Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ABCD 3

Regarding the restarting of the nomination:
 * Who exactly decided this? I am still uncertain and am never in a rush to grant adminship.  Daniel Quinlan 07:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a consensus decision initiated by Tim Starling, the developer who did the sockpuppet check. --Carnildo 08:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The consensus appears to have developed over about 10 minutes, probably on IRC, at around 3am in the morning - which, no doubt, limited the prospects of a contrary view being put forward, jguk 08:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * what's your problem? the sockupuppet issue seems to be out of the picture, so it was only fair to start over. You are still free to oppose, of course. It's just that if we vote him down, it should be for his own (dis)merits, not somebody else's dab (&#5839;) 08:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The first mention of the possibility of wiping the vote and starting over was in this edit by Cecropia, seven hours after I mentioned making a real sockpuppet check, 18 hours before Tim Starling determined that ABCD wasn't a sockpuppet, and 22 hours before the decision to wipe and start over was made. --Carnildo 09:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Usually when an admin candidacy fails, as was the case here, we allow someone to reapply in a month's time. I see no reason why this wouldn't have been a good approach here, as it would have allowed the sockpuppet allegations to bed down properly, and users to vote when the issue is very much in the past. As it is, the second support vote puts as its primary reason for supporting that ABCD has been through enough. That's not a good reason for someone to become an admin, surely? It would have been better to wait a month and let ABCD's candidacy be decided on its merits, not the emotions of the sockpuppet dispute, jguk 09:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ouch, yeah. probably the best idea, however, it's a bit too late for that now. :-/ Instead I'll second the nomination, fwiw, (it certainly can't hurt imho). Kim Bruning 12:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This was originally extended by Raul654, an elected bureaucrat and formalized into another vote by me, another elected bureaucrat, after consideration of all the information. Put in formal terms, the previous voting was null because it was tainted by significant false information. This wipes the slate and allows everyone to vote, pro or con, with new information. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was going to nullify the old one anyway for the exact same reasons Cecropia did - it was tainted by a false accusation and as such, as inherently not fair. &rarr;Raul654 13:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)