Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Normandy 2: Difference between revisions

Normandy (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 13:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting adminship to continue to help this project. I have more than 3 ¹/₂ years of experience with Simple Wikipedia, have made at least 5437 (4162 + 1275) contributions, 40% of which under Normandy is to articles. I have reverted vandalism, referred to VIP, contributed to discussions on ST and ANI, assisted at DYK and helped write a (formerly) GA.

We will all likely know the history of my account(s), but be assured that it was always my wish to edit constructively. Although I do not wish to go into detail the 'incident' was an accident and I took the response from users here quite hard. I'll hold my hands up and freely admit there was a fair amount of disruption by me to this project for which I am truely sorry. I have damaged my reputation to a huge extent, but I hope that the past six months will go some way to repairing this damage.

I'd like to remind people of the good that I can do as an adminstrator. I was voted in unanimously to both administrator and crat positions and my abilities as an admin and crat here were never in question. Under Kennedy count 678 deletions, 36 blocks, 46 protections, 7 user renames and 16 rights changes.

Although the bad part of my history will be taken into account, I would ask that you look at my recent record, compare it with my admin ability and history and I hope that you would consider me to be a useful addition to the administrative team here. I would love to answer any questions that you may have. Regards, Normandy ^(talk) 13:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nom. Accept.

1. Duh. Goblin 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
2. Support - Because I have never doubted his judgement as an admin. I also believe his version of the story, and believe he was desysoped then banned unfairly - errare humanum est. Yottie ^=talk= 11:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think many know how mad I was at Normandy, mainly because I trusted him, and I felt like that trust was abused. However, I now see 6 months of editing without issue. I think the lost trust has slowly been re-gained. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak support - Weak support because his mainspace edits are only just above 40%. Other than that, I think I can safely trust this user per Gordon. --Orashmatash 20:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - he has my trust and confidence.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I have no doubts he would use the tools well, and he has only done good things since his return. Grunny (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support We all commit errors; what I have seen in the last few months is an editor that contributes content; I do not see a problem in him gaining access to the tools permitting deletion of pages, and blocking of users. --Eptalon (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, per above, user's good faith seems obvious. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, per above. TBloemink (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support I trust him. πr² (t • c) 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. At least he's active and he knows the how-to. I think that he's learnt his lessons and doubt that he's going to do this again. Let's just try it. -Barras (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I still have a few concerns about your past behavior to trust you with the tools. I also feel it's a little too soon. Sorry. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   • I've got six months or more of faultless editing. When would it not be too soon? Normandy ^(talk) 10:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • To be fair the trust to edit is much lower than the trust to be an admin. There are many people that might never be right for adminship even if they were a faultless editor. So its rather unfair to ask for an exact time that someone would trust you. They either trust you or they don't and maybe they will eventually is really what they are saying. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • I don't think it is unfair to ask. He's said it is too soon. When is not? I think that's a reasonable question. Normandy ^(talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • The candidate left in a huff and caused lots of trouble on Simplewiki post-departure and returns trying to win back the community's favour? I've seen this happen a lot on enwiki and it never ends well and 6 months is not enough. Put it into perspective, if someone insults their employer and then decided to spam the Facebook pages of their coworkers and after 6 months of unemployment returns and asks for their job back. It doesn't work that way. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:29pm • 02:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Rights and permissions were removed due to double voting and sock puppetry by the community here. After that, he continued to sock puppet.
   • More detail on that (all the block evasion and sock puppet accounts) is available for reading in this permalink.
   • The editor also states "do not wish to come back to WP. Its still the scum of the social internet where kids play games.". In that same page, you can see he only came back to do intentional project disruption. I understand this is still less than two years ago, however, given the demonstrated propensity to bait and game the system, utilize sock puppets, and evade blocks; coupled with the disregard for site rules... I can not support this request for any trusted or advanced permissions such as sysop, crat, CU, oversight, now, or in the distant future.
   • You have requested adminship once before and in that request you did not disclose your history. That RFA was complete on 25 JAN 2011, with the disclosure made on 26 MAY 2011. There is a clear problem with transparency. I do not trust you. Jon@talk:~$ 05:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     • Again, most of you objections seem to come from years ago, which you admit yourself in your comments. Basically your oppose is too soon. When do you suggest would be a timescale where we can move on? I've apologised for my mistakes and worked hard to rectify them. Normandy ^(talk) 10:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       • You are incorrect. My oppose it just as above. Not now, not in the distant future. I do not trust you. I do not trust you due to those reasons I expanded on as above. You have some editing issues that I can not reconcile to this request for adminship. They were not "years ago". The most recent issue was inside of a year. I do not trust you. Jon@talk:~$ 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose - I strongly believe that what happened before will never happen again. But trust is a bit of an issue for me. Also, this user's mainspace edit count is quite displeasing. He only has 518, which is only 42.92% of his total edits. I'd be happy for the user to get their tools back when they have more mainspace edits and when I trust them a bit more. Sorry! --Orashmatash 17:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Moving to support per Gordon. --Orashmatash 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   • I don't see why the edit count is an issue, haven't you seen my previous edit counter with over 4000 edits? Normandy ^(talk) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm more concerned over the trust issues. Sorry, I'd be happy for the tools to be given back when I trust you a little more. Sorry! --Orashmatash 18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay. Well in that case if you "strongly believe it won't happen again" then how can you not trust me? Sorry but I just don't understand your oppose. Normandy ^(talk) 18:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe it won't happen again. However, it still happened and since I wasn't here when you edited as Kennedy you need to prove to me that I can trust you before I can support. Just looking at your logs doesn't prove much other than the fact that you had some blocks and deletions. --Orashmatash 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strongest possible oppose After all of his misgivings and the trouble he has caused and the havoc that has been wrought upon the community it surprises me that despite all this THE COMMUNITY IS STILL WILLING TO TURN A BLIND EYE. If I decided to go around socking and trolling and wreak other sorts of untold havoc, trusted or not, I'd expect to have a checkuserblock placed without prejudice. I'm surprised that hasn't happened in Kennedy's case. What's to say he won't lapse again? It doesn't matter that he decided to turn over a new leaf, it's just not worth having him return, he's shown nothing but poor judgment in the period from his initial desysopping and retirement hitherto and just because he's got a sincere front doesn't mean he'll actually stick to his promise. I'm sorry but I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS RFA. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:20pm • 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. ...wow. You know, I'm amazed time and again by the amount of good faith extended on this wiki, and this is coming from someone who's usually the softie in any discussion. I wasn't around when the candidate was Kennedy, but how in the name of all that is good is reinstating someone with this kind of record going to stop us being portrayed (as we are by many) as an oligarchic project which enforces policies arbitrarily? Candidate's recent edits are great. Giving people second chances is something I advocate. But there's been a gaping breach of trust (and policies, repeatedly, not just in the heat of one moment!) here that stretches into unbelievable, no matter how much respect Kennedy accrued during his service. Normandy has summed it up themself in "caused damage to my reputation". That's it. I think the fact that with the multiple accounts, attacks on the wiki and RfAs the candidate is still being allowed to edit is a remarkable show of grace already, given the little courtesy that is spared most sockpuppeteers. When is not "too soon"? I don't know. I think that there's been a botched cleanstart too many already to say "in the very near future". Clearly, the rest of the community disagrees, but that's fine-- consensus is how we're supposed to roll, after all. sonia♫ 03:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   • Maybe good faith is what's missing at enwp...? Yottie ^=talk= 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     • I assume that my soda is going to be carbonated... but when I get it and it is not, the assumption is no longer needed. Same here, I assume good faith, until editor conduct proves otherwise, then assumption is not required. That is how AGF works. Jon@talk:~$ 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Sonia. Once you loose admin privileges from anything other than inactivity, you don't get them back. Albacore (talk · changes) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course, since people never change. It seems pretty far-fetched to me to assume that this user has been doing good work for the past months solely so that they can become disruptive again as an admin. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, people have been stripped of bits for things other then inactivity, and have gotten them back. Some have even gone on to hold high positions.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Sadly going to have to agree with those above me. I can't support a candidate who disregarded our policies and procedures for his own means like he did. It's shocking to me that others are willing to write it off as an "error." An error is something done without being conscious/aware of your actions. Willfully disobeying rules is not an error. If this passes, it will say to others, it's okay to sock as long as you promise to be productive while socking and if you're really good we'll even reward you at RFA for it! Only (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose: As well as what others have said, I still don't believe Kennedy has sufficient maturity befitting an admin at this time, based on recent personal interactions. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   IRC is not WP. Normandie 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Correct. Now, as a historical precedent, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has on a few occasions held editors responsible for offsite conduct. Now while we do not fall under their purview, we do hold some of their guidelines when our own does not address a situation. I don't think it is a far reach for any editor to by extension apply that criteria on his or her vote/comment on a request, such as this. Very respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Your interactions here, or on IRC, are relevant to my opinion about your maturity. The standard "IRC is not WP" doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid, especially since I didn't reference IRC in the first place. It is your maturity I was observing, which is relevant to my decision (my decision, not anybody else's). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's clearly IRC as apart from here we have had no other contact. I'm surprised at your opinion here. I stand by the things I said. It shows as Jon has commented here but refused to discuss on IRC. I stand by what I said. Normandie 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Normandy, no clue here what you referring to. I don't see you on IRC, I've got your mask and nick ignored because of your aggression towards me in chat. I won't speak for Peter, but your maturity shows on the project, incidentally. Jon@talk:~$ 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ha! Normandie 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Haranguing Peter isn't really helping your cause. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:09pm • 08:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to support. I am concerned with the fact that you did not release information of your other account on your last RfA. I am willing to let the past stay in the past, but with the history of sockpuppetry and then not revealing it when required, I find it hard to support. I will be continuing to view this page and take into account other !votes, and will change my stance should a strong argument be presented on either side. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, as part of my return periodic checkuser... err, checks, were performed upon me and have proved negative. Although random checks of in-good-standing users is not a good idea, I would be happy for a further CU to be performed now, or in the future, at your request (and even for no other reason than) to prove there are no alternative accounts. Note; this is not permission for anyone to CU me at any time for any reason, but a one-off offer to try to assure Ajraddatz that I have no other accounts. Normandie 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big concern is honestly the lack of transparency on the last RfA. I don't think that a checkuser is required here, since your good faith is pretty obvious. I've changed to support for that reason. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Voluntary question As an admin your job is in a way to protect the wiki from things like vandals and sockpuppets and just generally disruptive users. Why should people trust you to do these things when you have yourself done the things that you were entrusted by the wiki to stop in your past? Since what you did was after the admin actions you mention they become rather irrelevant since your job was to stop people who did exactly what you did. So basically what has changed that we should now trust you when we clearly couldn't in the past? -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when I was an admin and crat my actions were never in question. I had an undisclosed alternative account for testing which is not against the rules. Unfortunately I got mixed up and accidentally voted twice in an election. This meant that the alternative account went from being completely good, to bad in one click of a button. A CU had previously checked my account ( for no valid reason, which I still don't agree with, but lets not get into that now...) and asked me to walk away from my tools. I decided to make things as transparent as possible and volunteered all the information and struck the vote and locked the alternative account and offered my resignation as an admin. The communities reaction was hard to take. I had put my blood and sweat into this project and the loss of faith in me was hard to take. The fact that people I had never heard of, and who are still not active, were voting for me to lose my rights and that my explanation was rebuffed put me down. I lashed out in frustration and caused damage to my reputation as well as disrupting this project. To directly answer your question; all I ever wanted to do was help this project. The reaction was frustration at not being able to help. I hope that I've proven that I am of great use to this project in my most recent actions. The reason I have started this RfA is that people are obviously beginning to trust me again. My probation was lifted early. This proves that my work here is appreciated and I am slowly regaining trust. I'd like to say again that my abilities as an admin were never in question. I never blocked anyone who should not have been, I never deleted anything I should not have, I never altered user's blocks when I should not have and so on. All that happened was an error of judgement to vote in that RfA. If I had never voted twice this would never have happened. So yes, its my fault, and I accept that and apologise for it. Again, directly answering your question; why should I be trusted? Because I've worked hard to regain your trust. If I do anything which is disruptive it will be easy enough to desysop me and block me, like it would be with you, Jon, CRRays or anyone else on this project. All my edits and admin actions are logged for everyone to see. I will not abuse the tools. I cannot abuse the tools. Therefore, why can't you trust me? Normandy ^(talk) 10:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all actions you could take are logged. Some passive actions, and even a couple of active ones are not logged. Jon@talk:~$ 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not sure what those 'passive' and 'active' actions are? Normandie 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should. You had alot of experience as a sysop, and a crat. If you are in fact, Kennedy, as you state. But since there is no outward link for verification, or any cryptographic assurance, such as a one was hash, that some sysops encode into his or her account, but you did not. I have no way to determine if you are truthful, because you rashly (Assuming you are Kennedy) removed all access to your past account. Now, I would assume Kennedy would know what actions are not logged. I'm even more uncomfortable you had to ask for clarification. I distrust you more. An example of a passive action that is not logged is viewing a deleted revision, or running the unwatched pages reports. Jon@talk:~$ 18:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is much risk involved in this request. I am very uncomfortable with the exposure it presents to the project. Jon@talk:~$ 17:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think we got that from your vote in the opposition area? Normandie 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sure hope so. Jon@talk:~$ 18:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Now I'm confused here... Scream, are you saying that you don't believe Normandy is Kennedy? That's kinda what it sounds like... I'm also curious which actions aren't logged. I'm unaware of any edits/admin/crat actions that aren't logged...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Please read my post above. Jon@talk:~$ 19:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're clutching at straws here. I have spoken to a member of WP on MSN, and can contact several on Facebook. I can be confirmed as Kennedy there. Do you think if I was not Kennedy I would return and take his guise? I'd think I'd have a better chance of passing an RfA when I was not Kennedy than if I was. As for your other point, how much harm can running an unwatched report do? Are you accusing me of using my admin tools to vandalise articles which no-one watches? I think I'd be caught pretty sharpish via RC. And viewing undeleted pages, in my experience deleted articles (even deleted revisions) are of no real interest to anyone. Your comments here, and your actions outwith this RfA, are quite embarrassing and laughable. I suggest a break from WP. Normandie 20:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks aside; I owe this project my unrestrained candor on these requests, most especially in the position I was elected. For me to provide less, would be a disservice. Jon@talk:~$ 20:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks? Normandie 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes, personal attacks. Where you state "...Your comments here, and your actions outwith this RfA, are quite embarrassing and laughable. I suggest a break from WP.". That portion of your post above. Jon@talk:~$ 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not seeing a personal attack... I refer to WP:NVS, your jumping in and changing PBP89's block, and so forth. This is my example of your embarrassing and laughable actions on WP. Normandie 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, now what you did right there, that is called | "Poisoning the well" This is your request, not mine. You are being evaluated for trust, not me. Jon@talk:~$ 20:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) e/c Thankfully, this is why RfXs (and the wiki in general) works on a consensus and not the absolutely ridiculous and pathetic views of one contributor. I'd hate to think where we'd be at if NVS had any level of 'control' over the wiki. And, fwiw, I do not trust you at all, and I know I'm not alone in that either. And as an addendum after the e/c... it's Kennedy/Normandy's request at the moment. Your time is on its way. Goblin 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]

Both of you need to be cautioned to remain respectful and try to maintain a decorum of collegiality, especially being both of you are administrator hopefuls. Please be civil and refrain from borderline personal attacks. Jon@talk:~$ 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to correct you on two points, both of which really back up many of my arguments against you. 1. I am not an administrator hopeful. I have stated numerous times that I will not be running for the tools again ever. Therefore, I am not, in any way, shape, or form, an 'administrator hopeful'. Maybe if you paid attention to the wiki instead of dipping in and out and undoing blocks that have a community consensus you'd have realised that. 2. Well, I was going to say I hadn't made a personal attack, but I now have in the latter part of point 1. Get over it and get off your high horse! Goblin 21:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Also, as an involved party I really don't think you're in a position to be giving out warnings to either myself or Kennedy/Normandy. Hmm. Goblin 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]

Neutral I'm still not convinced that the sockpuppeting was unintentional. It's possible he's telling the truth, but I feel that it's quite probable that he's being untruthful to the community. Had he admitted right from the start that it was intentional, I would've supported as it was a long time ago and people make mistakes. *shrugs* --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 21:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... You're saying that if I did it deliberately you would vote support, but because it was an accident you won't... Okay just making sure I got that properly. Normandie 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Can you expand upon this comment, especially "PPB89: You can't really claim a borderline PA from DJSasso when you start a heading with 'How dare you...'"? Are you suggesting that "How dare you" is a personal attack? Goodvac (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No not really. Just trying to defuse the situation and point out that PBP came in very angrily and then calling DJ on a PA. I just pointed that out. It wasn't a warning just noted. Normandie 12:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]