning. Anyway, have an enjoyable Friday night to all (I hope you do something October/Halloween related!) in any event! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

An aplogy is not needed... not by me. Point of fact is that I am an adult and film actor. The typo created a few well-needed smiles all around.... and kinda underscores how we here might all benefit from looking past words to the individuals behind them. It was human error.... and it was indeed funny. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

E-mail canvassing has likely sunk this RfA.

I think that, given as it's a third RfA, and successive RfA's destroy hopes of passing, that the bureaucrats may want to give a bit more leeway in this case. This is only my opinion, but I wanted to state it. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence of email canvassing? I'm tempted to put {{fact}} tag on the title Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:BN#E-mail Canvassing at Kww's RfA. Tim Song (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's been fairly stable around the lower part of the discretionary range for days now. Unless something extraordinary follows from the thread on WP:BN this won't matter and the RfA should be closed the way they always are. There's no need for any exceptions here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel slighted. Then again, I didn't vote last time around.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If this RfA fails it'll be because of retaliatory bloc voting rather than late-in-the-day ratfucking IMO, although obviously every little helps. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's only a handful of !votes so far that I would argue are suspect due to the problem, and it seems to have been fairly localized to a specific point in time targeting a specific group of editors. I think the bureaucrats have enough facts in hand to know how to weigh the results.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• By my count, 5 opposes have come in that !voted in RfA 2 since the email. In the same time period 2 supports have been added that !voted in RfA 2. If we assume none of the 5 opposes would have showed up, but both of the supporters would have showed (i.e. worse case senerio) the RfA moves from 116-53 (68.6%) to 116-48 (70.7%) based on current numbers. Realistically probably 1-2 of those opposes would have shown up on their own, which would be consistent with keeping the overall ratio in to ~69-71% range it has been fluctuating around. Regardless, the RfA is clearly on the lower end of the 'crat discretionary range, but not out of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but at this time the neutrals are more than enough to put this at no consensus to promote. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So neutral !votes are really like "Oppose Lites"? That's concerning. Tan | 39 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's all part of a sophisticated weighting process so arcane and opaque that almost all RfAs with >75% support pass and almost all RfAs with <70% support fail and most in the middle could be decided by a coin toss. We wouldn't understand. Not poking fun at Pedro, just the crat decision rule fiction in general Protonk (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at them;

1. Comment
2. Verges oppose
3. Just a comment
4. Re-visited comment
5. Comment
6. Verges support
7. No confidence - verges oppose
8. Pretty much a support
9. Leans to oppose
10. Leans to oppose
11. Comment

So I view the neutral section as being more against promotion than in support. Luckily however it ain't my problem ... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I really hope that the closing 'crat doesn't look through the neutral section and weigh the shades of gray there. If the editors wanted to support or oppose, they'd be in that section. Tan | 39 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. They already have a ready made checklist to sort the wheat from the chaff :) Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of a "neutral section with weight" is insane even for the decoder ring world of RfA. I've seen "neutral" comments which are far more damaging than the average oppose in the past. On Malleus's list, this would be "this is my attempt to torpedo your RfA, but by being all David Broder-like and professing neutrality I look like I'm handing down wisdom from above". (It's occasionally fun to think of the US election process in terms of RfA.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, RfA is indeed a minefield of broderisms. You can almost visualize the sage chin stroking (or mustache fondling, if you prefer a different pundit) Protonk (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh the US election process is literally a vote, the RFA system was made so people's opinions were counted, and weighed. Whether you support, or oppose doesn't matter unless you have a really valid reason following your !vote. Therefore the neutrals voices should definitely be seen as countable, and they are. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Coffee, that's a damn good point. Tan | 39 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate's support

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)

The only toxic behaviour on offer appears to be yours Bali - you're the only one insinuating some here have poisonous traits , even though you dont seem to be manly enough to say so directly. The hypocrisy of your indirect attack mention was at least mildly amusing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• McCarthy? I thought the correct name was Hitler/Nazi... Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cmt no accusing people of being Nazis is almost never acceptable (the only exception is people that are actual, verifiable Nazis). Mentioning that there's a campaign by a few to deep-six this fellow's candidacy because his presumed ideological beliefs are "unsound" is well short of that kind of childish name calling. In my opinion in this case (obviously), likening the Manichean world view and approach of these folks to McCarthy's tactics (not political ideology, clearly) is appropriate.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

...though accusing people of McCarthyism is fine and dandy? But on the other hand, I did enjoy the insinuation that a lack of civility showed good Admin character. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Another LOL. A key characteristic of McCarthyism was the extremely harsh reactions to those believed to potentially have sympathy with a minority POV (communism for Bali's benefit). KWW is the hardliner here, none of the opposers have even hinted that KWW deservers harsh sanctions, many have said hes a valued editor. Was just tempted to upgrade my oppose to strong per Bali together with diffs, though on reflection KWW doesnt deserve further grief just beacause hes attracted such a supporter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the interpretation in the first few sentences. I think we are operating on the assumption that the disputes we reference are analogous or identical. Kww is alleged to be a hardliner on some content disputes, and editors seem to have decided that one can't be a hardliner on content disputes and still be an admin--some others have suggested rather nakedly that such views represent a permanent disqualification while still others have bent the truth and repeated inaccurate information in order to suggest some connection between content attitudes and admin conduct. The analogy to McCarthy, while OTT, isn't reversed. As I pointed out on a few talk pages, the eventual outcome of this is that RfA watchers learn you can't be a "deletionist" and be an admin and more specifically they learn that if you say something strong or indecorous, the only realistic route to the bit is to abandon the account and start a new one where opinions about content are left unstated. The imputed incentives here are perverse in the extreme. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say, Protonk, that I am learning just what you claim that watchers will learn. Apparently having opinions shall sink an RfA. I suppose that if I really want to be an admin, I'd better ditch this account and come back in a month or so with a new one… and if I manage to make someone angry with that one, I'll have to make ANOTHER one. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it would be totally OTT to suggest KWW is McCarthyist and sorry if it came across that way. Not sure if KWWs being overly opposed for his deletionism , – if it were only that Id be supporting due to his upfront , honourable and helpful nature, Ive supported more deletionist candidates before, and . DGG mentions AfD among other reasons, so obviously its a factor, but it looks like theres a broad objection to Kwws lack of compromise for what he views as problematic, which he seems to have in at least two other areas; fringe and general conduct. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not asserting that everyone is opposing based on that, I do apologize if it seems that way (probably does, I'm not being very precise). Arguably if he had handled the Revi/Mersault thing more gently, this would be a much closer RfA. But factionalism persists and it seems that Kww hasn't suffered enough for that vandal comment. Protonk (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Things seem to have gotten all balled up in this thread, and it's even been suggested by an editor with whom I am on good terms, that I've said something I need apologize for. For the life of me, I don't see it. The only thing I can guess at is my reference to Hitler and the Nazis. If that is it, I should point out that that reference is actually to Godwin's law, which states "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." My point was that bringing up accusations of tactics used by a lesser political despot-- McCarthy-- was the first step to the debasing of the discussion down to accusations of being like the ultimate political despots. If anyone misunderstood that, then I hope this explanation suffices. Dekkappai (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that at last a half-dozen of the opposers have at some point in the past directly compared the deletion process to book-burning, I fail to see how singling out one editor on the other side (where "the other side" means "anyone outwith that bloc") is appropriate. If there's one thing which irks me about that particular cold war, it's the false equivalences. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point being it is inappropriate to reply to one editor, without replying to them all? Sorry, I'm late to this discussion, and just replied to one that came up recently... And late though I am, I can already I see sticking around here any longer will be a waste of editing time. Please carry on though. Dekkappai (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From calling people idiots to the unrepentant incivility at [11] and the response to not being interested in keeping a second opinion on his talk page either to mocking those who argue to keep, etc. to now this. We really all have to move beyond it already. Please. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find much of the way you've characterized my behavior (relative to the diffs provided) uhm, what's the wikipedia word (I'm rusty)... I've got it: "mistruthful." I trust others will read and draw their own conclusions. Sincerely and with the utmost respect. (Why are you directing comments at me now, exactly?)Bali ultimate (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion

Hmm, I've not seen this before! What a doozy for the 'crats...

'Crat discussion - it's fully protected, but I think it would be a bad idea for us admins to join in there without an invitation, so here's as good a spot as any for the screaming masses.

Let's see, in summation:

• Extending it to further clarify consensus would be a bad idea, because of canvassing and likely continued off-wiki communications
• A lot of the opposers bring up some old crap that we can't find any evidence is still happening
• However, opposers do make some good points about some worrisome tendencies and say he's not ready yet
• Supporters ackowledge this to some extent and say the old stuff don't matter
• The tally is in the deep end of where a user might still be promoted, although this is due in part to the canvassing
• Help, don't know what to do! :)

So, discuss... BOZ (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an epic. I expected my nomination of Kww to lead to a dramatic RfA, given his first two, but if I had it over again, I'd have charged admission.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion is open for the community, so you might want to add your comments on that page instead for crats to notice them. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point! I hadn't considered that; as nothing has really been said here yet (although good one, Wehwalt), feel free to jump in over there. BOZ (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I did not bother to oppose because I was not aware that crats were even considering accepting noms with numbers this low; what have we come to? I thought the numbers were low enough here that I didn't need to lodge an oppose, opening old wounds unnecessarily. Kww's neutrality on the Natalee Holloway article was a serious issue; the editors watching that article did not respect consensus, even when multiple editors disagreed with them, and the conduct on the page amounted to ownership and the comments from them, even when faced with multiple editors who disagreed with their stance, were just out of line. No, KWW is not neutral enough to have the tools. Good grief, when did 70% become the threshhold? What happened to 80 or 85? This is outlandish; we are now dipping into lower and lower acceptance threshholds, both at RfA and in ArbCom elections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You really should have voted, but one extra oppose is unlikely to have made a difference. There were apparently canvassing issues which may have caused the high amount of opposition. Besides, the threshold has never ever been 80 or 85, and it's not all about the numbers but rather the quality of the arguments. If you had put your own argument in, perhaps it would have been an important factor in the bureaucrat's decision. As you didn't, we will never know, and I would really encourage you to use your vote. Majorly talk 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, now I will enter my votes at an 80% threshhold-- assuming there's anything left on Wiki worth working for. I was traveling all of September, and then catching up, and then traveling again the last two days, and I honestly thought the threshhold was low enough here that I didn't need to take the time, locate diffs, and weigh in. My bad! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the outcome of an RfA is not strictly based on percentages. An 80% may well be unsuccessful, and RfAs have been promoted with as low as ~69% support. That said, I ask that the closing bureaucrat take Sandy's concerns into consideration. Although she didn't vote (and I supported), RfA is meant to be a discussion, and when an RfA is of a borderline nature, all good-faith opinions should be weighed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. RfAs have been extended in the past because of issues brought to light. Majorly talk 14:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested in examining the original dispute, most of it can be found in Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4. I wound up initiating an RFC at Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#RfC: Proper naming for article. I will point out that this dispute occurred in Oct 2008, but I don't see anything there I'm immediately inclined to disavow. As a content dispute, I certainly expect that there's a decent percentage of Wikipedians that would disagree with my stance, but that really isn't what adminship decisions are supposed to be based on.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments here for my rebuttal to Sandy's allegations regarding the Holloway article. Kww has done nothing with respect to that article, except things he should be proud of.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I share SandyGeorgia's concerns. I watched Kww's 2nd attempt but did not comment because RFA is such a bear garden and the outcome seemed clear. On this third occasion, I noticed the matter fairly quickly and kept an eye on the discussion for days. It seemed that, again, the request would fail but I spoke out when doing some work on my DYK records which reminded me of an occasion on which Kww's behaviour had been noticeably biased. Now, it seems that my good faith contribution is being discounted as due to canvassing. This seems both incorrect and one-sided. What of editors like Bali ultimate? He hasn't edited Wikipedia for months but then shows up especially to support Kww. Why am I being accused but not him? To be taken seriously when I choose to comment, it seems that I must become a regular commentator in this circus. This will take time away from article improvement but so it goes... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I am unaware of the canvassing concerns here; I've been traveling and haven't caught up. But, in general, canvassing is such a widespread phenom on Wiki that I wonder why it's a surprise to anyone, and why that is raised here. There's no way to know how much canvassing occurs in both directions. I received some most disgusting canvassing during last year's arb elections, and that canvassing apparently resulted in success for one marginal candidate. Welcome to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm a bit confused about which of SandyGeorgia's concerns Colonel Warden shares. One is talking about a content dispute, the other about his !vote possibly being discounted due to canvassing concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Me, too; that's why I commented. My concerns are unrelated to canvassing allegations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that I don't suspect Colonel Warden as responding to canvassing. Per the table posted at WP:BN#Post canvassing analysis, Colonel Warden did vote after the canvassing occurred, but (and this is an important "but", hence the bolding), he did not oppose at KWW 2, and his participation in the ARS exposes him to numerous talk pages that contain a table of ongoing RFAs. Hence, he did not fall in the category of editors likely to have been canvassed, and it is quite likely that he would have noticed my nomination. Those facts are noted in the table. Having noticed my nomination, in fact, I would have been amazed had he not commented, and would have been speechless had he supported.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• KWW, in following your link above, I had to sort what "ARS" was; would you mind linking that in your chart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the ARS being highlighted - it seems quite quiet at the moment and I'm spending more time on DYK and PROD patrol. I have hundreds of editors' talk pages on my watchlist and numerous noticeboards. The project(s) that seem most related to Kww are surely those that deal with popular music - Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts and the like. Should we analyse their participation to see if they are over-represented on the support side? Trying to interpret these matters in factional terms seems contrary to WP:BATTLEGROUND and so should be discouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• It was not presented as a means to discredit your vote, and, I emphasise again, I have taken no action and made no statement that should be interpreted as an effort to discredit your vote. It was brought up only because prominent ARS members display an active RFA chart on their talk and user pages. I presume that is how you became aware of my RFA, and it certainly means that you are likely to have become aware the RFA through means other than the canvassed notice. It is listed as a reason to not suspect you of any wrongdoing. The statement in the table should make that clear: " ...probably saw notice on the talk pages of multiple ARS members. Desirable or not, this method of notification is not considered canvassing.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

When "numbers this low" are due to a) transparent bloc voting and b) ratfucking, and the result still ends up close enough to cause 'crats to pause, it would seem obviopus why head-counting fails. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see where you feel there is transparent block voting in any significant numbers. Further, the e-mails likely only moved this from 71-->69 at most. I'm not saying Kww doesn't deserve a fair and honest consideration and that both of those issues did play a role. But a small one. If you watched this day-to-day you'll notice it hardly ever got above 70. My theory is that people were trying not to pile on and so only !voted to oppose if it seemed needed. I debated about doing the same thing, but chose an early weak oppose instead. No one (well almost no one maybe) wants kww to leave. He's been a great editor, especially after RfA2. But there are more than a few of us who worry about his temperament and biases. As I said in the RfA, I think it is likely Kevin would do a good job. But he's a much higher risk of running off the rails than most IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we reach an impasse. If you can't see the blocs at work, it is almost useless to attempt to illustrate it, because Chris or myself would simply be accused of paranoia. But I do commend Ikip and AN on their presentation of the convincing fiction that Kww is some mad man ready to lash out at a moments notice. They have stitched together a pretty good Frankenstein from unconnected diffs, veiled accusations and insinuations about content (just like Ikip promised he would), convincing enough that reasonable people have repeated it. I suspect this will pass fail, but this is much more a failure of the community than of Kevin. We are handing out the lesson that editors can have opinions, but not admins. And that you will be punished for years for comments made which don't actually impact how you would use the tools. I'm repeating myself but the sum of those two lessons is a suggestion to newer editors that they should clam up about content opinions until the 'get tenure' and if they are unlucky enough to have made intemperate comments, they should abandon that account and get another one. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)