Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD 2

ABCD
'''Vote nullifed and restarted because of significant new information. This is kept for record purposes only (16/9/2) ending 00:00 April 1 2005 (UTC)'''

I have been a user here since late October/early November 2004. Most of my edits have been minor in nature, and mainly dealing with janitorial type stuff. If I become an administrator, I will probably continue helping with the janitorial stuff and maintenance. I currently watch VfD, RfD, and CfD regularly, and will continue to do so. I anticipate helping with the maintenance of VfD, RfD, CfD, and TfD. I know and understand most of Wikipedia's policies, and abide by them. My first nomination was rejected, on basis of my not having spent enough time before then. – ABCD 18:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. We need more janitors. jni 19:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I've supported ABCD in Januari, and still do. Jordi·✆ 19:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Just like last time. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) (w) 21:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Good faith, though I would have preferred that ABCD wait to be nominated by someone else rather than self-nom again. Andre ( talk ) 02:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. ugen 64 03:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, screw it. I give up. ugen 64 04:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I was thinking of nominating this user in April. There is absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry. Good janitor. utcursch | talk 07:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for his janitorial work. Will do better with a mop and bucket. :) - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure Everyking 11:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Janitorial work is needed in Wikipedia. I'm sure this person will need adminsip to help him or her with such work. Squash 08:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I believe I opposed last time because of not enough edit summaries, and I have seen this ameliorate. By the way, ABCD is not a sockpuppet of me, and I am not a sockpuppet of ABCD  . --Lst27  ( t a l k )  00:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. This whole "sockpuppet" thing seems rather silly. --Carnildo 03:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. He is a good janitor. I have seen no evidence for him being a sockpuppet, merely Netoholic's hearsay, and I do not find his wanting to be an admin overly excessive. Rje 03:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) support. good user, the only issue seem to be sockpuppet concerns. assume some good faith, people! I don't know the Alex case, but you can't hold it against Jonathan that he uses the same ISP! Jonathan showed good faith by disclosing his name and location. He stated that he is not Alex (and this vote is obviously based on the statement. Should it turn out that he is, after all, Alex, it will be arbcom time. But I don't expect that to happen). Thank you for your useful work, ABCD, and thanks for sticking around after your previous request was turned down. I do think people with a penchant for cleanup rather than article-writing are perfect admin material (myself, I spend too much time editing articles to be much use as a janitor) dab (ᛏ) 06:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The only problem seems to be the sockpuppet issue, and I don't think he is. -- Scott  ei&#960;  10:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I see evidence only of positive motives by this editor for wanting adminship to further abilities to contribute to Wikipedia. --MPerel( talk 14:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I have seen his work on VfD and consider he deserves to be an admin. --Neigel von Teighen 20:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, switching stratagems takes some guts. Alright, fine by me :-) Note however that I'll keep an eye on ABCD. Kim Bruning 17:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I'm going to go with oppose, sorry. Overeagerness to become an admin isn't bad in and of itself, but doesn't lend extra confidence either. The note on your talk page re: archiving people's comments is a bit immature in addition. If you want to be an admin, should you model yourself after one that is under constant controversy or those that more or less are not? (Not necessarily pointing to myself here. I'll consider moving to at least Neutral if the preponderance of the evidence is that all of your edits are in good faith and there haven't been any obvious transgressions, but I don't have time to look through all the diff's right now. But overall, no offense, keep up the good work, just not sure you need admin powers just yet. - Taxman 20:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as before. Previous vote at Requests for adminship/ABCD.09 (moved there by ABCD, not sure why).  I remain convinced this is a new account of the person known as A /Alexandros/Greenmountainboy/Sennheiser/Alex /Perl.  Also, I don't like that he's self-nominated again and also tried soliciting votes.  -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * 3) * I moved it there, as the precidents at Wikipedia:Adminship candidacies not promoted seemed to show. – ABCD 20:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * In addition, I am not a sockpuppet, and did not realize that the solicitation would be view so negatively. If I had known, I would not have done so. – ABCD 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I must oppose yet again. I am very uncomfortable with the vote solicitation, and I have sock-puppet concerns. Moncrief 06:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, I don't think that's enough time editing, really.  I am also a bit concerned about overeagerness.  Daniel Quinlan 19:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Not enough time editing. Dmn / Դմն 18:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Does not meet my admin criterion. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social club, jguk 20:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) * How does writing a featured article help with janitorial matters? – ABCD 01:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) **I've given full reasoning for my admin criterion on the page I linked to. As an admin you would have full powers, including blocking people and page protection, plus you'd be expected to understand WP policy relating to encyclopaedia articles. I doubt anyone without much experience of making article contributions themselves would be able to exercise those powers as they should be exercised - particularly in your case where you have already run into disputes because you were unfamiliar with WP practice, jguk 06:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * See comments. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I too believe ABCD to be Alex, denials notwithstanding. In asking the question directly, I tried to signal that an honest answer to the question would not have prompted me to oppose the nomination, and could warrant forgiving past dishonesty (this was before Alex compounded the problem by voting "as Lst27"). While I do understand why Alex might not have understood that signal, I also do not find "honesty" very impressive when an admission comes only after the evidence has already proven the lie. Adminship is "no big deal", but still at the very least an admin must be a "trusted member of the community", and Alex continues to show that he cannot be trusted on this issue. --Michael Snow 18:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same ISP as Alex. I'd rather deny adminship to every innocent person in Charlottesville than risk giving Alex adminship. The newer voters here may not remember how many times Alex has lied to us, in an attempt to gain some higher place in the power structure. -- Tim Starling 03:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, see section on extending the term of the vote, below -- Tim Starling 05:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. If there is actual evidence that he's a sockpuppet, take it to the ArbCom. The fact that ABCD lives within 100 miles of another user is not convincing. He's enthusiastic and wants to help with cleanup tasks. That's good enough for me. Carbonite | Talk 13:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Several respected users now believe that the sockpuppet claim has merit. I was willing to assume it was a coincidence, but after ABCD's non-denial I can no longer support his RfA. Carbonite | Talk 03:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's a better answer than Alex favored response, "I AM NOT ALEX!?!?!?!!!11!!!!1111!!". ugen 64 04:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to claims that he was a sockpuppet, ABCD asked "Does it really matter?". The answer is clearly Yes. I'm unfamiliar with Alex or his sockpuppets. Therefore, I didn't hold the claims against ABCD when they were limited to one or two users. Now that several respected users (including admins and a developer) have supported the sockpuppet claims, it's necessary to take them seriously. Until recently, ABCD was denying that he was a sockpuppet. Now he seems to be wavering on this. There are simply too many unanswered questions right now. Carbonite | Talk 05:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * you're making me think twice now. If ABCD is Alex, but resolved to make a good admin, so that we'll never know, in a sense it doesn't matter. If ABCD is Alex, however, and we find out later, I have no doubt he will be de-adminned by the arbcom before he knows it. So I leave my supporting vote in place, clearly labelled as dependent on the assumption that ABCD didn't lie about his identity. I am confident people can be identified with reasonable certainty. Not just by their IPs, but also by their editing habits and by their language. If this is Alex who decided to quickly heap up 2000 minor edits so he can finally be an admin, I am sure this will be apparent shortly. And if he isn't, well I'm just sorry we are giving a completely innocent person such a tough ride...dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * His change of stratagy was by my advice. That he has the guts to try for it speaks well for him :-) Kim Bruning 17:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) It's hard to not support somebody named after a Frank Sidebottom album, but something about this cadidate doesn't sit right with me. A user since Nov, with lots of minor edits and self-nommed twice already... just seems to me like the user is a little too eager to get into adminship.  I don't know why, and I'm still assuming good faith, but that plus the sockpuppet accusation prevents me from casting a support at this time. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll support or not depending on how ABCD manages to diffuse (or not) his situation with Michael Snow. I'll grant that that's tougher than my normal criteria, so hmm, if ABCD only manages standoff, that'd be good enough. Kim Bruning 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I wonder why there's objections to soliciting votes.  When I ran for admin I contacted the twenty or thirty people I'd had some dealings with and asked them for their support, just as a candidate for public office would.  I certainly can't fault a candidate here for asking for support.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mea maxima culpa. Apologies to ABCD and Alex. I have no opinion one way or another. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2680 edits or so, the vast majority being minor as ABCD mentioned above.
 * On Netoholic's vote: Considering that ABCD "solicited" votes from everyone who participated last time, including opponents, I don't see how that can be held against him. And moving the previous nomination to a new location seems entirely innocuous; whether you do that, or call the renomination /ABCD2, or just overwrite the old and provide a link to the history, it's all the same in the end. I do remain concerned about overeagerness and similarities to Alex. --Michael Snow 22:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Michael Snow on his first point. I don't see how it holds against ABCD given that s/he asked his/her opponents. JuntungWu 03:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this account is used by Alex, but I note that when ABCD made a logged-out edit to his userpage, the IP address traces to Charlottesville, Virginia which is coincidentally also the hometown of Alex . --Yep
 * I'm not sure who Yep is (that was his first edit), but his comment seems to be inaccurate. Using IpLocator, the IP in question (69.170.2.115) actually traces to Leesburg, Virginia with 98% certainty. Leesburg is about 100 miles from Charlottesville. Carbonite | Talk 12:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Make that 100% certainty – I'm in Leesburg, Virginia now. – ABCD 15:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The hostname is "*.chvlva.adelphia.net", chlv = Charlottseville. I'm not sure how IpLocator works, but it was innaccurate on my IP address, so I think it's inaccurate here as well. The hostname, plus the similar obsession with gaining adminship, has me convinced this is the same person as Alex .  It's too bad someone exposed this proof, because I suspect Alex will leave the ABCD account and try again, this time more knowledgeable and careful. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * First, yes, the hostname is "*.chvlva.adelphia.net", however, that doesn't mean that I am in, or anywhere near, Charlottseville. All that means is that I am being routed through Charlottseville. I am currently at home, in Leesburg, but the hostname says Charlottseville, probably because that is the closest host, or the least busy at the time. – ABCD 19:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So, it is coincidence that %22+gmail&hl=en Alex uses the same ISP, that you live close enough to Charlottesville so as to be on the same network segment as him, and you show a similar strong desire for adminship and impatience? This is silly. -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * Sigh. My hostname is DC, and I live more than an hour away from Washington, DC. ugen 64 21:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This edit was made from 68.170.71.85 (talk, contribs), an IP address used by ABCD. –68.170.71.85 17:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is ABCD, and I approve the above message. – ABCD 17:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems nobody has put the question to ABCD outright, but since it has come up, and will undoubtedly keep coming up, why don't we just ask it? Alex isn't banned from adminship, and I'm not aware of anything ABCD has done that would preclude him from adminship, but everybody would be better off with a straight and honest answer. So ABCD, are you Alex? Please answer yes or no. --Michael Snow 00:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to make this perfectly clear, I am not Alex. – ABCD 00:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to note, that I am no longer operating anonymously, see User:ABCD. – ABCD 03:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed, Alex (and yes, I'm familiar with the whole story and am quite sure that this is Alex). Every time you try this stunt, it fails, and every time, you get the same reasonable advice, which you never heed: Stick to one account, stop creating sockpuppets, apologize for your deceptions, concentrate on editing well, and wait for someone to nominate you. Why? What is so hard about this? Don't you realize that every self-nominating sockpuppet just hurts your chances of ever becoming an admin? For those who aren't convinced that this is Alex again:
 * The IP evidence above spark suspicion.
 * His editing patterns, writing style, and obsession with adminship are similar.
 * He has used multiple accounts to vote in his own requests for adminship before.
 * Lst27 used the exact same words to deny that he was Alex. (Granted, "I am not Alex" is a simple sentence that anyone might use.)
 * Alex's sockpuppets have made up real-life identities before; User:Lst27 claimed to be "Nan from Guilderland Center, New York".
 * —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional suggestive evidence includes:
 * Trying to give an impression of greater participation by advertising accounts on other Wikimedia projects, even though these accounts have essentially no substantive contributions. This tactic has been used by Alex previously, including to gain adminship on other projects based on such misrepresentation.
 * A comparison of the contribution histories of ABCD and Lst27 reveals suspicious patterns; on days where one account is highly active, the other typically is not, and vice versa. There is of course some overlap, which is easily accomplished by having two browsers open simultaneously, but the general trend tells me they are the same person.
 * Based on my familiarity with the previous accounts and nominations, and the evidence pointed out by Netoholic and Mirv, I conclude that ABCD is Alex. --Michael Snow 18:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would just like to make this clear I am not Alex ! All evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and coincidental. In addition, I see no reason that these accusations would make me unfit for adminship. Finally, I was not trying to give the impression of greater participation, but rather make note of the fact that those accounts are my own, and give myself quick links to them. – ABCD 20:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but there's increasingly more of it, enough that plain denials are not good enough to convince me otherwise. And the accusations are not what makes you unfit for adminship. Being really eager to be an admin does not make you unfit. Having throwaway accounts on other projects does not make you unfit. Having previous Wikipedia accounts, or even using a sockpuppet account along with your main account, does not make you unfit. Having Aspergers does not make you unfit. Being Alex does not make you unfit. Continually, repeatedly, and persistently lying about these things does make you unfit for adminship, at least until you stop doing so, and establish that you can be as honest about yourself in seeking adminship as you are about other aspects of Wikipedia editing. --Michael Snow 20:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be that, I am telling the truth. I am not Alex. – ABCD 21:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Has anyone here actually thought of asking for a proper sockpuppet check, or are people simply going to keep throwing slanderous accusations around? --Carnildo 21:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean asking a developer to compare IPs? I'm afraid that kind of evidence wouldn't exonerate, it can only convict, and I've already seen enough evidence to be convinced. The developers are quite busy, and mostly hang out on IRC, which I don't use. But if you're interested, you might inquire with Tim Starling, I know he's taken an interest in Alex's activities before. --Michael Snow 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's alright, I always have time for a quick slanderous accusation. I don't really have access to any more information than you do, since you already know his IP matches. As I said above, I would oppose adminship for anyone from Charlottesville who can't prove that they are distinct from Alex . We know from experience that if ABCD is Alex, he will give his adamant denial until he decides he's not convincing anyone, then he'll disappear, to be replaced by the next sock puppet. If it's not Alex, we would also expect to see a denial, but hopefully it would be tempered by some understanding of our position.


 * I just noticed a second IP address for ABCD which I'd like to talk to him privately about. -- Tim Starling 04:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * To all those who believe that I am, or may be, a sockpuppet: Does it really matter? If I am, I am, and this is the account I use.  If I'm not, I'm not.  Either way, it shouldn't affect the results of this vote.  Also, when asking, "What are the odds?" you may want to check Special:Statistics, especially the number of registered users.  You will see that there are over 218000 users, making the probability that more than one person may have the same IP, especially since the IP's are rotated, or something like that.  I ask that you do not vote solely on the accusation of sockpuppetry, but rather on my willingness to do the janitorial work that is often neglected here. Thank you. – ABCD 21:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I intend to help with RfD, VfD, CfD, TfD, New Page Patrol, RC Patrol, and "Short Page Patrol."
 * Note: "Short Page Patrol" is searching Special:Shortpages for the pages that RC Patrol and NP Patrol missed.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. There are not any about which I am particularly pleased, as I perfer to do the janitorial work, as opposed to actual article creation.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. The only conflicts that I have been in were due to my misreading or not seening the pages on procedures for the various * for Deletion pages. When I was made aware of this, I read the pertinant pages, and apologized to the person that notified me.

Extension of term
I'm waiting on new evidence which may prove that ABCD is not Alex. Can we please extend the term of this vote to allow everyone to reconsider their opposition if this turns out to be true? For another week perhaps? -- Tim Starling 05:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I would think. --Michael Snow 05:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As a bureaucrat, I agree. I've extended the deadline to April 1. →Raul654 05:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to wipe this clean if ABCD is not Alex, and start over, without prejudice? I think we should suspend this until Tim has a chance to post his findings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in that scenario I'd hate to deprive him of the support votes already made, and I would expect to contact all the opposing voters about reconsidering - any that didn't reaffirm their opposition could probably be disregarded. In the meantime, I expect anyone who reads through this RfA will treat it as suspended until Tim has more to say; if the bureaucrats feel so inclined, a notice to that effect could be posted to discourage those who don't read before voting. --Michael Snow 07:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing I'm looking at is that all the current material is a lot to wade through, not all of it has to do with sockpuppetry, and it isn't a good precedent to contact only the "opposes" to ask them to reconsider (though any individual Wikipedian could contact whomever they wish). If Tim can affirm that ABCD is not a sockpuppet, I can think of a few ways to go:
 * Blank it all and make it a new nomination with the Tim Starling info mentioned and a link to the former. Some ways I think this is best;
 * Simply extend the current nomination with whatever Tim finds;
 * Refactor, keep all the votes as is vis a vis Support or Oppose and contact every voter to ask them if they wish to affirm or reconsider their vote. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sockpuppet
He's not a sockpuppet. He has an email address registered with Wikipedia which identifies him, although he has user-to-user email disabled in his preferences. The email address is on a special domain name which Alex definitely would not have access to. -- Tim Starling 00:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you verify he can actually receive email at that address? I'd be curious to know which one that is (at least the domain, if not the user part), as I'm not sure we know enough about Alex to be sure about that statement. However, I'd understand if this was something ABCD would rather not reveal. --Weyes 00:49, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think the most fair thing to do would be to restart this nom and say that the sockpuppet allegations were completely meritless. Thoughts, anyone? →Raul654 00:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. – ABCD 01:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to know the answer to Weyes' question. --Michael Snow 01:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, valid point - we should verify that the email address is actually valid. →Raul654 01:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's valid - he mailed me, and I responded. – ABCD 01:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The email address definitely belongs to ABCD, that was the reason for the 24 hour delay. I sent an email to him, asked for the extension of term, then received the reply before I started this thread. He has asked that I not give away any details about the email address, especially the domain name. -- Tim Starling 01:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Anyone other issues, or can we jumpstart this one again? →Raul654 01:18, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul, when it is restarted, I think everyone involved will need to know, but, because of the negative responce to my informing users of the vote, I think you or someone else should be the notifier. – ABCD 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is it not possible for Alex to have the email address in question? -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * He cannot because my father owns the domain name. – ABCD 01:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How do we know what Alex father's name is? Moncrief 01:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll testify to that. Confirmed via whois. -- Tim Starling 01:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * And the domain was registered before the whole Alex saga began? --Weyes 01:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * It was registered on 20 March 2001. – ABCD 01:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There was a second piece of evidence that I haven't told you about. ABCD has edited from his school in Leesburg, and Alex has edited from his school in Charlottesville. The traceroutes split a couple routers back from the end. The two places are 140km from each other. Alex has maintained since the beginning, through all his identities, that he comes from Charlottesville, and he wrote a signficant portion of the article on the town. He also gave his residential address in Charlottesville. Whois information for ABCD's email address gives a Leesburg address. ABCD's father has several google hits referring to his activities in Loudoun County. Jonathan himself has one google hit referring to his activities in Loudoun County. No Alex identity has ever contributed to the Leesburg, Virginia article. It seems to me to be extraordinarily unlikely that Alex was just pretending to be in Charlottesville, and was actually  name removed, see history  all along. -- Tim Starling 02:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * How do we explain the non-denial above then? Moncrief 02:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to diffuse the situation, remind people that this isn't a vote to determine my identity. I didn't realize that it would be taken in the manner that it was. – ABCD 02:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you were wrong, identity is important. You didn't handle this at all well. You could have easily presented evidence that you were not Alex yourself. It's not like it's a violation of your anonymity, you already give your real name and your town. Did you know that there's only one Callen in Leesburg in the white pages? You have to be prepared to address the concerns of the community if you want to be an administrator, not attempt to dismiss them. -- Tim Starling 02:40, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Did you know that there's only one Callen in Leesburg in the white pages?" No, I didn't. "You have to be prepared..." That, unfortunatly, was the one thing that I was not prepared to address. I appologize for any mistakes I have made, and will try not to repeat them in the future. – ABCD 02:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)