Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008

General user info Username: A new name 2008 User groups: rollbacker First edit: Oct 03, 2008 17:36:33 Unique articles edited: 5,807 Average edits per page: 3.29 Total edits (including deleted): 19,096 Deleted edits: 1,873 Live edits: 17,223 Namespace totals Article	12355	71.74% Talk	792	4.60% User	179	1.04% User talk	3504	20.34% Wikipedia	355	2.06% Wikipedia talk	21	0.12% File	1	0.01% Template	7	0.04% Template talk	1	0.01% Help	3	0.02% Category	2	0.01% Portal	3	0.02% Graph Month counts 2008/10	1500	2008/11	2425	2008/12	1774	2009/01	1753	2009/02	2790	2009/03	2404	2009/04	1727	2009/05	1325	2009/06	618	2009/07	376	2009/08	371	2009/09	160	Logs Pages moved: 45 Pages patrolled: 73

Re: my struck oppose
Hi. I didn't FULLY read your RFA before putting my vote in. At first I thought you were trying to pull something, then I took another look at the initial questions after I voted and saw that you had another account, so I felt bad for voting oppose as I did, and felt it no longer applied. So I struck my oppose, mainly because I felt soooo bad afterward for not assuming good faith on my part - call it "voting remorse", if you will. ArcAngel (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem, I should have directed people to my added Question 4 since I knew the question would come up. I added to my opening statement to direct people to Q4 to explain that discrepancy.  A new name 2008 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are we able to verify the edits under the other account, though? -- Menti  fisto  13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point there is no way to verify that I have around 30,000 edits in over 2 years. There are 19,000+ total edits with over 17,000 of them live edits on this username that are verifiable.  You can Assume good Faith that what I am telling you is true.  If that is not enough and editors wish to oppose because I am not willing to divulge my old username, I will continue to edit as a user, nothing will change.  This is a community decision and I am willing to accept whatever the community decides.  --A new name 2008 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were in your situation, I would just have said that I have 19000 edits and have had a registered account since October 2008. In fact, I used to enjoy claiming that I had been here since 2001 ... and I have, as an IP ... but since I can't prove the IP's were me I've decided to abandon that and just speak about my edits under the Soap account, which I registered in early 2006.  However I can understand why you did mention the old account, as 1) Your current username makes it obvious, and 2) it had a lot of edits, whereas all of my IP edits from 2001 to 2006 add up to less than 1% of my current total.  On a tangential note, if this RfA passes, I would recommend considering changing your username to something more distinctive.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I was trying to be upfront so that someone wouldn't think I was hiding something. --A new name 2008 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing bothers me more than the realization that if you had lied you probably would be passing the RfA right now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have come to the conclusion that this probably won't pass, mostly based on the fact that I came clean and self-reported that I had another username in the past. If I had picked a different username when I created this account and kept the fact to myself most of the opposition might not be there.  Based on the oppose comments it doesn't appear that I will ever be able pass an RFA because they can not support an editor that has specified they have another account and won't disclose it.  I plan on letting this run for the whole 7 days to see what happens.  -- A new name 2008 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think probably someone would still have figured out by the quality and type of your first edits that you've had another account before, and there might be just as many opposes for not disclosing that. This really is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation that is completely not your fault, and you've been put into an unfair position. However, I do think you can pass in a future RFA. I think there will always be some editors who will oppose on the basis of you having an undisclosed prior account, but I notice about half of the opposes are about your lack of participation in certain areas or the way you've presented your undisclosed account in this RFA, so I think if you address those concerns, you probably will pass in a few months. But it is extremely unfair that you would have to do that: be basically perfect and only barely squeak by when the rest of us easily pass by merely being a "net gain as an administrator". -kotra (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From my count it's currently at 75% support, but about half of the oppose votes only opposed because you weren't open about your previous account, and in fact one oppose was simply "I share Ironholds' concerns" even though Ironholds later withdrew the oppose vote. If the oppose votes that only complained about you concealing your old account identity were discounted, the count would sit at 85%, which is a pretty comfortable confirmation (last month, Fribbler was promoted with an 80% support count). So I certainly wouldn't give up now, there are still a couple of days left and in the end a bureaucrat might not weigh all of those oppose votes equally with everything considered. --  At am a  頭 06:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to just clarify something - (obviously I can't speak for other WPedians, but this is my logic) - I have no problem whatsoever that you have an old account. Personal ID being in there is a very good reason for changing it, and even if there wasn't something like that, I don't have a problem with someone walking away and coming back as new.  In fact, I'm delighted that, faced with that choice, you made a new account and continued with the project rather than walking away.  I also have no problem with the whole PT thing, and am sure Thatcher has accurately verified no problems.  My problem is that on September 10 2009, you stood up, and asked for the mop, relying in part on contributions from the past account.  That's not the old account vanishing, that's trying to bring bits and pieces of it with you.  As far as I'm concerned, you appeared here on 3rd October 2008 - before then, whether you were a vandal or an admin is quite irrelevant to me.  If you go for it again in a short while without invoking that past account as a reason for support (although, given its publicity, I wouldn't try lying about its existence ;-)), I would be quite likely to support you.  But retiring that account, disassociating yourself from it, then asking us to support you based in part on its contributions, is my objection.  If you wanted to say it existed or not, that's another thing, but claiming its edit count as your own when that account is no longer you is my objection.  This was longer than I meant it to be, but I wanted to address your comment that you would 'never be able to pass an RFA' - I can't speak for others, but for this #oppose, at least, all you need do is display consistency - embrace that old account, or dump it, don't try a bit of both - and problems disappear.  --Saalstin (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Guilt by association
Is it just me, or does it seem wrong that the recent revelations about Pastor Theo are effectively sinking this RFA? The supports were at 76% and growing, but now they're at 70% and falling. Can we maintain some perspective: Pastor Theo's misconduct is not ANN2008's fault? Thatcher's confirmation should be more than enough to alleviate any suspicion there. -kotra (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an extremely unfortunate set of circumstances; ANN08 could never have guessed that his/her choice of advocates would turn out to be guilty of the very thing people are wary about here. I have a feeling, though, that some people would be made gunshy of supporting candidates with undisclosed histories regardless of association.  I can imagine the following:
 * Oppose per the Pastor incident, can't trust admins with a shady past.
 * Right or wrong, I doubt that much can be done to alleviate people's fears, Thatcher's re-confirmation notwithstanding. Shereth 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite Pastor Theo's desyopping (how sad, especially since he is a man of the cloth), I still trust his research into the candidate's previous account(s) to stand by my support rationale. ArcAngel (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have doubts he really was a "man of the cloth". Fooled me at the time, but looking over his edits again, some of the things he said were a little over-the-top. Should have realized at the time, but... AGF. -kotra (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (response to Shereth) But ANN2008's "shady past" is completely different from Pastor Theo's: ANN2008 was up-front from the start about his/her prior account (the username being a prime example of this), has been willing to disclose to two editors the prior account, and the good behavior of the prior account has been confirmed by Thatcher. Whereas Pastor Theo disclosed nothing, had poor behavior on the prior account, and was banned. If all it takes to fail an RFA is undisclosed edits, everyone who previously edited under an IP (even as long ago as a year) and hasn't disclosed that IP should fail. -kotra (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it still makes people nervous, so to speak. I agree with you 100% that the connection is completely irrelevant, I just have little optimism that people willing to oppose on that grounds are going to change their minds. Shereth 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was a tactical mistake for ANN2008 to want to rely on an additional 10K+ edits and history without disclosing it. It would have been better to keep it low key.  Although, even "I made some edits from another account that I dropped because I chose the name unwisely, please judge me on my current account only" would probably turn off some people anyway.  However, he should not be punished for choosing the wrong person to vouch for him.
 * There is also the possibility of disclosing the account for purposes of the RFA, then blanking the link after the RFA closes and relying on people's discretion not to make a fuss over it. Thatcher 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Amazingly enough, since I can't think of a way to be more upfront about a name change than calling oneself "A new name 2008". They didn't hesitate to disclose their previous username to (supposedly) trusted users, said trusted users confirmed that it was a clean break without issues, and the new account has enough tenure on its own anyway to judge him by (*far* more than Pastor Theo had). For all we know, a prime example of a WP:SOCK (not WP:CLEANSTART), yet it still bites them in the behind, due to extremely bad luck and timing. Amalthea  18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Newname didn't really choose Theo anyway; it's just that Theo was the first one to volunteer. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not ANN's fault, it is just too concerning to let go. I don't see many people people talking about that. — neuro  (talk)  17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In danger of missing the point
With all the furore about transparency and name changes, this candidate has gone practically unreviewed. "I am uncomfortable/sympathise with your actions regarding your former account" is by no means a good enough rationale to sway this entire candidacy. Can we please focus on the substance of their contributions? Skomorokh 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please AGF that people do. Just because editors don't comment that they did do a review does not, in fact, mean they did not. Pedro : Chat  21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above sentence of mine leaves a fair bit to be desired in terms of construction, I appreciate :) ! Pedro : Chat  21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume everyone does a good job at whatever they attempt to do". Friday (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors manifestly haven't focused on the substance of the contributions – no assumptions needed. Who has checked their AIV reports? PRODs? How many editors have given assessments of the strength of their contributions at AfD (one) or their communication with inexperienced editors (none)? RfA has a tendency to latch on to one facet of the candidate (in the recent past we have seen plagiarism accusations, civility, errors at CSD) to the neglect of a full and fair assessment. Skomorokh  21:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, editors manifestly haven't made many comments on the contributions - this is entirely distinct from "this candidate has gone practically unreviewed". I for one made my usual thorough review of contributions and the RFA discussion. I commented on the aspects that were concerning the opposers at that time, taking it as red that I would not be supporting a candidate with (IMO) substandard contributions. Pedro : Chat  21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Curiously
By my count, half of the opposes are based solely upon claims that there is not enough “transparancy.” This means that this user, by lying and having a different user-name, would have passed this RfA. I think this sends a very nasty message to future RfA candidates. Clearly, telling people the truth, but letting them know you can't safely reveal everything is worse than concealing the entirety of the truth. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By lying perhaps it would have been discovered and the nominee would get opposed for that. Basically damned if you do, damned if you don't. Garion96 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, these opposes are particularly nonsensical. If the crats are feeling particularly activist today, maybe they'll bite the bullet and use "crat discretion" rather than vote-counting.  Friday (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (As a supporter) In fairness, a fair number of supports are "I wouldn't have !voted, but I disagreed with those opposing over this", so it isn't that clear cut. Note also that some of the "non-transparent" voters note that the claiming of the 11k edits was part of the problem.  In retrospect (and I think new name would agree with this), it would have been better to say something like "For full disclosure, I had a previous account that I abandoned due to it having person info linking to it." Thus admitting the account without staking claim to its edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposing for the existence of an undisclosed alternate account is quite legitimate. It's not possible to switch Wikipedia to a "one account for life" rule, but nothing prevents someone from having that as a part of their RFA criteria.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was directed at me specifically, but just in case I agree with the principle that people are free to oppose for whatever reason they like. I was merely attempting to show that merely throwing these oppose votes out wouldn't be fair by any measure. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a fair characterization of the situation. Many of the opposes are more nuanced than that, even if you disagree with them. It could have been handled differently, still been honest about the previous account and not generated so much opposition. - Taxman Talk 17:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The candidate's mistake was in saying he used to edit under another username, and that we should consider how well he did as that user, but that we shouldn't be allowed to judge for ourselves, we should just "trust him". The right approach would be to say that he used to edit under another user but had to stop using that ID for privacy reasons, and let it go at that. Then his appropriateness could be evaluated based on his activities solely as his current (though poorly chosen) username. A few months from now, he might be able to stand on his own, under his current ID. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point. I never asked anyone to evaluate me based on the other account or that anyone should consider how well I did as that user.  I just stated in round numbers how long I was on the other account and how many edits it had.  Then went on to say that it was clear of any blocks.  I did not realize that people would take that as me asking them to evaluate me on that account.  This is my fault since obviously I did not communicate clearly enough what my intentions were.  This was a good learning experience, I understand better what other editors are looking for and their thought process about RFAs.  -- A new name 2008 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is well explained. I think these comments may have helped earlier on, but I can see why you might have been hesitant to defend yourself against such views at the time (some people at RFAs jump at the slightest excuse to shout "oppose-badgering", nor do many people like to admit fault and change their !votes [often related?]). Regardless, I think nearly everyone who participated in this RFA would be open to the idea of supporting you for adminship in the future. If you care to do it again. Regardless, kudos for maintaining your cool in what turned out to be one of the more controversial RFAs lately. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly feel the efforts of a group of people of the "information wants to be free, yo" variety was involved here. They decided that something wasn't being told, they assume that everything should always be "free and open", and therefore latched onto any reason to oppose that they could find. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to say a simple "ditto". Kotra took words out of my mouth. ;) Jamie  S93  23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)