Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:15, 15 April 2008

Kumioko

Voice your opinion (talk page) (5/9/3); Scheduled to end 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kumioko (talk · contribs) - I have been making edits to Misplaced Pages since 4 June 2007 and since then I believe I have acted in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages project since then. I have, since June accumulated over 30,000 edits. Although, I was granted access to use AWB late in 2007, I had over 15000 edits before that request was approved. I am currently a momber of several different wikiprojects and have tried to support them to the best of my abilities. I believe that my best work has been to build up and add to the Medal of Honor recipient pages including getting 1, Smedley Butler to Good Article status and 1, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima to Featured List status. To answer another question I have on numorous occassions been stressed by editors for several reasons, particulary in acts of ownership over editing articles and what is and is not notible (particularly regarding military operations). In some of these cases I simply stopped editing those articles and moved on to others, in some cases I worked through it and continued on editing. I have also found myself somewhat disappointed at some of the conflicting rules within Misplaced Pages regarding what is and is not appropriate formatting for a Featured Article. In particular my recent submission of List of Medal of Honor recipients for featured list status. In this case there are rules in wikipedia which allow forking, however this technique is not allowed for a featured article. This debate rages on and is in fact one of the reasons I am applying for this RFA. I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept.--Kumioko (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to continue to edit and add to the articles on wikipedia and to guard against vandalism, and to help clarify the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory.

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

A: I believe my best contributions are my edits and additions to the Medal of Honor recipient pages, especially Smedley Butler which was promoted to Good article status and List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima which was promoted to Featured List status.

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: Yes, but I believe I have learned from them and I continue to grow as an editor. I have tried to deal with them in a clear level headed manner and will continue to do so in the future.

Questions for the candidate from User:DanBealeCocks

4. A new editor, called User:1089297PaloirK creates 3 articles, "Janice A Jenkins", "Paul Todd Jr" and "Martin Michael McDonald-Jones". These articles are each about a screenful long, reasonably well written, and do not contain any obvious BLP concerns. It's pretty clear that User:1089297PaloirK is either one of these people, or works with them. Someone points out the user to you. What do you do? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A:As long as the articles do not violate any privacy act rules, have POV content, theres nothing racial or derogetory, they are adequately referenced and the people in question are significantly noteworthy as to rate their own article I would likely leave them alone and watch them to see if they morph into something evil. Otherwise if the article fails any of the above I would place the appropriate tag (likely a speedy delete, with request for rebuttal) to give the users adaquate time to fix it. If they don't I would delete it. If you would like me to clarify more let me know but to me its a fairly broad question that could go a lot of ways depending on the credibility and referencing of the article.--Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP or copy vio. The people and the company they work for are completely non-notable. The work of a boring afternoon in the office - a light hearted article on your colleagues. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate from Mr. IP, defender of IP editing

5. What is your gut feeling about edits by anonymous IPs? When do you respond differently to an IP editor's actions than to those of an editor with an account?

6. Do you feel that anonymous IPs should have more rights at Misplaced Pages, or less? Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A-

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A-

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A-

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A-

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A

12. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A-

13. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A-

14. If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be?

A-

15. Please choose a question from User:Filll/AGF Challenge, and give an answer, including your reasoning, below. Thanks, and good luck. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A.

General comments

• See Kumioko's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Kumioko: Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

1. 30k edits, a good article, a featured list, here for ten months, never been blocked? Certainly. Majorly (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per majorly. Sorry this isn't going well, but you seem to have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart. I find it highly unlikely that you would become the topic of debate as far as misused/abused tools, and therefore I'm happy to support. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree with Majorly. Looks like a great editor. Acalamari 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Support per Majorly. Spencer 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an administrator given your answer to question 1, and the last line in your self nom. Being an admin does not give one any authority over anything, and especially not on pages against other editors, say, in a debate or edit war. Also, you lack experience in the project space - out of 30,000 edits, only 94? Sorry, must oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

   I understand but just as a note, I may not do many edits in the Project namespaces per say I do a lot under that project. For instance as a member of the Biogrpahy and Military history projects I have worked diligently to clean up, expand and add to the articles in those categories. Just because I am not adding conversations arbitrarily to every project I am a member of does not mean I don't participate in them.--Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

   By project space, he means Misplaced Pages: space. You've fallen into a common trap there. *Adds to cheatsheet*. Majorly (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed, as Majorly has indicated, I was referring to the Misplaced Pages namespace. I'm not entirely sure what Majorly means by you falling into a "trap", but, please allow me to further clarify my position. As an administrator, one becomes endowed with a few new buttons that could potentially cause harm to the project if used by an editor who 1.)Lacks vital experience in admin-related areas, or areas where administrators perform their duties and 2.)Seems to have a distorted picture about the fundamental role of an administrator. Does this mean you are unfit for adminship? Not entirely, it just means that now your promotion would not have a net positive effect. Do I encourage you to reapply in the future? Absolutely. There is not a doubt in my mind that with, say 10-12 weeks, you could garner the necessary experience. I suggest that you thoroughly read WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK during and after this RfA as a start. Cheers and good luck. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose, sorry. Per Wisdom89, per response to Wisdom89, and per edit summary usage below the least acceptable. I may support in the future if you become more involved in admin-oriented tasks, but right now it is clear that you do not understand the roles of an administrator. Húsönd 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. (double edit conflict)Oppose. Not enough experience in the Misplaced Pages namespace, which roughly translates to "not enough admin-like experience". Your answer to Q1 doesn't really make it seem like you'll do a whole lot with the tools, if granted. This is further evidenced by the dominating mainspace edits, not to nitpick, but 95% of your edits are mainspace. I am a big supportor of mainspace work, since that is the whole reason we are here, but if you want to become an admin, you'll need to get experience in admin-like areas (such as AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. Plus you don't do a whole lot of communication, which is a critical skill for admins. Useight (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

   P.S. - You say you want to help "guard against vandalism", but you have less than 2 edits to WP:AIV. Now, I know that isn't the only measure of vandal-fighting, but it is a common one. Useight (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

   Wanting to fight vandlism is separate, at least IMO, from AIV. For example, I've literally never posted to AIV myself, and I've been an admin for months. Useight, have you looked at the contribs from this particular user? I personally don't see a strong reason to oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

   Personally, I believe AIV is a part of vandal-fighting. With 30,000 edits, I obviously couldn't take the most in-depth look at the editor's contribs, but I did a little. I am impressed by their amazing amount of mainspace work. However, if you take a look at his last 50 contribs, 40 were via AWB. Of the remaining 10, 7 were to this RFA. Taking this one step further, out of his last 500 edits, 376 were using AWB, if my counting was correct. If you take a look at my RFA standards, you'll see that I frown upon excessive reliance on scripts. Do I completely condemn users of Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc? No. Do I want an editor to do their own work? Yes. I have over 10,000 edits and every single one was completely manual. Additionally, less than 100 edits in the Misplaced Pages space is a big indicator of lack of experience in admin-like fields. My standards list, as linked above, also mentions that I want to see at least 500 edits in that area. Do I sound like I have editcountitis? Maybe, but I can oppose a candidate for any reason I see fit and I'm opposing for lack of Misplaced Pages namespace experience and far too much reliance on AWB. Useight (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

   As a side note, I also agree that this editor would not misuse the tools on purpose. I just don't see the experience I want to see before giving him the tools. Useight (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't mean my post to sound like you "weren't allowed" to oppose. Far from it. Thanks for your clarification. FWIW, I personally have never installed any scripts, nor will I anytime in the future, so I agree with you there. That being said, is there anything in this user's script use, or contribs outside of script use, that is leading you to oppose? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Somewhat reluctantly. Majorly makes a good argument, but I don't see much evidence that you understand what being an admin entails. You're a very good editor, and I would encourage you to look at some of the opposition above my vote (Useight has some good suggestions). If this doesn't pass, then giving a little attention to the admin related tasks will definitely get you over the hump a few months down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Reluctant Oppose - it appears as per the last sentence in the self nomination that the user wants adminship so as to have more weight to throw around, which is in my eyes weak but tangible evidence of at least some degree of power hunger. May change my !vote as more information arrives. In any case, I will reassess this later. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Lacks experience in project namespace, what experience the editor has is on the nomination of two articles for featured list status. Seems like an avid (and prolific) contributor but disproportionately small amount of communication. Also per Wisdom, seems to misapprehend the role of admins. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Answer to Q1 indicates the candidate needs to research what the moptools are and why they are used and why they are restricted to certain users. Also answer to Q4 is a little perplexing (privacy act?). I am sure this well-intentioned user can work toward a sucessful candidacy in 6 months or so, if a coaching program or thorough review of the adminship documentation is undertaken. Further experience in the various namespaces would also be important. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Only 230 or so edits to user talk space is not enough data for me to get a sufficient understanding as to how the user will interact with others, when under pressure, if user has access to the bit. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Out of 30,000 edits a whole 29,000 or so are mainspace. Not that there's anything bad about being a vigilant editor, but only 94 project edits? Also per Kurt Weber.--KojiDude 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Sorry, not enough experience, there are many roles that admins play on wikipedia, you dont need to be one if your only doing the things you mentioned in question 1. Agree with the many points above. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm in two minds as to this request. On one hand, Kumioko is, per Majorly and the other supporting editors, an excellent article contributor, and that very often provides an administrator with robust inter-editor communication skills. It could also suggest that he'd be competent at article-related administrator duties, such as protection. Having said that, we also have an editor who has very little administrator-related-activities experience, insofar as I can observe, and that brings some doubts into the equation for me: I fear Kumioko may not have a sufficient grasp of admin. duties, and may (unintentionally, of course) cause damage through some bad calls. Whilst I'm sure that would improve with time, it concerns me: there's simply not enough experience here. Perhaps if Kumioko could expand on the RfA standard questions with some strong answers, I'd be willing to support, but at present, they are very thin, and really don't do anything to sway me to support. On the fence for this one, depending on a response from Kumioko (which I'd be very happy to see forthcoming), and further developments. Anthøny 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I don't think this editor is ready yet for the tools. --Sharkface/_C 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Nuetral I'm not convinced either way just yet. Will change to support or oppose base on further actions within this RFA (e.g. questions, responses to votes, etc. . .) --Liempt (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Requests for adminship