Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008

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

A new name 2008

Final (100/45/9); Ended Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:12 (UTC)

Closing comments: It didn't appear that extending the ending time further would significantly affect the outcome of this RfA, nor would it be fair to wait to see if it did. At this time there is not consensus to promote. - Taxman ^Talk 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

A new name 2008 (talk · contribs) – Hello, I have been active on wikipedia for over two years with about 30,000 total edits (see Question 4 for explanation of discrepancy with SoxRed tool). Most of my work has been vandal fighting with Twinkle. Lately I have changed my focus some, I still do some vandal fighting but I have started looking more at content building/preservation. I recently created a couple of articles and am working on a major revamp of a list. I patrol New Pages, CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD, working to save marginal articles. I also review Articles for Deletion. I believe that I have a good grasp of the major policies and guidelines in the areas that I intend to work. If I encounter something I am unsure of I will stop and ask a more experienced admin for advice. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: After working through New Admin School, I plan on starting out reviewing Speedy and Proposed Deletion Candidates. Probably will move on to the less controversial Articles for Deletion to gain experience there. With more experience I will probably move on to Requested Moves, Administrator intervention against vandalism and Requests for Page Protection. These are three areas I have had a little experience in but do not feel comfortable enough with these processes to accomplish at this time.

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

A: Under my previous username and when I first got this username I spent most of my time fighting vandalism, manually, with Twinkle and some Huggle. I have moved away from that some and starting working with AFD and NPP. Since I started spending more time in these areas, I have found articles that were PROD’d or AFD’d and found references to save them from deletion. I believe that saving these articles are my best contributions. These are my best contributions for two reasons. One (I think the most important), I possibly kept new editors from getting discouraged with the processes here so they will stick around and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, because without editors working on the project it will go nowhere.. Two, I was able to retain articles that otherwise might have been discarded and expanding the encyclopedia with additional useful knowledge is why Wikipedia is here.

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: Like most editors, I have had conflicts in the past. I was involved in an editing dispute on Junkers Ju 87, see Talk:Junkers_Ju_87/Archive_3:_July_2008_-_January_2009#Trivia for the discussion. It really didn't cause me stress and I think I handled it calmly. If something did cause me stress, I would seek input from others. Then after someone else is looking at it walk away.

4. Have you edited under any other usernames, and would you be willing to disclose them?

A: I put this in as an additional question, because I knew it would probably come up. As I have stated above, I previously used another username. I changed my username for personal reasons. I completely abandoned my first account prior to creating this one. The final edit on it was before the first edit on this account. The kind of edits on my original account are very similar to the first edits on this account. My old account has a clean block log with no vandalism warnings. Like almost everyone, I have also edited under different IP addresses at different times.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. Imagine, someone repeatedly vandalizes your user page. As an admin what do you do?

A: I would revert and warn, working up to a final warning. If they continue to to vandalize my page after the final warning, I would report as any user should to WP:AIV

Questions from ArcAngel

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

A: The most important policy is WP:Civility along with its corrollary, WP:Assume good faith because when civility breaks down everything will break down. If civility and assuming good faith doesn't fix the situation then we get into WP:Blocking and WP:Protect to enforce the policies. As far as content the most important policy is WP:Biographies of living persons. That is the one area where the project can actually harm someone if we do not stringently apply the rules.

7. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and when are you willing to use it?

A: IAR is the overarching policy to allow editors to do anything they need to that improves the encyclopedia but it is not blanket approval to do anything. There has to be a clear benefit to invoke the rule. I would only invoke it if there was a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. In the past I can think of only one time that I tried to use WP:IAR, but based on my experiences since then I would no longer use it in that situation as there was not a clear benefit in what I was trying to do.

8. What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgement?

A: I have been to fast to tag for speedy deletion in the past. Rather than looking at potential of an article I looked at the current state of the article and dimissed it. I have had invalid speedy deletion tags removed and that has changed my viewpoint and I seldom tag an article for speedy deletion without first going to google and seeing if I can find information that might indicate that the article has potential.

Optional questions from King of Hearts

9. Another admin has deleted an article that was PRODed due to notability issues, and the creator of the article has left you a message asking for it to be restored. Do you: a) consult the deleting admin first; b) restore the article immediately; c) ask the creator to provide reliable sources first; or d) refuse to restore the article?

A: Any request to undelete an article deleted underWP:Prod should be undeleted immediately by request. I would let the deleting admin know of the request and that I undeleted it.

10. Somebody creates an article with the text, "Centerville Middle School is a middle school in Centerville, KS." Which CSD would this fall under, if any?

A: This falls under a3 (no content) since the text is just a rephrasing of the title.

Clarification: I admit my initial answer is wrong. The KS part of the text is more than a restatement of the title. To clarify I answered the question and did not go into what I would have actually done if I had come across this article. I would not tag it for speedy deletion. I would have looked for additional information about the school. If I found any information I would have added it, added some appropriate categories and added maintenance tags for any additional problems I could identify to let the original author know how to improve the article. If I didn't find any additional information, I would tag with unreferenced, notability tags and then Prod the article as failing verification and notability.

11. If we already have CSD G12, what is the point of the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems?

A: CSD G12 is for blatant copyright violations where there is nothing on the page except for copyrighted material and there isn't an earlier version that is not copyrighted. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is for anytime that G12 does not apply or that it is a possible copyright violation.

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

12. Could you please clarify what you meant by "I changed my username for personal reasons." Was it because you wished to exercise your right to vanish, because you wished to retire from any content areas, or another reason. Feel free to decline to answer this question.

A. There was personal information tied to the account that I did not want tied to my wikipedia activities.

Additional optional questions from SoWhy

13. Did you tell ArbCom or any other editor (or group of editors) what your previous account was? If not, are you willing to tell a trusted user (like a bureaucrat or ArbCom member) your previous identity, so they can confirm your claims?

A: Yes I did. I emailed Pastor Theo from both this account and my account and asked him if he would confirm the questions I put in the discussion section below. He has responded below to the request.

Additional optional question from A Nobody

14. What are you thoughts on this discussion?

A: I do not believe that merging during a live AFD is a good idea. Once editors other than the nominator have commented on the AFD the AFD should be allowed to run its course with minor exceptions. If all the other editors comment that it should be merged then a SNOW merge would be appropriate. The other exceptions that I see do not involve merging, they all involve deleting.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

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

A: Articles that meet WP:GNG and aren't excluded on WP:NOT should be allowed on Wikipedia. There is no limit to how many articles can be on wikipedia. If there is significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources (not just the reprinting the same material over and over) then why should we decide that the information is not notable. I do believe that there should be something other than just verfiability to have an article in wikipedia. There isn't really any reason to have an article on Monte San Salvatore. The information should be included in List of mountains in Switzerland and at the most redirect to the list rather than a standalone article. So in summary articles should be sourced to reliable sources and not just verifiablility.

Follow up Question As you know, articles such as the one you mention are currently accepted at Wikipedia. Are you prepared to unequivocally follow the current practice until you can convince the community and obtain a consensus to change it? DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The community consensus is that articles such as the one I mentioned is that they are automatically notable and my opinion does not override that. I am used to in my real life job to unequivocally following and enforcing the defined rules even if I do not personally agree with them. I will do the same thing here.

16. What do you view as the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future? Why? What, if anything, do you think can be done about this threat?

A: I believe the biggest threat is libelous information about getting people getting into articles, whether that information is in the article about the person or introduced into other articles such as the information that was placed in the article on John Seigenthaler. That is the one area that can hurt people and hurt the reputation of wikipedia, if information is allowed to stay. The information propogates to sites like answer.com and then gets harder to remove. Flagged revisions is a step in the right direction. The next step could be to require all information added about living people to have inline citations so that it is easier to verify the information.

17. You are patrolling CSD and come across an article tagged A7 which reads as follows:

Frog Leaper is a board game invented in 2008 by Brian Small. The game has created a small, but loyal group of fans.

How do you proceed?

A: To begin with A7 is not a valid speedy deletion criteria for this article. A product is not covered under under A7, so first I would remove the speedy delete tag. Next I would do a search and see if I could find any additional information about the game to see if I could establish notability to add to the article. If I could not find anything and the original author had not added a hangon tag I would add a Prod tag stating that I looked for anything that would establish notability and that I found nothing and that I think it should be deleted as a non-notable game. If a hangon tag had been placed on the article, I would send it to AFD because I believe that the author would remove the Prod and it would have to go to AFD anyway. With either the Prod or the AFD I would notify the original author. If I can find something that says that it might be notable I would add what I found.

Additional optional questions from Dipotassitrimanganate

18. I feel this RFA is too tense. Tell me then, if your willing, what is your favorite English word and why? Also, what's your stance on relish?

A:

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif (added 16 45, 17 September 2009)

19. Do you, personally, consider the opposes over your desire to not reveal personal information valid? Why?

A:

20. Suppose you were asked to participate in a Sock-Puppet Investigation. Would you feel that you have a COI because of your history?

A:

21. If this RFA passes, would you consider your adminship as being “under a cloud”?

A:

General comments

• Links for A new name 2008: A new name 2008 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for A new name 2008 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/A new name 2008 before commenting.

Commons contributions are at commons:Special:Contributions/A_new_name_2008.

Discussion

• Editing stats on the talk page. -- Atama頭 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Q for ANN2k8: have you considered disclosing your old account to someone (an admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, etc.) and they can affirm your statements as to its provenance? –xeno^talk 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what I want to do at this time, but what information would people want to know? Would it just be the fact that I had 10,000+ edits on the account, no blocks and no vandalism warnings or would more information be requested? --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't have a specific request, I'm just skeptical that the RFA community has gone all the way from "OMG he made 10 edits on another account and didn't tell us!" to "It doesn't matter what you did with those 10K edits". I'm not taking a position, I'm just saying I doubt the position has really shifted that much. Would you be willing to post a request at WP:BN asking for a crat to volunteer to look at your prior account and report if there were any blocks or bans, any previous RFAs, or any previous reviews (such as WP:ER) that would be likely to substantially affect the outcome of this RFA if we knew about them? The crats will have a pretty good idea what the red flags are. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dank. If you reveal the name of the old account here on the RfA, there won't be any way for you to prove that it's yours, and the doubters could just keep on doubting. However, you could send an email to a willing third party who would then look at the username it came from and verify that it is as you describe (>10000 edits, all before October 2008, and never blocked). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, Soap, because I'd want it to be a crat rather than just any-old-body. Crats are pretty good at what they do, which is knowing how people think at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, I just didn't repeat it in my reply. If we're going to do this we need to find someone whom everybody trusts and preferably has not already !voted on this RfA. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to have a functionary look at my old account and answer the following questions.

Are there are any blocks or bans?

Are there any previous RFAs or editor reviews?

Is the final edit on that account prior to the first edit on this account?

Are there are at least 11,000 edits on the other account?

The answers to those questions are: No, No, Yes and Yes. Is this an acceptable compromise, it will confirm what I have said and not reveal any information about the account. Any suggestions on who would be acceptable to look into this? -- A new name 2008 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

May I offer my services? I am an uninvolved admin (I don't know this editor) and -- sorry for coming across like a jerk -- I am a clergyman and it is part of my profession to accept confessions without making them public domain. If this is acceptable, feel free to e-mail me. If not, please excuse this intrusion. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes any difference at this point, but I have emailed Pastor Theo from both accounts and asked him to answer the qestions above. --A new name 2008 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt, and thanks for your offer, Theo. This has significant opposition around this issue now (and sorry for my role in that, I won't cast a vote in this one); I'm asking in the Oppose section if there's some satisfactory compromise available. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the information and I can confirm that this editor has answered the questions correctly. Thank you, ANN2008, for your input and your trust. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should alert all the naysayers to this change. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I only stumbled upon it largely by accident, so if those who are !voting based on it don't appear to notice within a couple days, I would say it'd be warranted to notify them somehow. Perhaps a note in the nom statment and/or A4 would be in order in the meantime. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Ktr101: Vert unlikely. Instead of watching whether someone changes from oppose support, just watch people piling up on opposes without even reading this new piece of information. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: All participants in this RfA should note this recent ArbCom action, which potentially has a material impact on the proceedings here. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• I am willing to step in to the breach and re-verify A new name's past identity, if he/she is willing, and if others think it would be a benefit. Email me via special:Email. Thatcher 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  As you are an oversighter and checkuser, and have not yet participated in this RFA, I would support this. -kotra (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to let Thatcher reverify what Pastor Theo said is true and also the other things listed below, i.e. no actual or threatened RFC/Us, ArbCom cases, AN/ANI threads, etc), and no involvement in "significant disputes. I will email from both accounts --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Verified. No temporal overlap, no user conduct problems, no noticeboard threads. Thatcher 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note to bureaucrats: this seems to be a somewhat unusual RfA given the circumstances. There is still a considerable level of activity and some debating of reasons (as the closure time nears), and the percentage has fluctuated over the last couple of days. I'm suggesting that this RfA be extended to let the opinions settle down so that a more accurate conclusion is reached in the end. I know this is rarely done, but it seems that this case may benefit from extra discussion time. Thoughts would be welcome. JamieS93 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't see the support percentage rising above 70% or 71%; it seems pretty steady at 69% or slowly falling, much as I hate to admit it. It's up to the 'crats and ANN2008, though, of course. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, that does seem to be the case. It's obviously in the more "unsuccess" zone, but it's fluctuated in the last 2 or 3 days more than normal. At one point it switched from 65% to 76%, and now to 69 or so. It's the kind of situation where people are either a) still adding their opinions/votes, or b) altering them. I'm doubting that a crat will necessarily accept this idea, but I thought it was worth mentioning in this RfA because it's following a less usual pattern and may be helpful to have some "dust-settling" time. JamieS93 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that this is the type of situation where an extension might be beneficial to properly access the communities consensus. It appears to be very close & there is a lot of late activity (including new questions being asked). That said, I note that it has already been extended >12 hours merely by not being closed yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Sure, I've worked with this editor before and think ANNO8 is a great editor, unless something big comes up.Abce2|TalkSign 01:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Looks fine. iMatthew ^talk at 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Has 30,000 edits, so why not? –BuickCenturyDriver 01:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Seems fine to me. Good luck! LittleMountain5 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Per above. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - no problems here.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 11:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
7. I have absolutely no issues with someone having a large proportion of their edits in the area of vandal-fighting, so long as they've got some article building experience behind them. I'm hugely impressed by your answer to question 2, so I see little reason not to trust you with tools. Best of luck! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Knowledge of policy + willingness to help + general cluefulness + ability to solve disputes calmly = Support. ƒ(Δ)² 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Why not? AtheWeatherman 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, purely to counteract (in some measure) David Fuchs' oppose. Content contributions are all very well, but I'm personally of the view that process-focussed users are more likely to need administrative tools than content-focussed ones (who receive all the tools they need upon becoming autoconfirmed). Also, adminship should not be an award for prolific content contributors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support; trustworthy editor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    To expand upon my rationale, I find the opposes thus far unconvincing; AGF is very relevant here. For all we know, I could be a reincarnation of a banned user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    Further: I find it terribly disappointing that the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Pastor Theo's desysop are being held against the candidate, and I sincerely hope this does not cause A new name's RfA to fail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

12. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per S Marshall. I don't know that process-focused users are likely to need tools more, but I don't like the discrimination against them/us. Ray^Talk 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. Fine contributions (my criteria). —Matheuler 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    After reviewing the discussing regarding this candidacy, I must concur that secrecy is generally negative. However, the assurances of a highly trusted checkuser indicates to me that there is no basis on which to withdraw support. —Matheuler 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

15. Support. I think that it strains WP:AGF to assume that a candidate is hiding something nefarious in his/her past just because they fail to disclose a previous username. The editcounts caught my eye as well, and I was curious about the previous username (indeed, the candidate's current name highlights the fact that it's new). The answer to question 4 satisfies my curiousity on that point. As for the rest - I'm seeing good work overall, no concerns from me there. Overall, a quality candidate whom I'm pleased to support. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - I'm not familiar with this editor, but their answers to the questions seem fine. Even if you discount the old account, this person has 19,000 edits to their name and a cursory glance shows that at least many of the recent ones weren't automated. For those opposing because of the old account... There are many valid reasons not to reveal an old identity (personal privacy being one of them), so does this mean that A new name 2008 is forever barred from ever being an administrator, no matter their qualifications? That seems both unfair, and seems to be unduly robbing Wikipedia of a potentially great admin. -- Atama頭 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Placeholder (confirmed), to remind myself to review contributions in more detail later and verify my initial instincts. Opposes based on the possibility that this is someone so untrustworthy that they shouldn't be an admin, and simultaneously so dumb that they would admit to a previous account, are singularly unconvincing. It would certainly have been easier to just say you've been here for 11 months and have 19,000 productive, useful edits, and sailed thru. Kudos for the honesty, ANN08, I suppose no good deed goes unpunished. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    Confirming my support, after a review of the editor's contribs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think that is fair to the opposers. The accusation isn't necessarily that the candidate is both duplicitous and stupid. There are a number of reasons why they would not want to disclose a past account but would want to hint that they previously used an account, not least among them that it is a good explanation of this. Also, the opposers (and myself) don't feel that the candidate is hiding some past s/he knows to be nefarious. Many people get into disputes or take disagreeable actions without sufficient self awareness to consider their actions as "bad" or "negative". It is possible that the candidate's first account contains some set of disputes or actions that would concern us. We just don't know. I prefer to assume that the candidate is both telling the truth and is aware of their problems but my inability to verify this makes it hard for me to support (hence the neutral). Protonk (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    If you read the oppose rationales of those who are opposing solely on the basis of his/her past account, I think my description of the concerns, as currently expressed, is valid. If a lingering concern makes you sit this one out in Neutral, I have no problem with that; no one can criticize anyone for not actively supporting anyone. Nor do I have any problem with David or Patton opposing based on a lack of GA/FA content; I disagree, but can understand their opinon, much as I hope that they understand, but disagree, with mine.

    If this was a 2 month old account, I'd have certain concerns too. But we've got 11 months and 19,000 edits to judge. If someone would oppose a "new" editor based on that not being enough experience, or felt that a longer period of activity under this new name would be needed, I would disagree rather strongly, but at least it would be logically consistent. But that isn't what they are saying.

    It seems distinctly unfair, and unreasonable, to say that someone who has dropped their previous account for privacy reasons should never be an admin, and actively oppose them for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    This year and last, there have been 2 candidates who had very solid records, but failed in part because they didn't want to give the username of a previous account. Enigmaman had a similar issue with IP edits, and he passed the next time around, but the other two of them haven't tried again. They probably want to know if there's been a shift on this issue. I'd like to know, too ... I don't have any other non-trivial accounts, but I'd like to know what advice to give people who are thinking of running. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    Because of the... unique... way Wikipedia works, I guess the only way to tell is to see how this RFA pans out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    I think you're right. It's not a guarantee, but if they run again, at least they'll be able to glare at people who support this one and oppose them :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

18. Support The rationale above clears up any lingering suspicions I had about the old account ... if it was that bad, why would he create a new name called "A new name" and then go on to clarify that he had had another account? Having looked through the contribs and talkpages of this current account leaves me no worries. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I take back what I said before. You're as good as gold as far as i'm concerned. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Mostly per juliancolton. I don't see why someone having an old account containing personal information should be counted against them. He could have very easily never disclosed that fact. If you can't assume good faith, simply ignore the claim and judge his current contributions. Everything looks fine to me and adminship is NBD. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Looks like a trustworthy user. WP:RTV, precedent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt, and privacy concerns allow for non-disclosure of previous username. Chuthya (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    This is NOT a valid application of the RTV concept. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    The candidate didn't claim that he vanished. It's a WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Amalthea 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

22. Support I'm happy to trust that this user will use the tools well.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Qualified candidate, the oppose votes are not concerning to me. @harej 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak support - Weak because of lack of significant content contributions. We give a right to a fresh start, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. I would be happier if a functionary could look over the old edits, but I am largely satisfied with the edits on the new account, and sufficient time has passed that I likely wouldn't give any weight to the old account's edits anyway. NW (Talk) 01:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - I would prefer more content contributions but I am satisfied with the answer to question 2 and this user's recent contributions. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Per Julian.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Weak support – pending verification by an uninvolved administrator or functionary as described above. Bwrs (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Experienced and trustworthy. Not everyone is an article writer. Steven Walling 07:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Your choice of user name has slightly complicated your clean start, but I'm happy with the reassurances offered and with the work you've done under this account. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support Having reviewed this editor's current and former account, I have no reason to doubt that he has the ability to handle administrative duties. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Note: Pastor Theo was blocked on September 14, three days after this !vote was cast. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    Stricken due the account apparently being a recreation of a banned user. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

30. Support (moved from neutral) due to account disclosure to Pastor Theo and Theo's confirmation of ANN2008's claims. Still a bit uncomfortable with not knowing the quality of the former account's edits, but I see the possibility of egregious past misconduct (which for me would be the only thing worth opposing over after 11 months) as remote now due to Theo's confirmation of ANN2008's claims. -kotra (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support per User:A Nobody/RfA. In the lone AfD in which we both participated, the candidate did strike his original "vote" following discussion, i.e. open-minded approach to a discussion rather than a vote. The candidate also impressed two other editors enough to earn User:A_new_name_2008/User_Boxes#Barnstars. The candidate has furthermore never been blocked under the current username. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I have a few doubts about the candidate's level of experience, but I have to counter some opposes that seem very unreasonable, because they put the candidate in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position. Many people would have opposed if A new name had failed to discuss the prior account, so opposing because it was discussed is very unreasonable. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - no major concerns at this time. I would advise though, whether this RFA succeeds or fails, that you change your username - 'A new name 2008' draws attention to your prior account, and arguably implies that people are supposed to know which it is. If you want to make a truly fresh start, you need a username that reflects that. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - on the whole I believe ANN is ready for adminship, and trustworthy enough. At first I kind of sympathized with the opposes, but as I began to realize, we are stretching WP:AGF verry thin by opposing a candidate in the face of evidence which is contrary to the claims of unreliability. The candidate had account that s/he make a bunch of (good) edits on; personal info was involved, and s/he makes the decision to leave the account to protect personal privacy, and edit exclusively under the new name. The candidate realizes that others would be concerned about this, so he adds a 4th question to be open and address the concerns (without publicly revealing the account for his/her personal privacy). An trusted functionary offers to privately confirm information, and by his word, it is true. Throughout this time, the candidate is attempting to be honest and good about the situation. Excuse me, how would one handle this any better? Still, I fail to see why having a previous account, and not publicly revealing it for personal reasons, is grounds for opposing. I look at this account, and don't see any real issues. ANN08 seems competent based on his contribs and Q answers, and I trust Thatcher, and this user's, word. If you disagree, I'd be happy to discuss this !vote. JamieS93 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

    Altered. JamieS93 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

35. Support Good luck. I really can't find any reason that concerns me. America69 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Not enough administrators currently. The old account issue is resolved to my mind, and you seem well intentioned, so good luck to you. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support, and I have to say, I'll be upset if this doesn't pass because you won't reveal your old account, opposing for that reason alone seems a very nasty violation of WP:AGF. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Support – Lack of substantial content contributions, but good answers to most questions, sufficient experience and no major concerns. snigbrook (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support BrianY (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I'm afraid that the mention of another account, despite your admission it was a privacy issue, is hindering your chances. I don't like to see any good editor punished for trying to be honest. I am disappointed by the opposes by virtue of the fact that we really don't know anything about anyone on this site, unless they verify information, which is not necessary for adminship or even editing in general. I'm a bit disheveled that while many admins (including myself) reveal no real-life information and pass, have to witness another potential candidate go through this scrutiny because a former account (which is not as important as real-life ethics and moral character) is one that was actually brought to the attention of the RFA regulars by the candidate himself. Our accounts are somewhat 'fake,' whereas there is no way to verify our information, our pictures, our personas are actually ours. By that same mentality, if we can promote an editor who has nothing on a userpage but a picture of a lolcat, we can most certainly promote an editor who had a former account in good-standing. Sad you would have suffered less opposes by not mentioning it, but refreshing that a glimpse of your real-life ethical standards can be seen by admitting information that could potentially spark controversy. Best of luck and sticking to your guns about not revealing issues which could damage your right to privacy, especially in light that we do not have to divulge private information, is something that I admire. You show good character. Law _{type! snype?} 05:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong Support per Law and Pastor Theo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrading support per user's steady composure displayed in this RfA. A lesser candidate might lash out at the unfairness of being blamed for accepting PT's offer of verification. Also per recently emerged evidence that the longest admin queues are those requiring attention to detail rather than great experience in content creation, so even less reason to worry about audited content. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

42. Support the upload logs look OK, and I can trust Pastor Theo's judgement on the former account. Not all the questions are answered how I would like, but the details on the rules and methods can be learned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Weak Support Part of the speedy work is okay, even if it has some mistakes (A7 on company with notable owner, A7 for fictional elements) but they have also shown willingness to improve (even if it could have been a bit better and before tagging, but there is no need to be picky) . Unfortunately, the answer to Q10 is just plain wrong, while those to Q8 and Q17 show more understanding and a reflection of patience. See MuZemike's oppose as well. I have no problem with this user wishing to preserve their privacy and I am trusting Pastor Theo not to blatantly lie to us about confirming it, so there is nothing wrong with that, although I echo Shereth's comment that the candidate should simply abandon those edits and not take credit for them anymore. JamieS93's and Law's support !votes (currently #36 and #41) echoe my thoughts on the whole matter well, so I will not comment further on that. With the somewhat weak grasp on policy rivaling a genuine willingness to be open, helping the project and to improve on mistakes, I will support nevertheless, trusting this user to improve on the areas mentioned by oppose and neutral !voters alike. The support comes weakly though because of those issues and, in case this request is successful, I would advise the user to seek an admin who has great experience in the areas they wish to work in as a mentor, who can help to assure that they will not make such mistakes on the "real job". Regards SoWhy 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks Perfect to me. AgentB1 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Since it was confirmed no abuse took place from the prior account. Triplestop x3 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support (Moved from opposition.) Per Pastor Theo Thatcher and the principle of AGF. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, great answers to the questions. Also, agree with above comments by JamieS93 (talk · contribs) and Law (talk · contribs), and per review by Thatcher (talk · contribs) [1]. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support See no problems. I don't know if this will pass. If it doesn't, the candidate my want to spend the cold winter months (if Northern Hemisphere) reassessing his position on disclosure of the prior account. Unless there is a huge smoking gun in there, and Theo persuades me there isn't, you'd be an admin in a couple adays if you were willing to disclose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support per Pastor Theo's review. --candle•wicke 03:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Per Pastor Theo's confirmation. ArcAngel (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Looks good to me. We must AGF here. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Here for the right reasons, we need more active admins, and the Good Pastor has neatly, in my opinion, allayed concerns regarding the old account. Pedro :  Chat  11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    Confirming my support. The information has been verified and I still believe this editor will handle the tools well. To oppose even vaguely because of the desysop of "Pastor Theo" is rubbish. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

53. I trust the Pastor Thatcher, and see no reason not to trust this candidate with the tools. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. Thatcher's confirmation is good enough for me. Tim Song (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) tweaked to make clear that I'm aware of recent developments. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - it would have been better to have had somebody check the previous account first, but no harm done. Will be a net positive to Wikipedia to have the user as an admin. PGWG (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
56. Well, I said I wasn't going to vote, but I'm seeing a shift of consensus on the issue of previous accounts, and since this seems to be a done deal (in this case), I'm happy to assent. Clearly, it was important to people that Pastor Theo looked at the account; in the future, it would probably be a good idea for candidates to have more than one person look at the account and talk about any potential problems from that account (in a general, non-identifying way) on their talk page before they come to RfA. I still don't like the idea of whoever-happens-to-be-handy in this role; it doesn't have to be crats, but crats would be ideal, if they're willing to respond to a request at WP:BN for this. Anyway, this RFA is looking good now, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - Review of contribs seems fine, willingness to learn is a plus, and doesn't seem power-hungry. Active in vandal fighting and is moving into admin tasks. --StaniStani  18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - The only issue with the previous account thing was trying to lay claim to those edits , which is only a minor mistake IMO. Evaluating only the 11k edits of on this account, I find a strong dedication to Wikipedia and good communication skills. The answer to Q10 is wrong, as noted, but reviewing new name's actual speedy tags I found only two errors since July: [2][3]. I found many cases where he had removed or changed someone else's inaccurate speedy tag which is a definite positive. Among these removals were evidence that he has corrected the error in his thought that led to speedy tagging a fictional element. I also reviewed new name's AfD contributions and found them to be solid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Some concern over speedy deletions and the answer to question 10 give me pause, but other concerns raised do not bother me and ThaddeusB above makes a good argument so will support. Davewild (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Although the answer to Question No. 10 and a few mistakes with speedy deletions are a tad disconcerting, I see no major problems or difficulties. You'll make a fine admin! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support per Floquenbeam. It is unfortunate that an innocuous and forthright disclosure has been met with suspicion. The contributions, especially to content, suggest ANN2008 will be a valuable addition. Kablammo (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support The user has my trust; he'd be a good addition. hmwith☮ 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support and go fight those vandals. Just don't speedy anything incorrectly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Per Thatcher mostly confirming the account. I also believe that even if i had direct access to those edits it would be dificult to jusde the editor based on edits from that long ago. The recent work has gained a level of trust, and thus I support. (also per query 15) Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Normally I would stay out, or even oppose, I don't like name changes that hide one's past, and the part about trying to take extra credit sort of rubbed me the wrong way. But I'm supporting because no one should fail their vite purely due to bad luck and opposes that are built on that bad luck. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Opposes are unconvincing. Friday (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    "PS- Let me get this straight. You're seeking a position of additional authority and responsibility, and you're considering whether to continue hiding part of your editing history? The fundamental lack of clue this reveals is utterly astounding. All you supporters, please ask yourself on what basis you're supporting this. If it's because he's your chat room buddy, please consider recusing yourself from the discussion. We're here to evaluate candidates, not give our friends a big pat on the back." Majorly talk 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    ANN2008 has given a plausible and reasonable explanation for not making his old identity public. I see no indication that he's collecting alternate accounts simply for fun. Friday (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    We don't need a new admin badly enough to let this shady-looking situation go through. An admin has to be open and honest. This character is neither. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

67. Support. Sufficient experience under current name to be trusted with admin tools. With Thatcher's confirmation, no concerns about the old account. ReverendWayne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC).
68. Support - has made reasonable attempts to address concerns about previous account, and Thatcher confirms claims made. Certainly ANN2008 should not suffer for Pastor Theo's failings and the fact that opposes are building on that separate issue forces me to lodge a support !vote. Whilst questions do raise some concerns, none are sufficient for me to doubt what is the just outcome of this RfA. EdChem (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Support A lot of vandalism reversions under current account should be more than enough to establish that A new name can be trusted with admin tools. --Tgv8925 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Happy to give the user the benefit of the doubt. Majorly talk 09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
71. I wouldn't normally comment, but seeing some apparent "guilty by association" comments now in this RfA, I decided to take a look. First off, old undisclosed accounts tend to make me uncomfortable, but with Thatcher's vouching, your immediate disclosure (in your username even), and one year of contribs to look at with the new account, it's no longer an issue for me. Policy and CSD knowledge seems absolutely appropriate, your recent CSD declines and corrections like at Yummy FTP, Te Ame, and Bark graft leave me mostly confident. I fully trust you know when to improve instead of delete. Your recently reduced contributions had me worried at first that adminship is only one more step towards retirement, but that's quickly explained by your reduced RC patrolling.
    I am convinced you'll do just fine with the additional buttons, and have no concerns. Thank you, and good luck. Amalthea 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - No reaason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Seems okay to me. I didn't see anything much from the opposes. And Arbcom seems more willing to remove tools if something untoward comes to light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
75. I wasn't going to participate, but have now decided to: I trust Thatcher with his confirmation that A new name 2008's old account was a good one and trouble-free. I don't like the way this RfA has suddenly received a ton of opposition thanks to Pastor Theo's antics: it's not this candidate's fault Pastor Theo wasn't who he appeared to be. However, I suppose it probably is better for this to have been revealed during the RfA rather than after, and some people then suddenly start demanding A new name 2008 to resign his adminship or face an arbitration case for something that wasn't even his fault. I disagree with transparency-based opposition: if A new name 2008 wasn't at least somewhat transparent he'd have never mentioned the old account and would have passed this with no major problems at all; and at least A new name 2008 has allowed someone highly trusted and respected to verify his claims. Acalamari 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Support. That the user chose to reveal that they had a previous account should be held for them not against. Given recent events, honesty is something to be valued. Quantpole (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support I recall seeing A new name around a lot in recent changes and new pages. I can't remember having seen any new page tagging where I've thought "that's really bad", and I've seen a lot which I've thought is good. Also, a number of admins I highly respect have said up above that the candidate does good tagging. I have no problems with what I've seen of their work in RCP. Looking through your user talk, you seem to remain civil enough (although I feel you could take an extra minute to explain things in more depth for newbs). But naturally you're not perfect :D. I would like to see an improvement in article building. To really understand AfD, you need to create some good articles which get nominated for deletion, IMO (I saw you have one recent AfD warning on your usertalk, but you didn't take part in the AfD and I can't see how much you really edited the page). From their previous experience they should be able to manage in the areas they wish to take part in to start off with (deletion). And I also think they could cope with blocking (although I appreciated that you seem to want to start ff slow). Overall, I think you've done a lot for the 'pedia, and could do even more with the tools. And, previous account or not, I trust you :D. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Support I trust Thatcher - if he trusts you to not be abusing the new account, so do I. As someone pointed out somewhere (can't remember if it was on WP, IRC, or email), you probably could have passed just on this account's edits if you'd chosen a less obvious name. However, I appreciate your honesty, and see no reason to punish you for falling for the con man. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. Conscientious and sensible editor, who will make a good admin in a time when we could always use more. Good editing history even without taking into account the previous account, which has now been confirmed to at least be non-controversial. Getting unwittingly drawn into drama caused by a socking banned user does not cause me concerns given that it was visibly no fault of the candidate.~ mazca ^talk 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Can't see any reason why not. Especially now that the previous account has been verified and reported clean. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. Although I'd prefer greater disclosure about a past account (and it was clearly strategically foolish to mention its edits as qualification) I think on balance this is an okay editor. The Pastor Theo thing is indeed a peculiar mishap. But it's what swayed me to support, as ANN2008 has handled a bizarre situation with great aplomb and dignity -- really that's all we can hope for. --JayHenry (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
82. Support I had to think about this for a while. Yes, ANN made a mistake by claiming contributions under a username they were not willing to disclose. However, that mistake would be an easy one to make, and does not reflect on administrator judgement. By contrast, nobody seems to doubt this editor is effective at vandal fighting. In my opinion, we need more vandal fighters, and vandal fighting admins. Dave (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
83. Supporting, mainly to counteract some of the "Pastor Theo" opposes, which do not reflect on this candidate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Shows ability to learn from mistakes, which is an absolutely vital trait in an admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
85. Support - while I was initially unsatisfied with the first review, the more thorough look by Thatcher sets the mind at ease. The other concerns raised are noted, but admins learn on the job - I would just advise candidate to proceed with caution. Their head seems to be in the right place and they were forthcoming from the start. A new name 2008 would do well to rename to something less ambiguous regardless the result of this nomination. –xeno^talk 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
86. Support Looks good. The old account thing is not a problem. I often wish I'd chosen to edit under some mysterious nickname given the crap I take (for a good laugh, see [4]) and Pastor Theo confirms that the previous account was used responsibly. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    I think you may want to refactor that last statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    "Pastor Theo confirms that the previous account was used responsibly." D: — neuro^(talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    We have to assume that Pascal is either oblivious to the Theo situation or is trying to make a bad joke. Here's an idea: Rub out all the "supports" that are based solely on Theo, and ask the individual users to come back here and reconsider their position. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Or he could have meant to type Thatcher and had some sort of fruedean slip. (I've left a note on his talk page).--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    (response to Bugs) I think probably all the supports that mention Theo would point to Thatcher instead, if pressed. I haven't changed my !vote to say "Pastor Theo Thatcher" because it seems unnecessary to me. -kotra (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Then by all means they should be pressed. If no one else notifies them, I might do it myself. And before you yelp about "canvassing", I would simply let them know that the formerly-trusted Theo has been indef'd and that they should re-evaluate their stance in light of support from a different admin. I don't see why there's such a need to ramrod this one guy into the admin role, though. He's not being straightforward with us, and once he gets admin rights, I wouldnt' expect any improvement on that situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    If you want to notify us, feel free, I wouldn't call it canvassing. There is no particular need for ANN2008 (or any admin candidate) to be an admin, some of us just feel that he's being very straightforward and honest about the account, and, additionally, would be a good admin. Just a difference in perspective, I guess. -kotra (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed, I was oblivious to that oh-so-fun story. So "Pastor Theo Thatcher" it is, though I see no reason why Eco, no matter how crazy and unstable he might be, would check the account, find glaring problems and stay mum for epic lolz. My point remains that anyone who claims that "privacy antics are very, very childish" should talk to some of the people who've been stalked. Ironically, they can start by asking the victims of Eco... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

87. support There have been some obvious very serious issues in the past with this user. The user was also very unlucky to confide in Theo earlier which has created drama surrounding the situation which is no fault of the candidate at all. Evaluating the user's contributions, solely based on the contributions of this account, I'm willing to support. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Agree with consensus here that despite some issues, this will be a good person to join the admins. I'd go so far as to add that if someone with a lonstanding record of dedication to Wikipedia can be tarred by a few questionable decisions that they rectify, then something is wrong here in Wikipedia. By the way, I detect uncivil & openly hostile discussion not too far above. Jusdafax (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
89. Support We need more admins. Also, I have seen this user engage in many valid vandalism revisions, and subsequent WP:AIV reports. We can never have enough anti-vandal admins. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
90. (edit conflict) Support: I am abandoning User:Dendodge/Admin criteria to support this RfA due to the fact that it is due to close soon, but also to help counter some of the less relevant oppose !votes. I agree with everything said above, and cannot really add any more. It seems unfair that a user should be penalised for exercising their right to vanish, or because of subsequent circumstances regarding the person who verified this. I don't see how this candidate could possibly be anything other than a net gain to the project. Dendodge _T\^C 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
91. Support per Thatcher and the fact that we need more admins. I feel that ANN2008 has been, in a way, let down Pastor's meddling and I hope to right this. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Excellent candidate. Every user has the right to vanish, and should not be declined adminship because of this. warrior4321 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
93. Support RTV is widely recognized as an important part of our community. Either RTV remains available to editors or it doesn't. One shouldn't be penalized at RFA if independent, trustworthy verification can and has been obtained. I trust Thatcher. KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    I don't even have to bold this, because it's in the original: The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Wikipedia:Right to vanish.  Skomorokh  01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    You're looking for WP:CLEANSTART, a subsection of WP:SOCK. It technically applies to those who had acted disruptively in the past, but there is no reason that the principles of it cannot be applied for this case. NW (Talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    This is NOT a valid application of the RTV concept. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    See above: WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Amalthea 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

94. Support - net positive and assuming good faith. Theo's involvement doesn't alter my opinion, not even by an inch. Good luck —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
95. Last minute support. I am unconcerned by the change of username, and I am sufficiently satisfied even without those contributions that the candidate is suitable. Cool3 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
96. "'Support"' This is a website, get over yourselves. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
97. Support: Per Hiberniantears. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    We is srs bizniz. Keegan (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

98. Support Per Cool3, and Hiberniantears. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
99. Suppport I thought long and hard on this one, but have decided that based on the contribs under this name that he can be trusted with the tools. Thatcher's confirmation is all I need with respect to the prior account. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
100. Support I've been following this RfA for a few days, and the privacy concerns do not worry me. Great work so far, and can be trusted with the tools. Anyone who keeps his cool during this stress can surely behave so when dealing with incidents. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I cannot support someone who outright lies on an RFA. According to SoxRed's tool, you have been here 11 months and have just over 19,000 edits. Do you have alternate accounts that might account for the discrepancy? If you can explain that then I might change my vote. ArcAngel (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Strong Oppose After reading over everything, I feel I must oppose (and strongly at that) on the grounds that candidate is unwilling to reveal by himself his alternate account. From what I remember, other candidates who have had alternate accounts have revealed them on their RFA's. I understand the candidate has privacy concerns on the account they will not reveal, but if they are not willing to reveal any alternate accounts, then I just cannot trust them with the tools. ArcAngel (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)moved to support after reading Pastor Theo's confirmation. ArcAngel (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Per apparent lack of audited content contributions. Vandal fighting is great, but given that there's no evidence of substantial content building I'm going to have to oppose per my criteria. I'm also uncomfortable not knowing the original account of the candidate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   The candidate abandoned the old account as it had personal information on it that he doesn't want people to know. I'd be disappointed if he revealed it just to become an admin. ƒ(Δ)² 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I do not have any audited content, on either account. If that drives opposes, I am willing to accept that and will continue on as a normal editor, becoming an admin is no big deal and I will continue on as an editor. --A new name 2008 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Per David Fuchs. WIll support if you come back after a while with some solid content contributions.--Patton123 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose The coyness and the secrecy are two things that I don't look for when trying to determine trust. It is bad enough when people unknowingly hide faults. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose. "I'd make a good admin, honest. I'm really experienced, however you'll have to take someone's word for it as I won't publicly reveal previous user name to allow people to independently judge". A mockery of an Rfa. 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minkythecat (talk • contribs)
5. Oppose - I appreciate your desire and respect for privacy as is your right, but it also puts you in the awkward position of no-one being able to vet those contributions. Achromatic (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you don't think I am badgering. Hypothetically, if all my edits were on this one username, would you have gone back and looked at edits I made 11 months ago to determine if you would support or oppose? --A new name 2008 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Not at all - my answer would be that, as per my normal process, I'd go through a sampling through time, looking over edits where you'd spent most of your time. I don't have specific objections to those edits I looked at attached to this account, but my opposition is one that we have no way of getting a "complete picture". Do note that I have no issue, per se, with your change of username, and can understand the reasons for it, and don't think you should be 'forced' to reveal the old account, just that opposes such as mine might have to be expected as a 'cost' of this privacy. Achromatic (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the answer. Not sure if it helps at all but I let Pastor Theo know my old username by email from both the current and old accounts. He has reviewed my old account and has given some information above. -- A new name 2008 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per Achromatic. We have no way of telling if you have a clean block log or anything else - it could be as long as my (admittedly fairly short) arm for all we know. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I appreciate that the account has now been "cleared" by a respected user. I'm not going to support - I don't like the fact that you sought to keep it from us initially, and that you have an alt account you could very well use without anyone but Theo linking it to you - but I'm not going to Oppose either. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just a thought: what way would we have of telling that he had an old account if he didn't disclose it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Seriously? "A new name 2008"? Gigs (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose. I don't mind the fact that this user has an old account they are not keen on disclosing; indeed, if someone has a spotted past but has since established sufficient trust with us under a new identity, the old identity is of little importance. That said, I find it somewhat unsettling that the candidate is willing to lay claim to 10,000+ edits on an undisclosed account. When someone wants a fresh start, they get just that - a tabula rasa does not enable one to hang on to past achievements, particularly when said achievements are to be taken on faith alone. Assume good faith does not mean that critical thinking must be abandoned in favor of taking one's word for it. I don't want to put too much value in "feeling unsettled" but the whole thing leaves me just on the wrong side of being able to support. Shereth 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Note: Re-affirming myself here, after giving it a lot of thought; I'm just really uncomfortable with this one. If nothing else the entire situation shows a lack of good judgement on the candidate's part; essentially per Roux below. Shereth 15:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Per above opposition concerns. I do not cast this !vote lightly. Trust is important for an administrator, and unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether the community would be wise to place its trust in you. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 20:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)] Per confirmation by Pastor Theo, removing opposition and switching to support. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 21:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose I share Ironholds' concerns  Francium12  22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose – while lack of content-building would make my !vote a weak support or weak oppose, the answers to the questions drive my !vote to a solid oppose. Go back through on those basic policies and guidelines, and make sure you get a better knowledge of them, including the speedy deletion criteria. MuZemike 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose essentially for account concerns discussed above. I can't support someone who I know is not being transparent or open with the community. I also disagree with the suggestion that Cirt's controversial RfA is a "precedent". A failure to be honest and transparent with the community about one's activities on Wikipedia has always been a valid reason to decline access to administrator tools. I'm all for protecting privacy, but as I said during Cirt's RFA, I cannot support someone when I know that a not insignificant slab of the user's history on the project is knowingly and deliberately being hidden from the community, especially when that non-disclosed history is actively being paraded as part of the user's "qualifications" for adminship (project tenure, activities, blocks and warnings, edit count, etc). If the history is going to be included in the users "wiki-resume" for RFA purposes then it really needs to be able to examined and not simply stated as fact but then not open to being examined, questioned, etc. Aside from the account issue, I don't find the nomination or the answers at all convincing but rather strike me as rather weak and it's just not enough (in my eyes) to get over any doubts or concerns raised by the issue of a lack of openness and transparency. Sarah 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Just to add that I have seen the above discussion about the candidate identifying their prior account to Theo but I am standing by my oppose. I'm not satisfied with this whole idea of presenting "qualifications" from another account for RFA purposes yet not allowing the community to examine the contributions, question them, or evaluate them. If you don't want a prior account to be examined at RFA then you really shouldn't be citing it's contributions as part of your "qualifications" for adminship. I also find the very low article talk contributions as mentioned by Slim below to be alarming. Admins need to be able to communicate well and work effectively in content disputes and such low article talk contributions are rather concerning to me. I had a look through the candidate's article talk contributions and the bulk of them are talk page tagging and reversion of vandalism, so I'm just not convinced the user has the appropriate skills or experience in that regard. I also remain unsatisfied and unconvinced by the nomination statement and answers. So I shall be staying here in the oppose section. Sarah 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I know this is very long but there's something I really feel I need to add. I came here this morning to withdraw my oppose and move to the neutral section as I'm really uncomfortable with the way this RFA has spiralled off with people seemingly supporting and opposing based on reasons that don't really have anything to do with the candidate's suitability, such as the most unfortunate and disgraceful behaviour of Ecoleetage/Theo which has entirely corrupted this RFA to an extent that I don't feel the candidate is getting a proper evaluation as an admin candidate, but rather, people are merely voting and voting based on their reaction to Theo's actions. I would really like to change to neutral because I see this RFA as hopelessly corrupted but I've reviewed the candidate's contributions with this account and I'm most sincerely not convinced that they have the requisite experience for adminship. So I'm going to stay here as an oppose on that basis but I just want to note that I'm really unsatisfied with this RFA and I think the best outcome all round would be a no consensus either way and the candidate taking a little time to consider and reflect on some of the more useful feedback they've received, possibly changing their username to something a little less of a red flag, and then resubmitting themselves for reconsideration. Sarah 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

   Clarifications are necessary before a meme gets out of hand. Cirt's RFA did not establish a "precedent"; previous account disclosure had already been been discussed and rejected as a potential policy requirement for RFA. Anyone is free to oppose for refusal to disclose, of course. Several people did during Cirt's RFA. Cirt was an unusual candidate who at the time of his RFA was already sysopped at three other WMF projects, was an arbitrator at one of them, and had OTRS access (plus a very impressive list of featured credits here at en:wiki). He has since been sysopped at two more and been entrusted with checkuser access at a sister wiki. A similarly impressive record under the new identity might well be necessary for returning users who choose not to disclose their previous identity. Durova³¹⁷ 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose, once you leave an account, you're a new person. You're not supposed to mention the other account, or in this case, take credit for it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 06:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Will reevaluate the candidate if time allows. Until then, I am retracting my opposition. –blurpeace ^(talk) 00:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose for two reasons. First, the lack of transparency, yet the willingness to take credit for the extra 10,000 edits. Secondly, this account has around 12,000 article edits (reverting vandalism) compared to under 800 article talk, and under 400 to project and project talk, which shows almost no interaction with the community. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Okay, it looks like we have a trend here. As I said in the discussion section, there are a couple of previous candidates who failed RFA in part for refusal to disclose the name on another account they had significant edits on. This candidate also is enjoying some support, except for the two issues you mention, SV. For this candidate and in the future, is there any option you guys in the opposition can offer that would allow a crat or crats to vet a previous account in some way when the candidate is not claiming any "credit" for it and wishes not to disclose that username for whatever reason? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    For the future, I think if a bureaucrat were to confirm that an account with an undisclosed past had had no sanctions, actual or threatened, and that there had been no significant disputes, or previous accounts before the undisclosed one in question, I think that would make a difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    At this point an uninvolved admin (at the time) has done this. Would it help if it was a bureaucrat? --A new name 2008 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    I think Slim was looking for something above-and-beyond what the humble pastor confirmed; she's looking for a lack of sanctions (actual or threatened; i.e. RFC/Us, ArbCom cases, AN/ANI threads, etc), and no involvement in "significant disputes". –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Hi 2008, I just saw that Theo confirmed you'd answered the questions correctly, but I'm not sure that the answers covered the pertinent points, as Xeno says. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    If what people are looking for is some additional information that can be basically set up the way the first one was, I am willing to do that. No information will be revealed that would tie the 2 accounts together. I have not had any actual or threatened RFC/Us, ArbCom cases, AN/ANI threads or any significant disputes. If people only want confirmation of those things I am willing to give another person my old account so they can confirm that or Pastor Theo can go back and look at those areas also and report back. I am not trying to hide anything other than the personal info I do not want tied to this account. -- A new name 2008 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    I might be willing to reconsider if a couple more trusted editors were to confirm the above (Dank and Xeno, for example), but I also have concerns about the lack of content and project editing, and the lack of interaction on talk, so I wouldn't definitely change my view. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks SV. In theory, WP:RfB should measure whether someone has the trust of the community to do something like this, although apparently only superhumans need apply to RfB these days. Maybe the tide will turn on that. If there's enough interest among the opposition to proceed, then I'd prefer we ask for a volunteer crat at WP:BN. Another thing I'd want to know: did the person appear to use the two different accounts to "vote" twice in any major discussion or process? That's not so likely when one account stopped before the other started, but it's possible. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

11. The candidate indicates an intention to work in content-focused areas (C:SD, WP:AFD, WP:RM and WP:RFPP), but has a weak record of developing and defending high-end content. The candidate has contributed significantly to no audited content, and appears to have created only two articles, the strongest of which does not instill confidence for a prospective administrator assessing articles up for deletion. With such a history, the candidate is not currently qualified for the task. I'm not seeing much in the way of policy discussion (meagre WT edits) or dispute resolution in the candidate's recent contributions either.  Skomorokh  20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose There seems to be certain gaps in quality content work and questions that undermine confidence...Modernist (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose Admins need to remember what it's like for those in the trenches. I'm not seeing enough content work to indicate that the candidate will be able to have such a perspective. While I admire conciseness, answers to the questions are weak and in particular do not show an appreciation for nuance. (The previous account doesn't bother me.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose, with all due respect to User:Pastor Theo, I don't like secrets and I don't like the idea of admins with undisclosed alt accounts running around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
15. Oppose, primarily due to lack of transparency. Your new account lacks the level of experience needed to gain my confidence, and I am unwilling to take someone else's word about your previous experience. Majoreditor (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose Even though the candidate did contact Pastor Theo (for which I commend them), it makes me uneasy to think that this was not done at the beginning, to clear out any confusion before Oppose votes came in due to the secrecy and discrepancy in edit counts. Will update later. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    I made a mistake in judgement on this. I felt that after a completely clean record of warnings, blocks arbcom, ani, 3rr etc for 11 months and 19,000+ edits other editors would accept that I was upfront on the other account and evaluate me on what I had done on this account. The only reason I added the time and numbers in was to be as transparent as I could without compromising the information I did not want associated with this account. As evidenced by the opposes i miscalculated the level of editors assuming good faith on this subject. --A new name 2008 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    Coming from a bias, I actually think you handled it fine, although it's good that we've received confirmation now. People may ask why you didn't privately disclose the account at the very beginning. I believe the answer partly is, this thing called "RfA" is sometimes hard to predict, and you don't fully realize the level of expectation until you actually decide to run. JamieS93 21:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    This is a very disturbing response. Characterizing principled expression of concern by multiple long-term editors in good standing as a failure to assume good faith is highly inappropriate, and only demonstrates your own refusal to assume good faith. While I do not share those concerns (see my vote above) I respect those who do, and you should as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    I am sorry I guess I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I was just commenting on the different levels of AGF. I thought there would be a little higher level of AGF because of my tenure under this account and the number of good edits. I misread that and that is my mistake. I do not believe that anyone did not AGF. I believe every editor !voted their judgement and I accept that they have the best interests of the project in mind in their !vote. As I have stated before, I accept whatever the consensus of the community is on this and will continue to work with the tools that are given to me. If I offended anyone with my statement above, I apologize. --A new name 2008 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    Technically, RfA is one of those places where AGF should be discouraged, because if we simply assumed good faith from each nominee then we'd have to assume they can be trusted with the tools. We're actually supposed to not assume that faith, and try to look for evidence of good faith instead. -- Atama頭 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose based on the concerns that have been raised above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose because the privacy antics are very, very childish. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose I have a really hard time conceiving of an innocuous reason to conceal the identity of an account used to make 11,000 edits.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    In the answer to Nuclear Warfare the candidate said it had information relating to his real life identity. Its appalling easy for an informed person to attack someone remotely if they know what they're doing and know your identify. While the risk is small , you never know when you're going to offend a nutter when you try to retain NPOV. I personally think the risk of being attacked is minimal , but perhaps the candidate is cautious or has heard horror stories, or even their partner is insisting they be careful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

    Or perhaps they were in fact harrassed, and expect more of it if the connection is made to their old account. No telling. I wish more effort had gone into reassuring the RFA community, but I'm not having any trouble understanding why someone who's active in deletion tagging might want to abandon an account. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Prodego ^talk 21:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
21. OPPOSE A past, secret account? And a ringing endorsement by "a pastor", cited by many as "trustworthy", and now also banned for sockpuppetry? This smells like lutefisk on the Fourth of July. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    In case you missed it, User:Thatcher (Audit Subcommittee member, among other things) has offered to do a second verification. I honestly cannot think of anyone more trustworthy than he; he is as straight a shooter as they come. NW (Talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    And here is Thatcher's review. NW (Talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    The lack of trustworthiness of A New Name 2008's confidant concerns me. @harej 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose the shenanigans concerning verifications or lack thereof aside, even without all this weirdness I'd still lean toward oppose, per SlimVirgin. -- Deville (Talk) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose. Mainspace edits does an editor make, not tens of thousands of mostly minor vandalism reverts via Twinkle. That plus the lack of full, honest disclosure, which indicates this mysterious candidate has something to hide, just sets my spidey sense a tingling.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Gut feeling oppose I have thought long and hard before voting on this one. Given the numerous neutral comments and the opposes in this section, my gut feeling is that I simply cannot trust this person with the tools. Something just doesnt sit right. The reasons are pretty much summed up by the various neutral votes and opposes. I wish you the best of luck in the future and if there is anything I can do to help you in a future rfa please do ask and ill do my best to help. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
25. I will not support a user whose full record cannot be assessed.  Sandstein  05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    What if the user had hypothetically said his 10k edits were done as an IP. Would you insist on the IP address? Law _{type! snype?} 05:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Law, if the editor was claiming them, I would either need to see the account or have another trusted user confirm this for me, yes. hmwith☮ 10:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

26. Weak oppose basically per CrotchetyOldMan. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose I'd like to see some transparency here, and Pastor Theo, who is vouching for the user, has now been desysopped and banned for socking. I'm just not comfortable supporting here. AniMate^draw 09:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thatcher, who is definitely not blocked, has vouched for the user. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    What \ / said. I respect your opinion, but let's not bring Pastor Theo into this. Thatcher (a trusted functionary) has also verified that ANN was a reasonable editor on the previous account. JamieS93 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Additionally, I'd be more comfortable with granting the tools to someone who has more experience than just vandal fighting. I see very little collaboration with other users on article talk. I also see very little participation in project space. AniMate^draw 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose. Drama magnet before they even start. Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Could you please provide a reference for that? — Sebastian 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    This page, this request for adminship is the drama that I am talking about. Although they are usually dramatic, the drama is the secrecy the wonder the unknown, Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose: Not enough Constructive Edits or Transparency. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose. The only thing we have to judge people on is their contribution history. This trend of breaking it makes a mockery of it, and harms Wikipedia's transparency. the wub "?!" 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppos Per concerns noted above.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose, in the circumstances surrounding Pastor Theo, it's best that we not promote A new name 2008 at this time, bearing in mind how difficult it is to remove adminship. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I certainly agree that the Pastor Theo issue has been heavily disruptive to this RFA.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    I fail to see the logic, really. If anything we need to replace Pastor Theo with a legitimate administrator who can continue good work around the project. A new name's RfA has been disrupted by the whole affair, but by no fault of his own. Pastor Theo's ban does not in any way shame A new name, nor does it confirm any of the opposers view's. Sorry if this seems like badgering, I'm not trying to, it's just my opinion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

33. Oppose - Theo's support of this RfA makes me concerned. If nothing else, it speaks volumes about the need for transparency between accounts. — neuro^(talk) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    To expand on my above !vote, I don't like the implication by a lot of supporters that opposing over this issue somehow also implies that you think it is ANN's fault that it happened. It isn't. It is just too concerning to let slide. — neuro^(talk) 17:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    How do you think that Theo's !vote effects how the candidate would do as an admin? Take a look at Theo's RfA !votes, there's a lot of names in there who I feel went on to become some of our best administrators. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    We've got tons of admins. We don't need one that's under a cloud before he even starts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Bugs, I'm really not seeing the cloud. FWIW, Pastor Theo has also supported Neurolyis's, yours, and mine. Are we all under the same cloud? How is the offer to act as a trustee in this RfA, which was double checked by another trusted user, putting this under a cloud that doesn't also affect the three of us? And as I said on the talk page, regarding transparency, this candidate is taking the exact opposite approach Pastor Theo has. Amalthea 20:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)The only reason A new name 2008 would be "under a cloud" is because he happened to trust the wrong person at exactly the wrong time. When Pastor Theo made the offer, there was absolutely no indication that he was a banned user. Pastor's RFA is proof of that. A new name 2008 should not be punished for events beyond his control, particularly when he has already taken steps to recover from those events. Who votes for or against an RFA is totally irrelevant; what matters is the level of support, and the reasons for the oppose. I respect the latter half of Neuro's oppose (referring to his because it's the one we're posting under, again, wrong place/wrong time), but I feel as though the first part is totally unfair. A new name 2008 has nothing to do with the Pastor Theo business (aside from WP/WT) - if he had, then he'd have been blocked as well and we wouldn't be here now.

    And now that I'm ec'd, I totally agree with Amalthea. Switching to a new account to avoid stalking or harassment concerns is completely legitimate; it can create transparency issues, but as long as they're willing to disclose to trusted users at need (ArbCom, CU's like Thatcher, etc.), there's no policy issue with it, nor do I have any concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    Can't be bothered with this, go with the latter one. — neuro^(talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

34. Weak oppose. Unimpressed by answer to Q2. While I don't think a lot of article work is needed to be an admin, you need to have at least some experience in that area. Candidate says "saving these articles are my best contributions", with which I sympathize, but there are no references for that. I therefore need to take unreferenced criticism seriously, too. While I think the way candidate broached the old name issue was clumsy, I wouldn't oppose because of that. That is overrated by many, but it is to some extent balanced by those who vote support because of AGF: AGF means that in the event of no information, we assume the best. That works for our collaboration with other editors, but it's a bad criterion for RfA: We only end up promoting those who have never or seldom dared any tough task. — Sebastian 00:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose I have not problem with not disclosing the previous account as you've had an independent admin check it out privately. But I think there's a lot more to having the tools then just vandal fighting. I'm not a stickler for audited content work, but it would be nice to see a lot more content work in general. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose Sorry, I was neutral before, but I opposed Pastor Theo's RfA because he just didn't seem right and his involvement here pushes me to oppose--it was finely balanced neutral before. I understand that it may not be your fault but something just doesn't smell quite right. Unlike fish, you may smell better in a few months. Drawn Some (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Per Sarah and SlimVirgin; if you wish to use the contribs of a previous account to show your understanding of Wikipedia, fine. But the inability of the rest of us to truly evaluate them is a concern. Not that I don't trust Thatcher, but s/he may not be looking for the same things I would, or anyone else would. I recognise that this puts you in an uncomfortable Catch-22, but the alternative was simply to not mention the previous account... however, that would have been an instant uncategorical oppose from me, because I believe in transparency. Further, personally-incriminating information is best dealt with via oversight, and not creating a wholly new account, then partially relying on the old account for credibility. I really do see the untenable position here, but there are a series of questionable judgement calls--not requesting oversight, creating the new account, relying on that account to bolster your bid for adminship, releasing information to a random admin instead of ArbCom or a CU--that lead me to worry about how you'd make judgement calls as an admin. Sorry. → ROUX ₪ 15:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    There are certain things that cannot be oversighted. From Thatcher's comments, I believe that is the case here. It's my understanding that, if the user did not want personally identifiable information associated with their future edits, there was absolutely no option but creating a new account. I don't find ANN2008 at fault for allowing Theo to be the confidant; he was an administrator (which supposedly have some level of trust) and, ostensibly, a clergyman whose job involved taking confessions (untrue, it turns out). It would have been better to email arbcom or the checkuser group or something, but I (and many others) unfortunately considered Theo trustworthy enough. I do agree, however, that presenting the old account in such a way as to bolster the bid for adminship (claiming the 10,000+ edits) was unwise. However, we are asking this person to walk a tightrope here; this is a difficult situation for anyone to navigate, and one or two somewhat minor missteps have fueled a sizeable opposition. -kotra (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    True regarding oversight--but not being able to see the edits in question means not being able to know whether that's the case here. Catch-22 again. I do find fault with allowing Theo as confidant, and not merely in retrospect; certain users (ArbCom, CU, OS) must identify themselves to the WMF under the auspices of the (too lazy to fetch the link) access to nonpublic data policy. We have had socks as admins before--Archtransit, at least two other admins I am aware of privately, several others--but apart from the recent Sam nonsense, none have ever compromised other positions. (And, truth be told, he was dishonest about the past, not the present). Under these conditions, the only users that anyone should trust when it comes to that level of information is those who the WMF knows. That way if anything goes pear-shaped, there is a clear course of action, potentially in the courts if it goes that far. → ROUX ₪ 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thatcher's comment leads me to believe that is the case here. Whether you trust Thatcher or not, or interpret his comment differently, is up to you of course. As for trusting Theo being an unwise decision, time has confirmed you are right. I still feel like it was an easy mistake to make, one which many good admins might have made in ANN2008's situation, but you're welcome to your own criteria of course. -kotra (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    I don't have any problem with Roux's objection, but if the community can't agree who is suitable as a trusted party, why should the poor candidate be graded off for not knowing? - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Because I feel it's simply poor judgement. When it comes to private data, one could trust a random username elected via the tragedy comedy of the commons, or one could trust someone who has been required to provide personally-identifying information to a charitable foundation, which keeps such information in its records, presumably to satisfy concerns about legal liability and so forth. That a potential admin thought it better to do the former is concerning. → ROUX ₪ 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Yes. The candidate's naivete, or questionable judgment, or whatever you want to call it, is a major concern here - the flip side of the "just trust me" attitude of the candidate himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Okay. Crats aren't required to identify themselves (I don't think); should future candidates only use checkusers, oversighters, Arbcom members, and identified crats for this purpose? - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Yes. Ideally, crats should be identified as well, but there is a limit to even my windmill tilting. → ROUX ₪ 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Not necessarily. What the candidate should do is withdraw now and try again in a few months when all this nonsense with the fake "Pastor" will have died down (unless he's already created another sock) and this process can run a little more smoothly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    I wish to make clear that Theo's involvement didn't sway my vote--the judgement issue would have been the same with any admin. → ROUX ₪ 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

38. Opppse per Ottava Rima (I don't like coyness in interviews, and I would prefer honesty). Bearian (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Opppse - There are some experience concerns if I only look at the current account. With respect to the previous one I would have expected candidate to realize at some time that partly due to his own contribution a situation has arisen that makes it hard for the community to assess what the actual consensus is. A withdrawal from an RfA that cannot really be repaired would have helped here more than rushing to remedy the situation and then later hang on once the initial remedy exploded. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose - per the Wub. I have to agree with Roux though on some things. Releasing information that is supposedly personal to some random person on the internet with no accountability was a rather questionable decision. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for saying it more concisely than I did. → ROUX ₪ 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

41. Oppose. Per SlimVirgin's reasons which she expressed eloquently above. —mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose. New starts are good, (although eternally screaming that you've done so from your new username was an interesting choice). Regardless of the later checking-out, though, I have a problem with the thought process that led you to initially claim credit for 10k edits on an old account, whilst not doing anymore than claiming that account existed. Abandoned accounts are just that, any kudos that accrued to them has to be abandoned at the same time as the identifying info you wanted to leave behind. So really, regardless of anything else, even if the new account had been flawless, I would be concerned about your judgement, and there are enough concerns raised elsewhere that I think that that certainly needs to be flagged. Wait a little longer, demonstrate more slow-down-and-thinking, and I'm sure you'll do better next time :) --Saalstin (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose Sorry, not just yet. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
44. No article content creation work YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose. I believe the concerns about one-third of the nominee's long edit history being unavailable are legitimate. If the nominee has made inappropriate personal information available in connection with the older account, there are ordinarily ways to remove that information and then allow examination of the older account -- or, if not, the nominee has provided no explanation of why that removal cannot be carried out. Assuming no great technical problems, the old edits jeopardizing the nominee's privacy should be oversighted, removed, whatever (whether a second rfa is forthcoming or not); then, if the nominee stands at rfa again, his/her full edit history will be open for examination and, I expect, the rfa will succeed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    I am trying to be as transparent as I can. It has nothing to do with any edits made by the account or to the account. It is the actual username that is a concern with my current real life job. There is no way to oversight all the instances of the username out without a lot of work. Looking through changing username and such it is possible to accomplish that but I believe people would notice the username being changed on over 10,000 edits. I considered this before abandoning the account and creating a new one. I believed that self reporting the account and explaining the general nature of the account was the best way to handle the obvious name change, obviously I was mistaken. I am going to shut up again and let the bureaucrats do their job and decide what to do next. -- A new name 2008 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Just as an example. User is named John Doe, uses discussion pages a lot and signs with John Doe, that name is also quite unique so a google search will easily find him. To oversight that would be almost impossible. Garion96 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) Assuming that the personal information was in the username, i.e. a real name username, then you can very well consider is impossible. E.g., it's easy for me to figure out your original username, and it would require oversighting all revisions of Talk:Bob Dylan, its archives, and all other pages you left your signature for you to disconnect your self from it (or developer intervention). Amalthea 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Per David, largely. I think there is a concern with the unwillingness to reveal a past account, but that fact alone is not enough for me to oppose. We have sysopped people before with highly controversial past accounts, and this has caused some trouble. I don't know if the candidate's past account was controversial or not, and I don't like our options for certifying whether or not it is. We may force the candidate to reveal the account, or place trust in some person to explore the account themselves and then report that the account was innocuous. I prefer to AGF, but still remain neutral. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   That seems like a reasonable suggestion. Would A new name 2008 mind giving a neutral 3rd party (perhaps an uninvolved admin) a chance to look at the old account to give the thumbs-up? I think doing so would alleviate the fears of some of the opposers while still preserving privacy. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I actually don't think that is a good suggestion. We did it before and the account didn't remain secret because enough detail was revealed in the explanation to identify the past account (and other folks knew who it was). We would have to trust person XYZ to do a complete and critical review of the candidate's past contributions and the candidate would have to trust the person to offer a fair review. If the candidate wants to do that, it would alleviate some concerns, but s/he should be fully aware of the consequences as well as the limited upside (many people will not be swayed by the word of a third party). Protonk (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose the question could simply be, is ANN08 telling the truth? Did the old account have a "clean block log with no vandalism warnings" and ~11,000 edits? If the answer is no, I would actually change my support to an oppose. If the answer is yes I don't think there would be any need for more details. A simple yes/no answer would not reveal any more information that ANN08 has already provided (well, a "no" would reveal more info in a way). I think if the person checking had oversight abilities then that should alleviate trust concerns, since such editors are already supposed to be trusted with sensitive information. You might be right that it still wouldn't sway the people who are opposing but it might, either way people will be making a more informed decision. -- Atama頭 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per Protonk. Although I believe that you honestly want to be an administrator, you probably should allow a third party to get involved since it might rid all of these opposes (assuming that you're squeaky clean), and you could win this. The fact that you aren't willing to allow another editor to do this, makes me thing that you could've vandalized the site and you are lying about having personal information. Assuming you did, renaming yourself could've been helpful, since it kind of shows a maturity that most lack. Either way, i'm neutral. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not actually advocating that the candidate do that. There are problems with that "solution" as I mentioned above (I have now bolded the words pointing to my discontent) and I don't feel that it is necessarily correct to force the candidate to expose the account to someone if they don't want to. My feeling is that it is a possible solution to the problem, but offers its own set of problems for the candidate. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   I was just thinking of going to support on that rationale. I'll do so now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (Moved to support) per Shereth's oppose. I respect the candidate's decision to make a clean start, but it seems like empty self-promotion to claim 10,000+ edits nobody can confirm. Ignoring this, the user has about 9,000 non-automated edits, a sampling of which turns up only positive work, and no apparent civility or edit-warring issues. Would happily support given either some confirmation of the 10,000+ edits/no blocks/no vandalism warnings from a third party editor (I would trust an uninvolved oversighter or checkuser), or redaction of positive claims related to the previous account. -kotra (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   I think s/he is telling the truth and I don't think it is empty promotion. On my RfA, I said that I had some technical experience on the mediawiki software through two installation and administration jobs on private wikis through an employer. I have no intention of divulging those wikis or those employers, because doing so would pretty well OUT me, but I felt it was necessary to explain my early familiarity with the markup. I believe that the candidate felt divulging the existence of a past account was both necessary and proper. Where I bring myself to neutral is that we have no real way (as you say) to judge the content of those edits and we can't trust the candidate's promise that they were a-ok, even if we assume good faith (meaning that the candidate could be wrong and truthful). I will agree with you that of the contributions I have seen, they are mostly positive and I have yet to see any real negative ones. But the question hangs about the past edits. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   To me, the issue isn't that I don't know if "10,000+" is true or not (past 8,000 or so edits, I don't really care), but it just annoys me a little that ANN2008 is basically saying "I've done all this, just trust me on that". I think it's different from your situation: you were only explaining why you were familiar with wiki markup; so too with ANN2008's simple mention of his previous account. These are both good disclosures. But going beyond that and claiming 10,000+ edits is not necessary, and so it looks to me like self-promotion — which by itself isn't bad; that's what candidates do in their RfAs — and, because it's not verifiable, it's also empty (not in the sense that it's false, but that we can't hold it to be true either). Your concerns about the quality of their past edits I also share (for me, 11 months ago is long enough to ignore a lot, but not everything). But both of these concerns are minor to me. I may end up moving to support later on if nothing problematic comes to light. -kotra (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks to ANN2008's account disclosure to Pastor Theo and Theo's above confirmation of the claims, I am now moving to support. -kotra (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   Low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions and answers to questions suggest a lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

   Can you explain what answerd suggest a lack of policy knowledge? --A new name 2008 (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, I should not have made that reference to answers; had something else on my mind. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Changed to oppose, see above. I certainly have no problem with you having a prior account but I don't like trying to use it as a basis to become administrator if it is something that needed to be left behind for whatever reason. I am sympathetic to your situation but to a large degree we are all just accounts and usernames and having an admin confirm basic facts about it just isn't good enough, we can't actually examine that prior account. I am too uncomfortable with this to support and uncomfortable enough with this to bother to comment here as neutral but not uncomfortable enough to oppose. It does bother me that you didn't realize that this was going to be an issue at your RFA and that you didn't plan a way around it or how to handle it. Frankly, it seems sometimes that there is a formula for a successful RFA and the candidates just smile and give the correct answers. I think it's disgusting and absurd but to some degree candidates have to play that game. Anything unusual needs to be handled carefully and it wasn't here. That, I guess, is enough to nix my support. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Suggest powerdown, wait ten seconds, and reboot. Dropping the metaphor, there is some opposition regarding the mere fact that you have a previous account the name of which you are not disclosing. This is unavoidable and your transparency is appreciated. There is however additional opposition regarding the manner - doubtness not ill-intended - in which you also wanted the community to give you credit for your prior tenure nevetheless in judging your suitability for adminship. That combined with other more typical RFA concerns I think has started your RFA down an unfortunate path. I'd suggest you withdraw now, wait a month or so, and then ideally find a respected administrator to nominate you, recommend people judge you on your by then doubtless 20+k edits and >1 year tenure in your current account, and assert as nominator that they have verified that your previous account does not have blocks, etc., as did Pastor Theo above. I think you will then have a much better chance of success. Even better if you also by then have more content contributions and somewhat more compelling answers to the questions. Martinp (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. You seem reasonable enough to be an administrator. But if you wish to gain the trust of a community, it helps to not point a big blinking arrow to yourself that says "I AM HIDING SOMETHING", regardless of how innocuous the actual situation is. Your username does exactly that. Not every user you interact with will read this RfA, but they may just look at your name and saying "damn Wikipedia and its unaccountable shadowy administrators".
   My suggestion: get yourself a less sketchy-looking username, get people to know you under that name, and come back with an RfA based on the contributions you've made under "A new name 2008" and your new new name -- not under your old name. rspεεr (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Limited content contributions. I am also a little disappointed by the answer to question 10. The answer is technically correct, but I would hope that A new name 2008 would make some attempt to establish/refute notability and look for additional information for the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
5. I just can't lend my support if we don't know what you did under your older account. Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I'll assume good faith on the issue of the old account. But Q10 is incorrect; according to A3, "a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context." It tells us that it is a middle school in some town in Kansas, which is sufficient to identify the subject and allow expansion on it. What if it said "Roosevelt Middle School is a middle school in Centerville, KS"? It's essentially the same thing, but then it would not count as "a rephrasing of the title." Still, most of the other questions are satisfactory, so I won't oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral Your vandal fighting contribs are great, but your lack of as David Fuchs would put it "audited contribs" combined with your previous accounts, leaves me a little wary to support but doesn't dissuade me enough to oppose. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm on the fence here. I think that ANN2008's best option would be to email functionaries-en. All users there are trusted, so the user doesn't have to worry about privacy, and that's a few independent users that can verify the information. Another option would be the 'crat mailing list. A few people looking through you history and letting the community know if you did a lot of article work or edited a lot of talk pages, for example, may change the minds of some opposers, but that's just my two cents. hmwith☮ 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. hmwith☮ 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral On the fence as well, the whole lack of transparency on the accounts bothers me, but, the fact that these are older edits and not really a sample in my thoughts as to the current editing behaviour, I do not have a reason to oppose on this. At this time however, I am not ready to throw support either.Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC) moving to support Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral per above.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral for now. Don't cite edits made by an account you're not willing to reveal. That's certainly not helpful. Timmeh (review me) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - striking my opposition now that the user has disclosed the past account, if in a roundabout way. However, the lack of transparency from the beginning leaves me feeling wary all the same, and the insistence on citing edits we cannot review still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am unable to support. Shereth 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. You seem like a qualified candidate. However, in light of recent events, I can not support someone unless I've had a chance to look at their entire history. I acknowledge that there may be legitimate reasons for the secrecy, thus no oppose. decltype (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to Abstain. decltype (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.