Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5

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

Ktr101

Final (46/21/2); ended 04:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. Icy // ♫ 04:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Ktr101 (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Ktr101, also known as Kevin Rutherford, for adminship. Kevin has been a registered Wikipedian since October of 2007, and has not had any significant break in activity in the past five years despite moving on to college in 2009 and being active in band there. That's not easy to do. You will note that this is Kevin's fifth RfA, I'll cover that at the end.

In the past five years Kevin has over 65,000 edits, with a fantastic distribution[1]. Importantly, Kevin participates in article creation, expansion, and maintenance. His edits include work at Articles for Creation, helping new users and non-Wikipedians create hundreds of articles that meet our guidelines, policies, and pillars for inclusion. He's also participated in denying such requests if the subject doesn't merit Wikipedia. In addition to content work including 56 Did You Know? and a good article, Kevin does general editing and page moving to conform our content.

The fundamental principle of adminship is trusting another user to use the mop and bucket appropriately, efficiently, and in a calm, civil, polite method in working on Wikipedia with other users. Kevin plays well with others and has no track record of conflicting with editors in any way that is not cordial. He shows that he learns from his mistakes (and it's a wiki, we all make them all the time) and manages to communicate with issues and opportunities effectively.

It will always be important to me that adminship on the English Wikipedia is about trust to block, protect, delete, close a discussion, 'or not', depending on the circumstance, and understanding that it's an additional role that is solely to aid in maintenance of the project. A bad admin is not going to destroy Wikipedia, they are simply going to be bull-headed, uncooperative, and unwilling to learn. A good admin will be understanding, collaborative, and willing to learn. I believe that after five years and all of the experience, Kevin is at this point. The bit will help him advance his editing by participating in requested moves, deleting failed articles for creation, and all the other places that need admin attention that are not just noticeboards. Kevin can work, and he can grow as an admin as he learns from teaching him on the job. That's what being an admin is fundamentally about: learning to create Wikipedia in both a deeper and broader aspect than just editor participation allows.

In closing, I noted at the front that this is Kevin's fifth RfA. The last was well over two years ago, back when he was shiny and new and thought that adminship was a shiny thing. Now that's he's experience life a bit more fully as well as deepening his participation in Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure that his views of adminship truly reflect the grunt work that it is. You can read through previous RfAs, but bear in mind that this is not the same person/user as he was then. Maturity has started to set in, and Kevin is ready to be an admin.

I trust him. Do you? Keegan (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and thank you for your kind words. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw

I'm withdrawing this RFA immediately due to a couple of reasons. Clearly, it was ill-advised to run when I had a CCI open, even if there is a backlog going back to 2009 that's currently there, and people who work there are often the unsung heroes of this site. At the same time, drama also interfered in ways that I could not even have imagined, and I am frankly appalled by how far it went. Seriously guys, it's a website, and rights should be no big deal, but to see all of the drama that erupted over claims and counterclaims is pretty scary. It's the holiday season, so let's enjoy this while we can!

I also messed up a few things along the way, so I am going to try my hardest to improve so that I will be a better editor at the end of the day. Finally, I would also like to thank everyone who has helped me out, including those who opposed me, and I look forward to seeing you all around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Right now, I am planning on working in areas that I am familiar and comfortable with, including CSD’s, AFD closures (although I haven’t been as active as I would have liked to have been, lately), AFC-related work, and requested moves. Over time, I would love to branch out and work in areas that I am currently partially familiar in, but not enough that I would work on them in the near future. This would include contentious AFDs, copyright violations (of which I have found a few lately, and have recently begun addressing them here), and other tasks that I will likely run into.

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

A: Well, I have created hundreds of articles, over fifty Did you Knows, and expanded a few articles and lists in the over five years since I started. This includes expanding two lists from basic lists into fully-cited and tabled articles. Looking back, I guess that I am proud of almost all of my edits in the article space, as they all were done with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and this includes most of my edits, which are usually minor fixes and tweaks to an article.

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: Well, I generally have not run into any conflicts with any editors that I can recall, as we generally are able to settle down and work things out before it escalates any further. When I make mistakes and it's pointed out to me, I learn from the experience. In terms of stress in the future, if I feel like something is getting at me, I will quickly walk away from the topic, take a breather, and try a fresh approach to make sure that any emotions will not end up getting the best of me at the end of the day.

Additional question from Rschen7754

4. What happened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101?

A: So, early on I really didn't know how to write articles. If you look at my earliest edits, I was unfamiliar with the writing style of an encyclopedia, due to my being young and inexperienced. Over my first few years, I improved because I learned how to write better in college, although I still had issues with close paraphrasing. This investigation was opened almost two years ago in an attempt to weed out any issues that I may have added to Wikipedia in that regard, and they have yet to find anything glaring. That being said, if anything is found, I want to work and fix it, as I have improved a lot in the past year or so in regards to my writing style. Since that has been opened, nothing has been found on that page to my knowledge, and if anything is found, I will help to address it.

Additional question from Makecat

5. Why did you add {{welcome}} on some new users' talk page who haven't made a single edit? This question is optional and I won't change my vote.

A: One of the parameters of the Account Creation process is that it allows for you to greet the user that you have just created in the form of having a bot welcome them. Although I have this set up on my account as well, I like to perform this task on their talk page, as it adds a bit of a personal touch to the experience.

Additional questions from Hahc21

6. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: From a blocked user's perspective, I believe that being blocked if you are trying to productively edit is frustrating (having been there five years ago). As such, editors have a responsiblity to follow the rules if they edit this site. If you cannot play by the rules, then you should not be on this site. That being said, all editors have a learning curve, and sometimes we risk scaring away new editors in order to enforce some rule that has the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Blocks should never be used to cool someone down, and every editor should have the ability to hear their voice heard in the form of an appeal. Additionally, new users often are the most vulnerable to being scared off by this site, and I often find myself trying to help these users with deletions of material, with the goal of not getting blocked by an administrator over some confusion that might be occurring. If a user is actively trying to improve the site, they should be helped, as we all were new at some time or another.

Having been blocked before, I know how frustrating it is to not be able to edit, although at the time I cleaned up my act and tried to learn as much as possible through trial and error. If someone is blocked on grounds of an edit war or something to that degree, I do not pass judgment on anyone until I have read up on the reasoning behind why they were blocked. Even then, I try to keep an open mind because often people let their emotions get in the way on this site, and it shows in terms of rude behavior or reckless actions.

In terms of the last part of that question, I am assuming that you are talking about how a block might scare away or permanently scar an editor (if not, let me know, and I will add on below this). In regards to blocking new users, care should be used, as both new and established users are at risk for being scared off by a misplaced block or misunderstanding. Losing any editor is a detriment to the site, because it means that we have lost someone's potential, which is often permanent. Because of this, I want to always make sure that an editor blocked for things other than sockpuppetry and blatant vandalism understands that I am willing to work with them in order to improve the encyclopedia.

7. This is your fifth RFA. Can you please briefly explain how much have you improved since your last one tow years ago?

A: Since I last ran in June of 2010, I have matured in the areas that I worked in. Early on, I wanted to try everything so that I could gain knowledge on how various aspects of this site worked (i.e. AFC, SPI, ACC, etc.). Since then, I have begun to start specializing in these areas, and have become quite knowledgable in how AFC works, as well as dabbling a bit in the Account Creations process. Additionally, I also have learned from the many mistakes that I have had since that time, and I am always looking forward to improve my skills as an editor. This has meant improving my skills when interacting with others both on the site and IRC, working towards becomming more familiar with the processes behind deletions and page acceptances, and other issues which I have previously not explored.

8. You have expressed that you are willing to work on CSD and AFD. So, which is, for you, the main difference between them?

A: The CSD process is a lot more restrictive than the AFD process, because only a small amount of material at any one time qualifies for this process. The CSD process is meant to remove anything which would be in blatant violation of the rules, including attack pages, blatant vandalism, copyright infringement, as well as articles which clearly do not fit the notability guidelines (say, the teacher of some student, who may be remarkable in their eyes, but who has yet to win an award confirming this). Additionally, the reasoning behind the CSD criteria should be enough to provide a reasonable testimony as to why the article should be deleted in the first place. This is because the claim of significance is what should be most looked at when deciding whether or not a new article should be kept. If it is about the teacher, then it can be deleted without harm, but if it the teacher has in fact won an award for their work, than the article should state this in order to present a claim of notability. If it is the latter and it is not cited, then it should not be deleted as it is possible that the user has yet to add a citation that confirms what was claimed in the article. This would bring me to my next point, and that is of the AFD process. In my opinion, an article should be AFD'd if there is reason to believe that the process could go either way, and this includes judgment by the community in regards to the notability. As such, the main difference between them in this regard is that in CSD, the administrator is the judge of the material, while in AFD, the community as a whole has a chance to voice its concerns over an article.

Additional questions from Sven Manguard

9. Wikipedia admins that are active on IRC are often asked over IRC to take admin actions, both in public channels and over private chat. These actions include everything from completely uncontroversial maintenance to potentially controversial deletions and blocks. In some cases, the person is asking because it's just faster and convenient, in some cases the person is asking because they have legitimate privacy concerns about making the request publicly, and in some cases the person is asking because they are trying to bypass existing discussions or consensus. It is often unclear which motivation the person asking has. With all that in mind, how would you handle requests for admin action made over IRC?

A: I would assume that every request was made in confidence, as it is better to be safe than sorry. If it is made in a public channel, I would consider the nature of the request before evaluating how sensitive of a matter might be and the level of confidentiality that it should be given.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10. Under what circumstances, if any, should WikiProjects be permanently deleted from Wikpedia?

A: Assuming that the project is a legitimate project and not a vandalized name, if it is tiny in scope, it could easily be transformed into a taskforce for a higher project (i.e., a city project becomes a task force for a state project etc.). In terms of them being permanently deleted, I would only go that far if it is vandalism, as generally the editors who have created WikiProjects have invested a lot of time and effort into their tasks, and it is likely that they put a lot of time and effort into improving the scope of this microscopic area on the site.

Additional question from Dennis Brown

11 I take your answer #4 at face value and don't see a problem, but it got me wondering: If you found a photograph that was just uploaded to Wikipedia and it is obviously a professional looking photo, and you gut instinct says "this surely came from another website", what do you do? Let's say it is a active user with 1000+ edits, here a year, never uploaded a photo before, no previous blocks. A typical editor.

A: That's a wonderful question. I actually have read into this issue a few times on Wikipedia where a photo looks suspiciously good for the site. Currently, I am in my first month of so as a license reviewer on Commons, and one of the tools that I have discovered is tineye. If I ran into this situation again and reviewed the licensing information, and nothing came up in favor of the image being on this site (or Commons for that matter) legally, I would run it through that tool. If I saw that the image was taken from a site where it shouldn't have been. I would open up a discussion with the editor to make sure that they knew what was up, and I would proceed with a deletion discussion over the image on either site. One reason behind talking with the editor, is that the user on Wikipedia could be a professional photographer who is very wary about uploading their works her (I have actually encountered someone like this on Commons), so it could actually be the website that is at fault. Because of this, the discussion would actually be quite useful in regards to determining what is up with the history of the image.

Additional questions from Bbb23

12. What value is added to the project by creating the article James P. McCarthy? You essentially copied and pasted the material from the Air Force website (not a copyright vio, I know). You didn't edit material that conflicted with our MOS (Oct. 1, 1989). You added almost nothing else to the article outside the Air Force bio.

A: I created that article with the goal of starting the topic, and having others add on over the years. Although I had issues with close paraphrasing at the time, I have learned to no longer do this.

13. Do you think you should be creating articles like Barnstable High School Drama Club? Although not necessarily a WP:COI, wouldn't it be better for someone else to create it considering it's your high school? Are there many high school clubs that are notable?

A: Looking back at it, no. At the time, I created it because it had the Warner Brothers filming a documentary on them five years ago. Although I was never involved with the club directly, I did believe at the time that it was notable. In retrospect, I should have asked someone with a more neutral view on the subject, so I will keep that in mind when dealing with similar or related situations in the future.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ktr101
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 2
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 3
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 4
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5

• Links for Ktr101: Ktr101 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ktr101 can be found here.
• Edit stats posted on (talk page).

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Comment--Bbb points, above, to two articles, neither of which are/were GA material (James P. McCarthy and Barnstable High School Drama Club). But this isn't bad for a first beginning to an article though it has the close paraphrasing issues that I believe he has overcome. The drama club wasn't a totally unlikely candidate for notability since five of the alumni are blue links, a Warner Brothers documentary followed the club around for a production of Wizard of Oz, and MTV (apparently) was slated to film a reality show based on the club (though that was added a year after creation). He did put a USA flag in the infobox, but I'll forgive him for that. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Although the candidate hasn't had an opportunity to speak for himself, the article was more of a cut and paste than close paraphrasing, albeit not a copyright vio because of the U.S. government exemption. As for the club article, I didn't look at it as closely as you did, but having notable members doesn't make the club notable - more of an amusing tidbit. I suppose I could look at more articles, but he's written so many. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• It should also be pointed out that Barnstable High School Drama Club was created by the candidate in 2008 and last edited by him in 2010 - he didn't dispute the subsequent prod that deleted it. No one, not even the candidate disputes that the candidate wasn't ready to be an admin in 2008. If people are going to go through such old edits can they please indicate how old their evidence is and why they think it is still relevant? This is especially important where deleted edits are concerned as only admins could look at a deleted article such as Barnstable High School Drama Club and see that he re-created it in Nov 2008 and the last time he edited it was in March 2010. ϢereSpielChequers 08:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside some minor quiibbles that aren't worth articulating, I agree with you, WSC. I just started at the beginning of the list and the red ones stood out, but it would have been more helpful to comment on more recent articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment; he can't be faulted for the fact that so few people help out at CCI; the regulars I can count on one hand, and those that pop in at all can fit on two, easily. If it's a problem, then more people need to help out there. Wizardman 04:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom and answers to questions. Keegan (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. I trust him, and the nominator. --My76Strat (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. I can't imagine Keegan's nominating an unqualified candidate, and I see no reason not to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - great contributions and also great answers to the questions. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support, why not? --Makecat 12:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Keegan's nomination is more than enough for me to support, per Someguy1221. Thehelpfulone 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Good answer to Q4. I'm convinced. - filelakeshoe 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Actually, why not? (moved from oppose.) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Answer to Q4 is acceptable at addressing RE's concern and so I support based on past experience with this user.--v/r - TP 15:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Support per Filelakeshoe. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Per convincing answers. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    After further research I'm moving to neutral due to issues with Kevin's AfD nominations. Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Provisional Support. Wow ... I've glanced through some of the candidate's recent edits and two of the four RfAs and I still haven't investigated enough to offer a truly informed opinion ... so please consider this as provisional support, pending further research on my part. So far what I've found is that he's matured in the past two years since the last RfA and has been a helpful, constructive editor. While he's not fully matured to his full potential, he's trustworthy, more or less clued in, and has learned from past screw-ups. My gut tells me that he's ready for the the shiny buttons and needs no further purgation. Majoreditor (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

12. Enthusiastic support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Yup, maturity has definitely increased exponentially since prior RfAs. I have a hard time holding someone responsible for a lack of understanding of processes over three years ago. Go Phightins! 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Always been a good chap who I guided in the past, the oppose votes scared me for a second but question 4 satisfied that concern. Most new editors makes mistakes with copyrights, especially in older times. Secret ^account 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Experienced, clueful, and more mature. ceranthor 19:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Kevin does great work! My personal interactions with him have only been positive; he has the maturity and clue to be a great admin. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Support, I think you've got it this time around. – Connormah (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Longterm editor, I've noticed him a few times and generally found him clueful and helpful. Unless anyone can show a recent copyvio from the last year or so then I'm OK with treating his 2007 blocks for copyvio as a lesson learned. ϢereSpielChequers 23:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    March 2011 is a lot more recent than 2007, but I'm sticking in the support section as this does seem to be a past problem and not something he is still doing. ϢereSpielChequers 21:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

19. Support. Seems helpful and responsible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
20. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Support I have some concerns, but I think they are overcome by the standard that they would be a net positive with the tools. While it would have been better if the nom mentioned the CCI, I don't believe I should hold that against the candidate, who is not responsible for the nomination itself, particularly since there was no pattern of misconduct shown. I also found Drmies comments above very helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
22. I don't see why not; the answer to #4 is good enough for me to view the user as a net positive. MJ94 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
23. Yes. Good answers Ktr101. Good luck. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
24. Support The editor is experienced and knowledgeable. The CCI appears to be related to earlier edits rather than recent ones. I am pleased with his answers to questions 13 and 14. The answer to 13 being exactly what Wikipedia is about. Ryan Vesey 04:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
25. Support I think Ktr101 is a good candidate, and have personally reviewed some of the more recent entries at the CCI and found nothing. Legoktm (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
26. Support, people change, and this user has very much changed for the better since their last RFA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC).
27. Support – no reason to oppose. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 15:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
28. Support I've worked with Kevin at AfC and found him to be competent, hard working and approachable. He has a good grasp of PAG and I trust him with the tools. Opposes do not concern me -- the CCI has been open for over two years and no minefield has been unearthed. Pol430 talk to me 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
29. Support - no logical reasons for opposing provided and seems to meet my requirements. --Nouniquenames 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
30. Support, coming out of college-induced semi-retirement because I'd overheard Kevin's running for adminship. The guy cares about the project (seriously), spends a huge portion of his time here (enough evidence for the former?), and has stood through this inane process now 5 times. Just give him the damn tools; what's the worst that could possibly happen? We all freak out over one bad AfD closure? This project takes itself too seriously and doesn't have enough volunteers to handle the sheer amount of content anyway. He's been here long enough; he deserves the bit. Sincerely, Blurpeace 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
31. Support I was on the fence, and RfA seems to be getting nutty again, but an unsubstantiated personal attack is just too much. Miniapolis (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. Met him in in real life. Great guy and knowledgeable, no reason not to support. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
33. I've actually been looking forward to supporting this RfA at some point or another. I think Kevin has learned plenty from the COI issues of the past and is now more than ready to assume the role of an administrator. I remain unconvinced by any of the opposing points, specifically that he is temperamentally unsuited and has to finish off the entirety of his COI page before being granted the sysop bit (although I would definitely advise getting that out of the way ASAP). Kurtis (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
34. Weak support - I've met Kevin in real life, and he seems like a decent bloke. I can see that he's improved on past mistakes, and appreciate that, but I remain a bit concerned about his maturity. Please don't take this personally, it's just a gut feeling from what I've seen. What makes this a weak support and not a weak oppose is the nominator. I trust that he would nominate Kevin if he did not consider him suitable and ready. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
35. Wasn't going to vote, but the copyright issues uncovered so far have been quite minor. Unless I find something egregious (very possible since many of the big changes are still there to look over), I can't think of a reason to oppose. Wizardman 02:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Always been a great user. It seems the copyright problems are a thing of the past. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - per nom and answers to questions. The guy has been here a while and I doubt he's going to delete the Main page, and has learned a lot since his last Rfa two years ago. Net positive for him to have the extra buttons. Opposers fail to convince. Jusdafax 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
38. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. The first interaction with him was when he started again editing and helped us out at the WP:AFC backlog. He does a very good job there and I had some lengthy talks in IRC and I know that he is net positive. As long as there aren't any newer copyright issues (and the old ones get cleaned up) I'm supporting him. mabdul 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Excellent answers show the right temperament and having the patience required at AFC is a big plus too. The opposition issues brought up are dated and I think that he has matured quite a bit in the past few years. Royalbroil 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
41. Support - I'm very leery of this candidacy since it is the 5th grab at the brass ring and I feel that there is something to be said for the idea that those people wanting power too much are the same people to whom it should be denied. I've spent about a half hour digging around in contribution history and glancing at the debates related to the previous four attempts at RfA and feel somewhat better now. Heavy contributions related to the US military and secondarily to the New England region of the USA, seems to understand copyright problems that scuttled previous candidacies, active work with the Articles For Creation program. Lengthy tenure and extensive contribution history. I actually found the candidate's oppose rationale in a previous RfA to be the most reassuring thing. Still a little leery of the need for power or awards dynamic, but I've seen enough to land in the support column here. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - I'm a believer that people can change, and while acknowledging that the candidate had problems in the past, I believe they have fixed those problems, since all the issues I've seen being raised here are over 2 years old. I am also impressed with the candidate's response to the personal attacks and mudslinging that has gone on in this RfA. I only have one small piece of advice, and it's more personal preference than anything. I suggest Kevin changes his signature to something along the lines of "Kevin Rutherford (Ktr101) (talk)". Good luck and happy Christmas. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
43. Support CCI is turning up almost nothing. I am quite satisfied with this candidate.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
44. Support After conversing with the candidate over email, my original concerns have been alleviated. I consider the matter resolved. If anyone else "in the know" is opposing this candidate over the issue, and is open to pulling their oppose votes, they should feel free to contact me by email. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Met him in real life. Trust him, his extensive experience, and improvement over past RfAs. Was really helpful when he introduced me to AfC (which I had time to work on over the summer) and I wasn't sure exactly what I was doing. Icy // ♫ 21:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
46. Support per Cyberpower. We shouldn't be surprised that CCI will find something in the edits of someone with a couple of copyright blocks in the past. However, the low level of findings, coupled with how old they are, makes me willing to discount them. I don't believe that the candidate will cause problems (and his signature definitely shouldn't) and will be a net positive as an admin. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No - Please clean Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101 up first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to support. Oppose per Reaper. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   I realize RE moved to support, but in case anyone else sees the request for Kevin to cleanup the CCI, let me note that while we expect the identified editor to engage helpfully with investigators, we don't think it makes sense to ask them to sign off on their own contributions. In the one instance where I found an issue requiring some response, Kevin was very responsive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   I believe Antique Pen moved to support, not Reaper Eternal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   I agree with SPhilbrick. When checking his contribs, everytime I encounter something requiring response, Kevin has been very open and responsive, and always with the truth. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2. No - We don't need admins with open CCIs. That's going to sink anybody's RFA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Is it 'open' or 'forgotten'?--v/r - TP 15:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   No intentions to badger, but I checked around 25 entries at the CCI (and marked around 8) and found nothing to worry about. It seems like the CCI case was opened to see if something has closing paraphrasing, not no delete a massive addition of copyvio... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   To be fair, it is forgotten; there is a massive backlog at CCI right now. --Rschen7754 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   It isn't quite forgotten, but it isn't trivial to review items. As is obvious, I've reviewed most of those that have been reviewed, although that constitutes a minority of the contributions. If you haven't looked at a CCI before, make sure to note that a red X means no problems found (the convention threw me the first time I looked as I prefer green to mean good, but the convention is established.) Of the 30 plus articles I reviewed, I have a single green check, meaning I found something that required some action. As the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_June_10, what appeared to be a copy from a course turned out to be a copy from an existing Wikipedia article. I'm not suggesting that is allowed, but it has to be handled properly, and it was cleaned up. I did look at more than 30; in many cases, I wasn't able to positively confirm that there were no issues (which is not easy to do) but there were zero cases where I found evidence of copy and pasting of material or close paraphrasing. The CCI exists because some examples in early history were found, but my review so far has not identified any problems.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   The CCI is now seeing a flurry of activity from several investigators. I have reviewed 36 items so far, and found three problematic edits. Two instances were single problematic sentences, which I paraphrased, and the third was a too-close paraphrase of several paragraphs of source material. These edits were from 2011 (single sentence), 2008 (single sentence), and 2010 (several paragraphs). There's also some attribution issues, which I have posted to the candidate's talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

3. oppose per a few issues including RE's reason above, the fact that you were particularly enamored by otava at wikimania and personal reasons. In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose The article sexual anhedonia seems close to the one source. More later. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose per RE and Kiefer. I hate bringing the nominator into this, but I'm a bit disturbed that the CCI wasn't even mentioned in the nomination statement. --Rschen7754 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Because I feel as Hahc21 does. Keegan (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   A bit more: this is a wiki, anyone can open pages and do as they please. If I wished, Rschen7754, I could open a CCI against you just to check on things and not find anything, just because our system allows for it. There's not smoke or fire there. The answer is given by Kevin. Keegan (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   No: per WP:CCI, "A CCI is a serious accusation, and doing so frivolously is a breach of the "no personal attacks" policy." I don't think you were trying to be deceptive, but I'm concerned that you may have missed this. --Rschen7754 22:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Everything is serious on Wikipedia, and we are very good at building picture frames after drawing blanks in the name of serious business. Keegan (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   That is not about you, Rschen7754, it's about our culture in general and exemplified by the CCI about Kevin, and more to the point of why it doesn't matter when we're discussing adminship. Keegan (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Signature doesn't match username; automatic oppose. That's simply unacceptable for an admin. Keepscases (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   First, that's a ridiculous reason to oppose. The name in his signature is actually his real name. And second, you previously supported another RfA even though the user's signature does not match with username either.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   I've given up actually reading Keepscases !votes. I'm sure the crats have too... Pol430 talk to me 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   First, it's amusing that you took the time to go back three years to find an example of me supporting someone whose signature didn't match his username. And second, it's also amusing that you're implying one's behavior on Wikipedia cannot change, within an RfA of a candidate who has previously failed on four separate occasions. Keepscases (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   Third, it's not amusing that you put-down Keepscases, rather than striving to behave civilly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

   How about this, then: if you looked at the page at User:Kevin Rutherford, the easy, logical step you should have taken given your oppose, you would find that it clearly links to the individual in question. That's why your oppose is arguably both lazy and incomprehensible. --Nouniquenames 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   Seeing as WP:RENAME actually SUGGESTS using a new signature instead of getting renamed, and WP:SIG merely requires you to link to your user/talkpage, then this is indeed the most ridiculous and non-policy-based oppose on the planet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   On the contrary, changing the user name is an easy way to make it more difficult to search for a user's contributions and so hide the edits that would torpedo the RfA. Consider other candidates who changed their name and MO a few months before their RfAs.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

   @Bwilkins — Hmm, I think I can name a few opposes that were even more patently absurd than this one. Off the top of my head, there was a fellow from a few years back who gained notoriety for blanket opposing all self-noms... Kurtis (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

7. Candidate's career has been too focused on adminship, and there are other red flags here that I'd post but I'm not really interested in bickering about. The tit-for-tat going on in the oppose section indicates there are supporters who don't feel the candidate's record is strong enough to withstand even the weakest brand of criticism, such as everyone's favorite old chestnut, the "creative signature" oppose. Townlake (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   If there is a logical reason to oppose, then one would not have to fall back on that. I wouldn't call it a chestnut, though, unless it's been through the digestive system already... --Nouniquenames 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   The candidate's previous RFA was in June 2010, how long a gap should he have left for you not to consider his wiki career to be "to focused on adminship"? It used to be considered bad form for people to run a second RFA within 3 months, this chap has waited ten times that long, and longer than many people are here for their entire wiki careers. ϢereSpielChequers 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

8. There are too many problems here to support. Mono 19:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose First of all, there's still the copyright violations, but I could have looked past that if I felt he was sufficiently experienced, which I do not. I don't see a lot of good CSD nominations in his CSD log- I see G6, C1, and AfC nominations. Although those are all important, I'd prefer to see a person intending to work in CSD with experience in a broader range of SD criteria in article space. Looking at 201 AfD pages he commented on, only 46.8% matched the result, while 38.7% did not. I don't think that having 5 RfA's is sufficient reason to oppose, especially when the last one is two years ago. Nonetheless, I oppose because of concerns about sufficient experience in admin areas.--Slon02 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

   So you think that he's unable to assess consensus in closing AfDs because he votes in ways that consensus doesn't always fall? Further, your insinuation that use of specific CSD criteria implies inability to work with nominations based on other criteria (which wouldn't be disqualifying anyway, as he could avoid those altogether) is almost insulting to the community. --Nouniquenames 03:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I do find it problematic when a person's !votes match the community's consensus so little of the time. I'm not sure what you mean about "disqualifying," but as far as I know there are no concrete requirements for adminship. I have my own flexible criteria, and each person has their own way of deciding when to give their support. The criteria that he uses is indicative of his lack of work in NPP and CSD work in the article space, hence why I pointed out the criteria that he used. Most work in CSD involves A7, G10, G11, G12, and so on, while his work is generally in G6. I'm also mildly concerned about the mention of "notability" when discussing CSD in Q8.--Slon02 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

   This vote and the conversation tied to it have been redacted to the talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Too many issues regarding ability and suitability, including recently updated Specific Points in WP:RFAADVICE. Leaky Caldron 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose The copyright issues, plus I do not find him temperamentally sited to adminship. Courcelles 23:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Sorry, But No The candidate's carelessness in regard to copyright issues is the deal killer. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose - problematic history w/r/t copyright, poor track record at AfD (including their most recent participation). That other editors are resorting to threatening behaviour to try and push this through also raises a number of alarms for me. WilyD 14:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
14. I feel compelled to oppose a candidate with an open CCI.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose I think he lacks experience.--BlueFen BlueTalk BuTions 20:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose. The copyright violation issue is too significant. The unhelpful signature isn't good either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose The open CCI is a problem but I'm more concerned with the sloppy AfD nominations. In at least five cases this year (out of 8 nominations), Kevin used the "subject X isn't notable" but apparently failed to check for sources thoroughly: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Rutherford Turnbull (kept by WP:SNOW), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Swamp Watershed Association (speedy kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abercrombie & Kent (kept without a single delete !vote), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Shore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Colby-Cushman. Pichpich (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    I wouldn't count Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Shore against the nominee. That was a terrible NAC closure, with one editor (a likely WP:SPA) voting keep two times and a third keep from another probable SPA, and another keep that admits that the subject barely passes notability guidelines, from a highly respected editor. Closures like that is why NAC should be reformed. I saw the Colby-Cushman AFD and yes that was a bad nomination, I haven't seen the last three. Secret ^account 03:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Point taken (and example stricken). Ironically, that was sloppy on my part. In all fairness, I should also note that Kevin eventually retracted his nomination of Danielle Colby-Cushman. But my basic concerns remain. Pichpich (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

18. The candidate failed to disclose that he had an open CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101. This should have been disclosed in either this RfA's comments section or in the candidate's answer to question 3. His non-disclosure demonstrates either carelessness or a lack of openness. The careless AfD nominations mentioned by Pichpich also indicate the candidate is not prepared to be an admin. Cunard (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose the copyright issue, five shots at admin, the last time in 2010 preceded the copyvio problem of 2011, makes no sense, sorry...Modernist (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose Seeing too many concerns here. No one is perfect, but the concerns are recent and numerous. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Copyright issues seem like an obvious enough reason, and I opposed on that alone, but looking into it a bit more, I see some worrying things from further back too. For example, this close, which was a non admin closure and wasn't indicated as such. This is a more recent example of a similar NAC of something that, bluntly, non admins shouldn't be closing. As I said, the copyright concerns alone are enough, but these examples add to my oppose reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Ok, I'm hanging my hat here. I personally beleive that the editor started out with some issues (copyright-related), but has indeed learned their lesson. We don't hang people for learning/changing - indeed, that's what we WANT out of all of our editors. IMHO, the copyright issues themselves are far enough back in their editing career, that they're almost a non-issue. I said almost - they should have worked their tucchus off to eliminate what was left of their CCI before coming to RfA. Wow, what an image that would have created: "former copyright-infringing editor comes clean and cleans up their mess" - this RfA would have almost been a shoe-in! So, Kevin - your timing blows; totally. There are some other issues being bandied about that I'm not going deeply into the details - but it appears that some "attitude" issues will need to be worked on - do that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, the subject of a CCI is not supposed to be the one closing it/marking off articles. They're welcome to fix problems and make a note of it, but a separate user has to make the determination. If no one's working on the CCI (unlike now) then there wasn't much he could do. Wizardman 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral. As I mentioned in my Provisional Support, "he's matured in the past two years since the last RfA and has been a helpful, constructive editor. While he's not fully matured to his full potential, he's trustworthy, more or less clued in, and has learned from past screw-ups." All true. Unfortunately, Kevin's track record at AfD this year has been spotty. Pichpich has offered enough diffs to suggest that Kevin's track record is spotty. I still think that Kevin will make a fine admin, but he could benefit from honing certain admin-related skills such as nomination rationale/research. The CCI matter doesn't bother me much; he learned from his mistakes and it's hardly his fault that CCI is backed up. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2012 (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.