Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keithbob

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

Keithbob

Final (35/32/5); ended 02:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination by Mr. Stradivarius

Keithbob (talk · contribs) – Keithbob has been editing solidly since 2008, and he is a strong content contributor with over 21,000 edits to article space. He has managed to bring Risk parity, Norman E. Rosenthal, Amos Lee, Bridgewater Associates and Arlen F. Gregorio to Good Article status, and has many other significant content contributions, which you can see listed at User:Keithbob/Sandbox2. In fact, that page makes my work as nominator very easy, as it lists all of the major work that Keithbob has done on Wikipedia, so I recommend that everyone take a look at it. For people who don't like clicking links, I will just give a few highlights.

As well as Keithbob's content work, a few things stand out on the list. The most impressive in my mind is his work at WP:DRN. He is currently its coordinator, and has made 328 edits there. The couple of discussions I checked there[1][2] show that Keithbob has a calm demeanour when dealing with disputes, and that he is good at leading discussions toward resolution, both things that will help a great deal when dealing with disputes as an admin.

Keithbob also seems to have a good grasp of our deletion policies. His AfD comments are informative and concentrate on the sources and the notability guidelines, and his non-admin closures look good (for example here, here and here). He has been less active in PROD work and CSD work than he has at AfD, but he has still managed to get a fairly respectable PROD log, and has improved lots of articles while doing new page patrol. (See the "NPP" section of User:Keithbob/Sandbox2.)

One thing that I understand that Keithbob wants to get out of the way is this post on his talk page in April, where a couple of close paraphrasing concerns were found in articles that he contributed to back in 2009. Keithbob tells me that he has gone through and reviewed all of his content contributions for copyright and close paraphrasing (yes, all five-and-a-half years of them), so I don't think there is any risk of close paraphrasing yet to be found. And as if that wasn't enough, he has recently been contributing to Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations in order to get more experience in with copyright issues on Wikipedia. I think he will tell us some more about this in his statement, but I for one have no worries about Keithbob's understanding of copyright, and I think that the review that he has made of all his edits has made it stronger than that of many other regular contributors.

I think that Keithbob would make an excellent admin, and I hope that you will join me in my endorsement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination by Keilana

I'm delighted to be nominating Keithbob for adminship today. He is a tenured editor with a real need for the tools and a record of great administrative work. His impressive knowledge of policy and his calm temperament will serve him well in the stressful environment of administrator duties. Even a cursory look at his talk page shows how he responds politely and calmly to any query sent his way, no matter how hostile it may be. He is kind and helpful to newbies and old hats alike, a respectful quality I believe is essential in admins. When notified about copyright problems he had created in 2008, he didn't just rectify the problem pointed out to him, he combed through all of his edits and checked thoroughly for copyright violation, and then proceeded to study policy and work at CCI to solidify his knowledge of copyright. Keithbob has also edited in very controversial areas (e.g. transcendental meditation) and has edited neutrally and never been sanctioned; he also has a clean block log. In short, I think Keithbob will be a net positive to the project as an administrator. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you Mr. Stradivarius and Keilana for your support. I withdraw my nomination.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:41, 22 January 2014 (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: There are three areas where I am already active and where the use of Admin tools would allow me to expand my contributions:

1. AfD: I’ve participated at many AfDs and made a dozen XfD non-admin closures. Having the Admin tools would allow me to close more AfD discussions not just the ones that are ‘clear keep’.
2. Vandalism: As a protected page reviewer and Stiki user I have given hundreds of user page notifications and submitted many cases to WP:AIV. Having Admin tools would also allow me to assist in keeping the listings at AIV up to date.
3. RfC: I’ve participated in a number of RfCs and have made several non-Admin closures. Having the Admin tools would allow me to close a wider range of RfC discussions, as an uninvolved party, and help eliminate the backlog at WP:ANRFC.

I fully understand that Admin tools, if granted, could not be used in any areas where I am, or have been, an involved editor.

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

A: I’m the most prolific contributor (highest number of edits) on about 50 articles. I’ve created and developed 18 articles and taken 5 to GA status. However, some of my best contributions, I feel, have been in the area of mediation and dispute resolution. Examples include this thread at the Vacuum Bell (medicine) talk page [3] which was recognized with a mediator’s barnstar. I’m also proud of this case at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, which lasted for 24 days. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

I feel it’s paramount that Wikipedia’s content be reliable, verifiable and comprehensive. At the core of this content building process is collaboration. When strangers from various backgrounds and sub-cultures communicate through typed conversations, differences of opinion naturally occur. So collaboration and consensus building are essential components of Wikipedia. Likewise attracting and retaining volunteer participants is also crucial to the continued success of the project. Therefore, content creation, consensus building and dispute resolution are areas where I feel I have made some of my most satisfying and helpful contributions.

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: Personally, I find that making mistakes (even though unintentional) is the most stressful aspect of WP for me because they can affect so many readers and community members. As a somewhat new editor in 2008-2009, I was negligent in both my understanding and application of guidelines concerning the use of non-free text. The most embarrassing instance was this September 2009 word-for-word copy and paste of two paragraphs from another website. This error was brought to my attention on my talk page in April 2013. In response, I've spent the last 9 months reviewing all my edits. I did not come across any additional instances of other copyright violations but I did find instances of plagiarism via close paraphrasing, which I have repaired.

In my early years of editing I spent much of my time on new religious movement (NRM) articles and I was a named party in the 2010 Transcendental Meditation movement Arbcom. During that period I was involved in a number of heated debates over content. However, I don’t believe I have ever crossed the line into personal attacks, edit warring etc. and I have never been sanctioned or blocked. I still edit NRM articles, but not as much as before. In recent years, my main focus has been on BLP’s and business related topics (see my last 10,000 edits here) as well as AfD, new page patrol and DRN, which I find rewarding. If stressful situations arrive in the future, I plan to remain calm, to take things slowly and consult with uninvolved editors and/or Admins, where appropriate, to get outside input and maintain a balanced, stress-free perspective and to minimize conflict and mistakes.

Additional question from Trevj

4. At User talk:Keithbob/Archive 5#Old issues with improper copying, you referred to a planned review of your edits during 2010, 2011 and 2012. How did you go about this, what did you find and how did you deal with it? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A:

Hi Trevj and thanks for inquiring about this issue. In my early days as an editor I had only a single small PC screen and developed the unfortunate habit of copying text from a source right into the WP edit window and then summarizing it before clicking save. This is a procedure I no longer use. For the past few years I have had two computer screens which allows me plenty of workspace in which to view both the WP edit window and source simultaneously and compose summarized text before entering it into the WP edit window. I've also studied the relevant guidelines more carefully and have a much fuller understanding of what is expected from an editor when creating content.

As you indicated in your question, a problem was brought to my attention by User:Moonriddengirl in April 2013. The first thing I did was review all of my edits on the article where the violation had been found as well as the mother article that it had been split from. That was done on the same day as the notification from Moonriddengirl. I then made a silent resolution to review all of my WP edits to make sure there were no other, yet undiscovered, mistakes. Over the next week I reviewed all my early edits (2008-2009) and reported this on my user page and stated that I would review the remainder of my edits in the coming months.

My procedure for reviewing was as follows: First I have always been vigilant about using edit summaries. In fact, I have “warn me when entering a blank edit summary” checked in my Editing Preferences, so I receive a prompt if I forget to add one. I also have a strict habit of starting my edit summaries with the word "add" whenever I contribute content and/or sources. So with this in mind I went through my contributions list, 500 entries to a page, and using control-F, I highlighted all the edit summaries that began with the word “add”. There were then three progressive levels of potential examination. First, I highlighted each entry using the Navigation Popups feature and examined the preview window for that edit. In some cases the text addition was only a word or two and/or I had added text in quotes and so those were automatically deemed OK. But most of the time I clicked on the (diff) and examined the actual edit. Then I went to the article and checked to see if the text I had added was still there. If the added text had been merged with other text or had been removed etc. then I moved on to the next diff. But most of the time, I located the citation, opened the source and compared my text with the source's text. If I found any indication of a problem, I summarized, added quotes or removed the text, depending on what I thought was best for the article.

During this examination process I did not find any instances of copy and paste like the one discovered by Moonriddengirl but I did find some instances of close paraphrasing, which I repaired as explained above. So this was my procedure for going through all 37,000 edits over the past 9 months. Because two thirds of my 37,000 edits were content related this was a large task which took me an estimated 100+ hrs to complete. I take this issue seriously and am deeply committed to absolute compliance with the guidelines from now on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned that you removed some other close paraphrasing, and then refer to "above," but above you simply say you repaired the close paraphrasing. Can you give us any diffs or info on this? Andrevan@ 07:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see your comment until just now. I will be away from a PC for the next several hours but I will provide that information this evening. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from DGG

5. You have been significantly involved in editing articles in corporations, a field where COI is prevalent. What is your understanding of the present consensus or lack of consensus) on COI editing, especially with respect to paid editors? What aspects of it come under the role of an administrator?

A:

I see the role of an administrator as someone who facilitates and safeguards the project. An Admin facilitates the smooth functioning of the project through a variety of custodial tasks that support and further the activities and efforts of editors who are working to expand and refine its massive compendium of verifiable information. Another role of the Administrator is to safeguard the project and keep it free from harm, to preserve it, not as a static object but as a smooth flowing ever-evolving, collaborative process. This is accomplished through an Admins understanding and application of the myriad of policies and guidelines that govern WPs daily functioning. If there are activities that disrupt WPs processes then it’s the duty of an Admin to curtail those disruptions to the best of his/her ability while staying within relevant guidelines and processes.

One such policy is NPOV which says that “articles should not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.” Another is the WP:COI guideline which says: “Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships” and describes a conflict of interest as occurring when “advancing outside interests is more important than the advancing of the aims of Wikipedia.” For me, the bottom line is whether or not a particular editor or action is advancing or disrupting the project. For example non-controversial edits such as adding reliable secondary sources or removing content that violates WP:BLP furthers the project. On the other hand, repeatedly removing well sourced content about a corporate scandal, without discussion, is disruptive. Although the community is, and has been, divided on the topic of paid editing, the community consensus is clear on paid advocacy. Paid advocacy is clearly not permitted (as is unpaid advocacy) and has the consensus of the community and for that reason it appears as a subset of the COI guideline in the section called WP:NOPAY.

An administrator’s job is to uphold the COI guideline as it is currently written, keeping in mind that WPs guidelines, though relatively stable, are subject to change and modification just like the project’s content. The COI guideline currently states in its heading that “it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” Therefore the application of the COI guideline is nuanced and requires careful, yet firm, application. This means each individual situation must be considered carefully and in its own context.

As an editor I always edit neutrally, and collaboratively, and hold the interests of WP first and foremost in my mind whenever and wherever I am active on the project. see sample diffs here That is a standard I will continue to uphold diligently if I am entrusted with safeguarding the project as an Administrator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Orlady

6. Although you state that you have no COI related to Transcendental Meditation, your edit counts suggest a singular emphasis on the topic. For example, just looking at your top 10 most-edited pages in several namespaces, I find that 9 of your top 10 article-space pages are TM-related, accounting for 17% of your 21,709 article-space edits; TM-related pages in your top 10 talk pages account for 36% of your 5963 talk-space edits; and 30% of your 2750 edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been on project pages specifically related to TM. Moreover, there has been a perception that you are a fan of TM and may have difficulty dealing objectively with the topic. With this background, how would you ensure the community that your actions as an administrator would not be skewed by an allegiance to TM -- and possibly a sympathy toward other topics that have a history of being disparaged as "pseudoscience", "unprofessional", or the like?

A: Hi Orlady and thank you for your thoughtful question. It's very late now where I live and I am going to sleep. However, I will give your question the careful attention it deserves as soon as I can find time tomorrow morning. Thanking you in advance for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As is evident all over WP, editors tend towards topic areas where they have an affinity, an interest and/or some expertise. For example there are editors who edit exclusively in the medical area. There are others whose focus is exclusively on poker topics or the Beatles. There are real life, special interest groups, (like this UK cancer research organization, http://www.bj-hc.co.uk/bjhc-news/news-detail.html?news=2640&lang=en&feed=130) who recruit and train members to edit in areas their organization promotes. We don’t fault with editors for having a strong area of interest as long as their editing is productive and in line with policies and guidelines. TM is not my only interest. There are about 40 articles, unrelated to TM, where I am the top contributor. Priorities change and looking at (my most recent 10,000 edits) one sees that there are no TM articles on my list of top 20 most edited pages.

As for my objectivity, everyone has biases derived from his/her culture, religion, beliefs, heritage, education and profession. What is important is the degree to which an editor is willing to discuss, collaborate and compromise while holding the good of the project above and beyond his/her personal beliefs or interest in a topic. For me, being a WP editor has been a constant process of growth, not just growing in my knowledge and understanding of WP guidelines or markup but improving my ability to communicate, collaborate and compromise. I have always held the WP project above all else and I believe that I have developed the ability to retain neutrality, even in areas where I have a strong interest.

Regarding your final point, I will never support the actions of editors who use WP to disparage or denigrate organizations, cultures or people. Instead I will always support the fair treatment of topics and BLPs and help to insure that an article does not take sides but instead explains all sides in a fair manner without bias and with appropriate weight per WP:NPOV. At same time I will not and have not supported any instance where WP is used for promotion or advocacy regardless of the topic. I have no particular slant for, or against, pseudoscience or new religious movements and I have demonstrated on many occasions my ability to be collaborative and neutral in these topic areas. Some examples are:Adding criticism to TM topics and eliminating biased content on an Eckhart Tolle book article and Supporting deletion of non-MEDRS compliant text at Vaccum bell (medicine).

Additional questions from MastCell

7. If you become an admin, do you plan to recuse yourself from any administrative action related to the Transcendental Meditation topic area? Secondly, do I understand correctly that you're asserting that you have no conflict of interest when it comes to this topic area? MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In short, the answers are: Yes of course I would respect and abide by WP:INVOLVED and as I have stated earlier in Q#3. Also, I abide by and follow all WP policies and guidelines including WP:COI and I edit neutrally on all topics. Unfortunately, I have real life commitments for the next several hours but I will come back to this question and give a more complete response sometime before I retire tonight. Thanks for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but please answer the question I've actually asked. I didn't ask whether you felt you'd complied with WP:COI. I asked whether you consider yourself to have a conflict of interest on the topic of TM. (After all, if you don't acknowledge that you have a COI, then stating that you've followed WP:COI is meaningless). I'd welcome further clarification.

I didn't see in your answer to Q3 anything about whether you considered yourself "involved" with respect to TM articles. I'll accept your representation here that you do, and that you'll recuse from administrative action in that topic area (if you're contending otherwise, please clarify). Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a few minutes now between appointments and since you seem to be looking for brief answers let me try again:

• Question A) If you become an admin, do you plan to recuse yourself from any administrative action related to the Transcendental Meditation topic area?
  • Yes, as I stated in Q1 (my apology for citing Q3 earlier): “I fully understand that Admin tools, if granted, could not be used in any areas where I am, or have been, an involved editor.”
• Question B) Secondly, do I understand correctly that you're asserting that you have no conflict of interest when it comes to this topic area?
  • I have no conflict of interest in the TM topic area.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from North8000

8.(Or could someone else answer if Keithbob can't) To the best of your knowledge, do allegations about a "COI" on TM include paid editing or financial gain, or are they alleging topic bias without any alleging of a financial aspect?

Please note that no one is allowed to directly comment on any editor other than themselves when it comes to COI. The outing policy takes precedence currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good policy and good "takes precedence". But I wasn't asking about the editor, I'm asking about the allegation that was presumably made publicly in Wikipedia somewhere. Because right now I just see innuendo that some COI violation existed, not even any specific allegations. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, they can't help you. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Investigating_conflicts_of_interest makes it clear that any "Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment." Admitting to even having googled anything related to this user is a violation of the Outing policy and would likely result in an indef. Even if they were to detail whatever info they do or do not have (and to be clear, I am not asking for, nor have a I done any off wiki sleuthing), asking for a response falls afoul of "Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence." Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not want anything like that. What I was really getting at is whether it's people calling mere biased editing "COI". North8000 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to examine his edit history and make this call yourself. Others are not allowed to guide you in the current environment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

9.To the best of your knowledge, when was the most recent editing or specific allegation of editing that was contrary to copyvio policies & guidelines?

Additional questions from The Devil's Advocate

10. For clarification, how do you define a conflict of interest?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

11. Would you consider yourself an involved administrator in any dispute regarding Transcendental Meditation given your editing activities in that topic area?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Keithbob: Keithbob (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Keithbob can be found here.
• Editing statistics are posted on the talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

•  Bureaucrat note: There is a WP:BN discussion regarding this RfA Wikipedia:BN#WP:RFA/Keithbob (perm). –xeno^talk 20:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Collect (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Feel he is sound on WP:BLP issues from experience, though I would like to have seen more "clear !votes" for the AfD stats - it appears more heavily weighted to "delete" than I really like, but with almost half his !votes not being clear, I have no idea how to view the stats.
2. Strong support - Keithbob is a productive, good-faith editor as I am. I think he would make a good administrator, since he has also participates in several cases and dispute resolution noticeboards. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Never interacted with him as far as I can remember, but I am familiar with Keithbob through my positive observations of him. Fine editor, superb judgment, good answers to questions. Based on what I've seen and on what Mr. Stradivarius and Keilana have said in their nomination statements, I'm happy to support. Acalamari 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Excellent candidate. -- John Reaves 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support – Keithbob has a great technical grasp and is very conscientious. He takes pains to produce strongly sourced and neutral content. He's also a helpful, collegial editor and I feel he has the good of the project at heart. Spicemix (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   Support I've just read through the DRN on UN Partition Plan for Palestine, linked from Q2. That's an impressive piece of work -- patient and methodical. Anyone who can do that can certainly wield a mop. --Stfg (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose (with great regret). --Stfg (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

7. Support per noms. Excellent candidate. INeverCry 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - Amazing editor, really friendly, helps out at WP:DRN and cleaning up articles. ///EuroCarGT 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Support - glad to see he's running. My only concern is the two or three examples of AfD deletion nominations that ended up as clear keeps from the last 60 days. Since this editor has such a strong history of mediation, however, I have no concern that this is a good predictor of a problem once they have admin tools. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for your support and good point on the SpeedyKeeps. Those were noms I submitted by mistake and immediately withdrew before there was any participation. [4] [5]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

11. Support - Seems well qualified.- MrX 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
12. Support — ChedZILLA 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (aka User:Ched)
13. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
14. Support – As soon as I saw the name show up on the RfX Report, I felt a little "yes!" inside me. I've seen Keithbob all over the wiki and have no concerns that he's capable of growing into a well-respected and admired administrator. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Support Well-qualified candidate. buffbills7701 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support - A good, sincere and very helpful editor who is well qualified in my opinion. Audit Guy (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Support — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

17. Support - Per Mr. Stardivarious. Kbob has the integrity and maturity to admit to and identify early editing errors and the care for the encyclopedia to painstakingly comb through all of his edits to makes sure any potential errors are taken care of. His more recent work including DR bodes well for admin work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
18. Support – Don't see why not. Keithbob seems well-qualified. United States Man (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - We need more admins like Keithbob. MOMENTO (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
20. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Support An incredibly well-qualified candidate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose

22. Support - based on my interactions with Keithbob at BLPN, I see an editor who is eager to learn and improve, but also cautious when editing in areas they are not fully familiar with. That can only be a good thing with an admin. GiantSnowman 18:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Support Looks good to me and the answer to question 4 is good. I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Support. Keithbob does a lot of positive work at DRN (where he currently serves as coordinator,) and has provided valuable contributions to AfD discussions as well as solid CSD tagging. He’s helped COI contributors who wanted to work to improve articles follow the brightline rule by helping implement their edits, but he’s scrutinized those edits, and made changes where necessary to make them more neutral. His approach to dispute resolution, especially in recent years, has generally been quite calm, and he has generally demonstrated that he’s able to interpret and apply content guidelines and policies during disputes while recognizing that sometimes deviations from policies/guidelines are in the best interests of the encyclopedia. TM articles are the one area of significant concern I have with Keith, but given his level of involvement in TM stuff already, it’s not like he could use the tools to POV push TM without being desysopped for a massive violation of WP:INVOLVED, so I see it as no barrier to him getting a few extra buttons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Support - I've known Keithbob for years, I think I first met him at COIN about 4 1/2 years ago when he was still pretty new. He's always struck me as a very friendly, eager, and level-headed editor and he has provided great work to the project and has plenty of experience and clue. He'll make a fine administrator. -- Atama頭 00:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Clarification: Atama and I met as participants at COIN as I have never been the subject of a COIN discussion. In addition, as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic and I always edit with WP's best interests foremost in my mind. (see diffs here)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

26. Exceptionally strong support — Long overdue. The only reason I didn't offer to nominate him myself was because I thought he had no interest in being an administrator. One of the most collegial, independent, and productive Wikipedians I've ever encountered. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Just an update, I do find some of the opposes to be concerning (specifically MastCell's), but I get the sense that he would be a tremendous benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator. I also disagree with Andrevan to an extent; although close paraphrasing is indeed an issue (being a subtle form of plagiarism and all), the precarious effect it could have is not something that everyone catches onto immediately. Keithbob has since been guided in the right direction. I'm convinced that his strengths far outweigh any past concerns with his editing. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

27. Support: Although Keithbob and I have a habit of disagreeing, he is always calm, civil and patient even in contentious situations. He is one of a handfull of editors I credit for helping improve my own editing. He cares deeply about his reputation here, which is our principle means of ensuring editors will not abuse their editing, or admin, privileges. I don't see any reason to limit him to cleaning Wikipedia's floors with a sponge, when he asks for a mop and bucket. CorporateM (Talk) 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Support: During my medium amount of observations of them I have seen the perfect candidate. I am also concerned about what I'm seeing happen here. I am going to ask the question directly to see if my impression is right, but from my limited review it looks like whatever copyvio there might have been it was many years ago and since fixed, and that the "COI" is not really a COI. And I'm seeing (and people may be going by) poster's spin on these but no description of the specifics of what they are talking about. Without such a summation, only the 5% of people who spend the hours to learn this situation would have an understanding, and everybody else will just be going by other's opinions on what happened. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    We could comment directly on the COI matters and give specifics however it could result in our own ban. Thus yes we must each spend hours looking into it ourselves and are only allowed to make hints regarding the major issues in question. Yes there is an exceedingly complicated past. Doc James (talk · contribs email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    I had somewhat the same impression as User:North8000. Being unfamiliar with the specifics, the arguments being made here sound like a content dispute. Also, I don't believe Keithbob would use his admin privileges where he is involved, so it doesn't seem to be relevant to awarding those tools to him, unless one actually believes he has a non-disclosed COI, which seems unlikely to me. However, I did look over at the Transcendental Meditation movement article and found it was overly detailed and promotional and if that is the result of his editing, it would suggest to me that it is an area of strong personal interest. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

29. (edit conflict) Support I would have written a longer comment had I not had an edit conflict with the editor above me, but in short, I see no problems with this editor. He is always calm, even during a dispute, and has had significant content creation. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
30. +1 Support I didn't see any mention of it while quickly skimming through all of this page, but this user has spent a good deal of time helping new editors at WP:THQ as well. Technical 13 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Support He is a reasonable and level-headed editor in my experience. Nothing he has said or that has been said about him suggests to me that he would misuse the tools.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Support - Definitely qualified and has the right attitude. This editor's calmness is of great value, making me say, I'd like to be like him.  :) —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
33. Support per Keilana, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
34. Support, gave me some encouraging words when they were needed. And per all of the above. Good faith individual. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
35. Support. I was drawn here because of the post on Jimbo's talk page. WP needs more experienced admins. When I first started editing WP, it was to expand the articles on karate because I was a serious karate student. That led to my involvement in other topic areas. It's normal. Many of the oppose votes appear to be more idealogical in nature because of the recurring, unfortunate conflict between "science" and "religion" (scare quotes intended) in WP that often treats WP as a battleground. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    WOW. I don't think posting to Mr Wales' talk page was a great idea. Wow. Dlohcierekim 01:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not one who likes to HAT a discussion, but I think the RfA needs to run here, not on the boss's talk page. Mr Wales rarely if ever comes to RfA and even if the intent was not to canvass, that is certainly the appearance. Dlohcierekim 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Canvassing specifically lists as appropriate places to notify editors "the user talk pages of concerned editors," specifically "Editors known for expertise in the field." If Jimmy Wales doesn't qualify, I don't know who would. This certainly is not canvassing, whatever it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    The person who posted on Jimbo's talk page voted "Oppose" so if the intent was to canvass, it's having mixed results. Actually the reason most people, IMO, post on Jimbo's talk page is to draw more participation to a discussion in which they have an interest in the outcome. In a way that's canvassing, but in a way it isn't because it isn't necessarily targeting a specific group of people. However, the person who posts likely is hoping it will draw more people who will support his/her side than not. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The issue with the copyvios is that you aren't supposed to paste in content and then edit it. That would still be plagiarism. I don't think you really grasp this in your answers. Andrevan@ 00:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, you are correct that style of editing is problematic. But as I tried to explain in my statement, that is an old practice I used in my early days of editing which led to problems and it is not a practice I follow now. At the same time I respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to participate here. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   I understand you realize that blatant copyright violations are bad. I refer to your comment here, "But even as a newbie I'm sure that I had intended to summarize that content after pasting in the article. I think what happened is that I looked at the time and was late for very work or something and ran out the door and forgot to come back to this WP entry." This shows that in even in April 2013, you felt it was OK to copypaste content into a Wikipedia editing box and then "summarize" the content. This is still plagiarism even if you change the wording via your "summarization" process; the correct way to edit an article is to read the sources, summarize them in your head, and then write an original sentence about those ideas - not copy paste and then trim around until it sounds different. It also probably has to do with violating NPOV, since as this user comments below, you apparently accept the official POV of this religion and then present it as fact in articles instead of digesting a variety of complementary sources on a topic. Andrevan@ 05:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   What is important is the end result, not how an editor chooses to work to get there. Some writers prefer or need to work off the written page. The process you are describing where someone reads and synthesizes material in his or her head, then writes, may be ideal, but I don't believe we can dictate work processes, so long as the end result is non-plagiarized work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Writing a summery, or even a non-close paraphrase, is not plagiarism, regardless of whether the source text sits in the editor's head or in a separate window or in the same window, provided that copies or close paraphrases of the source text are not saved to the article. I myself often edit with one or more source texts open going back and forth to article text. Working with source text actually in the edit window is only a poor idea because it increases the risk of accidentally leaving some of it there. If an editor does do this, putting the source text in an HTML commnt might be a good idea. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   I am concerned that these comments seem not to understand the problem here, which is that this user was uncritically pasting press releases and official memoranda into articles, editing them (or not), and saving that. Andrevan@ 20:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   I am concerned that this thread is beating a very, very dead horse and what problems may have once existed, are a done deal from the past. People learn from errors and thus are less likely to make them in the future. The editor in question here "gets it." So time to move on. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Have great concerns around WP:Conflict of interest editing from this user. Many of his edits in the transcendental meditation domain are exceedingly promotional in nature. Will add some difs soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Hi Doc James: as an Adminstrator you must be aware that WP:NPA defines a personal attack as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Please supply the diffs you mention, thanks. Spicemix (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment - I just wanted to point out that I've been heavily involved with disputes regarding TM-related content in the past. My role was as a mediator in such disputes, not taking a side. Keithbob's connection with the movement was never hidden, and in my experience he has always been fairly responsive to complaints in regards to his editing of the topic area and was reasonable when compromises were discussed and we attempted to reach consensus. He was one of the least aggressive editors in those disputes. Every person who edits Wikipedia has some bias or another, including administrators, and a good editor is a person who makes an effort to not let that bias control their edits and is open to criticism from others who point out when you're editing with a POV. -- Atama頭 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Most edited pages pertain to TM including: Transcendental_Meditation,Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi, Maharishi_University_of_Management,Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health, Transcendental_Meditation_technique,John_Hagelin, Transcendental_Meditation_movement, Deepak_Chopra.[6] This edit [7] makes medical claims using a news article. Better sources available at the time do not support this conclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment - One clarification I wanted to repeat here because I was asked on my talk page. There was never any direct connection between Keithbob and the TM movement, and thus no conflict of interest despite allegations being brought at the COI noticeboard against many people who edited the TM articles. Keithbob was often at odds with those who took a more negative stance against the TM movement (as hinted at by Arbcom) but in the numerous conflicts I helped mediate, Keithbob was always one of the more level-headed editors involved. -- Atama頭 08:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   @Atama: regarding "There was never any direct connection between Keithbob and the TM movement, and thus no conflict of interest": if you wouldn't mind, could you clarify how you know that? I'm especially surprised by it as you say in your previous comment: "Keithbob's connection with the movement was never hidden". Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   While the relationship of others to TM that Keithbob worked closely with was clear at one point in time (a number of users in this domain did clearly state their position within the movement before removing their connections ). I do not think Keithbob was ever open about his? I could easily be mistaken though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Hum it seems I underestimated the number of his top topics that pertain to TM. This investimate stuff he writes about is TM related per [8]. So this includes Bridgewater_Associates and another article he has worked extensively on Ray Dalio Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Concerns about understanding of plagiarism and copyright violation issues, as noted by Andrevan, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Almost solely focused on promoting fringe topic of transcendental meditation, 1600 edits to an article (+talk) with which you have a COI is unacceptable. Old diffs like this from the ArbCom case are clear evidence you are incapable of NPOV in this domain, but if this had stopped three years ago I would likely support—instead your most recent GA required the reviewer to remove things like According to Gregorio these personal habits contributed to his health, productivity and ability to handle stress.[four citations] (referring to transcendental meditation of course), and that was last month. benmoore 16:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Hi Ben: I just want to clarify in case your comment is misunderstood. I've had a look and the content you mention was not added by Keithbob. This is how Keithbob left the article on Jan 31, 2013 – with no mention of TM – and when he came back on Feb 9 another editor had added the fully sourced text.

   And NPOV, all these actions appear scrupulously neutral to me. Promotional content removed, anti-promotional content added, respected uninvolved editors invited to contribute. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   That is really strange, another user did indeed add that greentext, User:Sundori, who has made no other edits before or since and whom Keithbob thanked on their talk page. I'm not sure what to make of that, is it just a coincidence that this user who almost exclusively writes about TM topics was writing an article and a random new account adds a lot of TM material to an article he's working on? Regardless, my COI concerns remain, if you are part of a fringe belief system or movement you simply don't make thousands of edits to every related article. If an ArbCom case isn't enough to make a user realise that I'm not sure what is. Wikipedia is not for promotion or advocacy of a position. benmoore 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Some of the strangeness is lifted when reviewing ColonelHenry's link wherein that Keithbob is a confirmed sock or meatpuppet operating out of Transcendental Meditation HQ IPs. benmoore 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Sorry, I can't support because of the COI issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   I can't vote. But I'm amazed at such enthusiastic support for a candidate who thinks that only having one monitor is a reasonable explanation for breaking the law. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Just speaking for myself, I wasn't taking it as "reasonable", but I was accepting that it was long ago and that this editor has gone the second and third mile to put it right and ensure not to do it again. I don't feel it requires a life sentence. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   The incident might have been years ago, but their statement justifying it (and the 'only one screen' excuse) was right here, right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose, basically per benmoore. I can't trust an editor who choses to be so heavily involved in editing an article where he has COI, especially where he exhibits a pattern of promotional POV editing on a WP:FRINGE topic. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
7. per above this is an absolute disqualification. Dlohcierekim 01:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Adding per Binksternet and per Axl to rationale. And in opposing based on COI editing in the past, I'm looking beyond that one area of editing (TM) at a broader picture. Adminship has gone over the years from a largely sysop function to a more solidly administrative one. His COI history and the appearance of possible impropriety as either a sock puppet or a part of an off-wiki campaign to edit certain articles in a certain way are an indelible taint that precludes him from adminship. To argue that other editors also have COI overlooks the possibly egregious nature of the candidate's COI editing. Dlohcierekim 17:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Add this diff per aptly named MastCell's oppose Dlohcierekim 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

8. Oppose A history of violating WP:NPOV, WP:TE makes this user unfit for this role. Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   @Hipocrite: You're the first user here who has mentioned tendentious editing - would you be willing to add some diffs to back that claim up? Keithbob wasn't mentioned in any of the findings of fact of the 2010 Arbcom case, and I trust that Arbcom will have gone over the issues in depth. Do you think that there's something that Arbcom missed? or perhaps you are talking about Keithbob's participation in another topic area? Also, "violating NPOV" is quite a sweeping statement - could you give some specifics? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   I don't keep shitlists, so I'm not up on what this editor has editing wise in the recent past. Because ArbCom has made it clear that Wikipedia supports the Transcendental Meditation movement's goals, I'm no longer watching articles related to the movement. I'm aware he's still defending the indefensible conduct of his co-TM editors. In the the past [9] is an example of completely indefensible conduct. Now, if you're saying he's disavowing his previous bad acts, that's fine, but I'd like to see that. Also, I'd like to see him disavow the bad acts of his co-proponents. Hipocrite (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Do I think there is something that Arbcom missed? Yes definitely. One of the members of arbcom turned out to be a sockpuppet. And this member was very supportive of TM. [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   James, that's really unfair. Whether or not ArbCom missed anything, Rlevse was never a sockpuppet and had no connection with or bias toward TM. If you would review the voting patterns of the Arbs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Proposed decision, I'm sure you would reach the same conclusion. He did later make a clean start return as PumpkinSky without hiding his previous account - and contributed well to many articles. Please think again about your preceding statement. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   There are strange comments such as "Karma will take care of the rest." [11] and have a read of [12]. Coming back and pretending you are a brand new user after making nearly 100,000 edits. Hum.

   Keithbob was supportive of Rlevse [13] and [14]. Much however cannot be said on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   The whole point of trying (however unsuccessfully) to make a clean start is to "to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment". Pumpkin Sky didn't violate that. There's nothing unusual about leaving a message when somebody retires and I think a lot of folks were sorry to see Rlevse go. It's simply wrong to accuse Rlevse of being pro-TM during the ArbCom case because one of the participants later left him a message on his retirement. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   There is more but it shall remain unwritten. I remain concerned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

9. OPPOSE - COI issues, copyvio material issues. This I find incredibly troubling: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors, "A History of Risk Parity Through Wikipedia", the overlap of edits with declared COI marketing shrill User:CorporateM. Something's rotten here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose - I am strongly convinced by a number of points made above regarding COI and TM, and the copyvio issues cited double my already substantial concerns. Jusdafax 07:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Per Andrevan (and, on top of that, the COI issues noted here do not inspire confidence). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose Sorry, but NPOV is an absolute bedrock of adminship. Miniapolis 14:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Hasty AfD nominations here and here. Another questionable nomination, albeit 10 months old. An unhelpful response to Lukeno94 here. Keithbob does not adequately search for sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose because Keithbob edits TM topics from TM's US headquarters, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TM_editors/Archive. Though Keithbob has certainly introduced criticism into TM articles, he also helps to hide unattractive details such as this edit from two weeks ago removing from the lead section the fact that the TM organization offered more than one billion dollars to impoverished nations so TM could have sovereignty over a proposed global headquarters. I appreciate Keithbob's work at DRN, his contributions at various other articles, but I am not willing to put a person with a continuing conflict of interest in a position of authority. There's also the question raised by ai-CIO magazine ("A History of Risk Parity Through Wikipedia") which I have not followed to its terminus, but makes me wonder whether Keithbob has a COI in investment topics. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    • @Binksternet: - there may be an investment-TM COI with Keithbob's editing of Bridgewater Associates and Ray Dalio and related figures. From what I've read, Bridgewater encourages their employees (and apparently pays them) to study TM.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I was satisfied that Keithbob was not admin material after seeing his COI with TM topics, which is why I did not follow the investment angle to establish a second COI. One is enough. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

15. Oppose per others. The COI issues are just a disqualification IMO. KonveyorBelt 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose per an apparent lack of understanding of copyvio and plagiarism issues. The clear COI is not necessarily a deal-breaker, as I'm sure Keithbob would refrain from taking admin actions in the TM topic area, but it is troubling. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose, essentially per Ben Moore. Can't support an editor with massive COI issues on a fringe topic. Salih (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose COI editing. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Strong oppose. Absolutely not. That this editor denies a conflict of interest on TM-related articles indicates either a serious lack of judgement and insight, or intentional dishonesty. Either way I don't view adminship as appropriate. I could see potentially supporting an editor with a serious COI, but not when that editor denies the very existence of his COI. The issue of copyvios/plagiarism is another concern.

    Finally, I think it's obvious that Keithbob has participated in inappropriately coordinated block-voting at RfA in the past with at least 6 other TM-affiliated accounts, and I worry about inappropriate off-wiki coordination should he become an admin. I appreciate that Keithbob has branched out, edited constructively in other areas, and done good work on BLPs. But a clear acknowledgement of the COI issue is an absolute bare minimum expectation here and it hasn't been met. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Yes, that's what I wanted to convey with my oppose: the refusal to acknowledge the glaring COI problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

20. Oppose. This editor appears to do good work on the encyclopedia and with BLP issues, but I am very troubled by the COI issues brought up by MastCell, Binksternet, and others. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Mastcell's diff. Axl's diffs not inspiring either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose due to long - term large - scale POV pushing. The plagiarism issue is also sufficient reason to oppose. Some evidence may be found here, on a page compiled for an Arbcom case. Cardamon (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose Mastcell's diff alone is enough to convince me to oppose, and I share the COI concerns. — sparklism ^hey! 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose Obvious oppose per this analysis mentioned by Cardamon. Additional points deducted for calling plagiarism a "style of editing". vzaak 21:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Tendentious editing on TM-related articles. The candidates' answers to question 7 are worryingly vague and look a bit like dancing-around the concrete questions asked. But I'll keep an eye out for the coming fuller reply implied by KB's answer. Meanwhile, I recommend everybody to click on MastCell's diff (in Oppose number 19 above) as well as this SPI. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
26. Oppose due to lack of clarity surrounding potential COI issues, per Jmh649 (Doc James) and Binksternet in particular. The copyright issues are also a concern, although they seem to have been adequately addressed and if so they'd not be enough alone to lead me to oppose. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose Sorry, but Mastcell's difference is enough to convince me that you aren't ready for the tools at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose because NPOV/copyvio/coi issues of the candidate; plus because, in my opinion, the candidate doesn't make an admin personality, because they often make invalid AfD nominations and later show instability by withdrawing same nominations. Alex ^{discussion ★} 23:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose It's a shame not to promote an editor with these DR skills, but the answer to Q7 is unacceptably vague, "other stuff exists" kind of thing, and MastCell's diff is telling. --Stfg (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
30. Oppose because of too many issues, including COI, NPOV, copyvio, and problems at AfD. - tucoxn\^talk 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Oppose with some regret. The COI issue is extremely broad and confusing and I'm more than willing to forgive and forget for plagiarism problems back in 2010. But MastCell's dif is simply alarming and completely unacceptable for any user, especially someone who is supposed to represent the community with a position of trust and power. Reading the case, I was left with the expression on why Keithbob wasn't topic banned and admonished (or even blocked) after that fiasco. The only chance to redeem himself, the answers to questions 6 and 7 was overly broad and I felt Keithbob didn't really get "the point" of the objective meaning of thse questions, as he was more focused on defending his actions and showing "look here is some edits that prove that I'm not involved too deeply" instead of being honest and sincere about his mistakes and explain his actions further. I do like the fact that Keithbob mostly moved away from that subject area the past few years and has developed a gift for solving disputes, but I simply can't support someone who seems to be too conflicted on his past mistakes. Maybe with another year of extremely clean free and non-controversial editing will I (and I'm sure most of the oppose column) might support another request. Secret ^account 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Oppose, per basically everyone above. NW (Talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now, due to the COI issue. A net positive otherwise, but this is important for WP's future. Miniapolis 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Moved to oppose.)

1. Neutral Orlady's questions mirror many of my COI concerns. Mkdw^talk 08:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral. There's a lot to like about this editor and his good work over the years, but some of the concerns are, well, concerning. Thus, Neutral. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
3. I'm here for the moment, but likely to move after seeing further discussion. On the one hand, the candidate is someone with very good communication skills; on the other hand, I see a lot of editors, some of whom I trust, raising concerns that are too serious to dismiss lightly. I've followed pretty much all of the links provided so far by opposers, and I'm not really seeing evidence that corresponds to the level of opposition, lots of stuff like old SPI reports or external web pages, followed by claims that there must be something unsavory here. The diffs of actual edits just don't bother me that much. Consequently, North8000's comments in support seem plausible to me, and I don't want to disqualify someone simply because they have an editing interest in a fringe area that has been controversial. I note some users saying that Keithbob was actually one of the more constructive editors in the TM area. So, I'm going to watch to see if opposers can convince me that we aren't simply dealing with guilt by innuendo. There really may be a serious problem, and if so, I'll move to oppose, but if not, I'll move to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   I'm continuing to watch, and I notice how some editors keep pointing to the SPI case. As I understand it, that case was ultimately interpreted as editing from the same geographic area, perhaps related to an organizational headquarters, and was further examined by ArbCom. I went to the ArbCom case, to see what they concluded. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and collusion: "The evidence presented has been carefully examined; investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated instance – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic." On the same case page, I see no subsequent Arbitration Enforcement actions against Keithbob. I also see the concerns about the voting pattern at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmh649. Looking back, I myself was "neutral, leaning oppose" (in retrospect, a big mistake of mine, because I've subsequently come to have an excellent opinion of that candidate), but I don't see any parroting of comments between Keithbob and other accused accounts. It's not too surprising that someone's first RfA comment would involve an RfA of someone with whom they have had conflict, and I've looked at Keithbob's more recent RfA participation, where he is a regular contributor, and I'm only seeing good faith and thoughtful opinions. Can anyone show some diffs of real POV-pushing? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Regarding the ArbCom case, it's worth reading the comments in the proposed decision: several Arbs explicitly cautioned against interpreting that finding as an exoneration. In any case, we're talking about a situation where 7 editors (actually, 8... I'd forgotten to include Luke Warmwater101 (talk · contribs) above) show up to oppose an RfA, and all 8 happen to focus heavily or exclusively on TM, and nearly all of them edit from the same IP address (and thus share the same computer or Internet access point). That combination of behavioral evidence with checkuser confirmation is well above any threshold that we've historically used to define the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. I'm not concerned about the RfA per se, which after all concluded years ago. I'm concerned by what I view as clear evidence of inappropriate coordination between multiple accounts, and by the implications of giving administrative tools to one of these accounts. MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

4. Neutral For now. Agree completely with Tryptofish. --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now. I stalk the DRN page and he does good work there, but the TM/COI/NPOV/Sock/meating stuff is a bit worrisome. Pending his replies to pertinent questions. Moving towards oppose per Benmoore's note about User:Sundori's edit on Arlen F. Gregorio. I'm not very involved with new editors but this seems really strange to me, that a presumably new editor would create their account minutes before editing on a pretty obscure individual and to add so much stuff. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   For now pending the answers to questions 6 and 7. Tryptofish sums my concerns perfectly. Too much opposition on "COI editing" that the candidate denies. Instead of piling on with, OMG there might be some COI editing involved lets pile on oppose and automatically disqualifying him without doing research as some of the opposition are clearly doing, Keithbob should be given the chance to answer some of these allegations. I'm not worried about the close paraphrasing concerns as that was years ago. But these COI allegations in a controversial topic should not be tossed out however. Like Tryptofish states, it might be a serious problem that the community could be dealing with, but haven't done a good way of explaining "yet". Secret ^account 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose Secret ^account 01:26, 22 January 2014 (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.