Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Grondemar

Grondemar's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC):

Username:	Grondemar User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Dec 13, 2009 18:29:59 Unique pages edited:	2,626 Average edits per page:	2.83 Live edits:	7,003 Deleted edits:	435 Total edits (including deleted):	7,438

Namespace Totals

Article	2730	38.98% Talk	350	5.00% User	244	3.48% User talk	1133	16.18% Wikipedia	920	13.14% Wikipedia talk	135	1.93% File	74	1.06% File talk	2	0.03% Template	383	5.47% Template talk	1003	14.32% Help	7	0.10% Help talk	3	0.04% Category	11	0.16% Category talk	4	0.06% Portal	4	0.06% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2009/12	28 	2010/01	138 	2010/02	420 	2010/03	664 	2010/04	1025 	2010/05	1066 	2010/06	438 	2010/07	710 	2010/08	870 	2010/09	1025 	2010/10	332 	2010/11	88 	2010/12	199

Top edited pages (hide)Article

* 338 - 2009_International_Bowl * 312 - 2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl * 148 - List_of_Connecticut_Huskies_bowl_games * 91 - Huskies_of_Honor * 48 - 2002_Continental_Tire_Bowl * 34 - Larry_Taylor_(gridiron_football) * 33 - 2009_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team * 30 - John_Toner * 29 - 2007_Meineke_Car_Care_Bowl * 23 - 2004_Motor_City_Bowl

(hide)Talk

* 17 - 2009_International_Bowl/GA1 * 15 - Albany,_New_York/GA1 * 10 - 2009_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team/GA1 * 9 - Safety_(American_football_position) * 8 - 2010_East–West_Shrine_Game/GA1 * 7 - Washington_&_Jefferson_Presidents_football/GA1 * 6 - 2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl * 6 - 2009_International_Bowl * 5 - Terrence_Cody/GA1 * 4 - Katherine_Reutter/GA1

(hide)User

* 31 - Grondemar/Drafts * 28 - Grondemar/Contributions/GAN * 22 - Grondemar/Contributions * 19 - Grondemar * 16 - Grondemar/Drafts/TFA * 14 - Grondemar/Topics/Connecticut_Huskies_bowl_games * 14 - Grondemar/Drafts/List_of_Connecticut_Huskies_footb... * 12 - Grondemar/Awards * 11 - Grondemar/Topicons * 9 - Grondemar/monobook.js

(hide)User talk

* 92 - Grondemar * 23 - TonyTheTiger * 10 - Giants2008 * 7 - Wizardman * 7 - Viridiscalculus * 6 - Materialscientist * 6 - Sphilbrick * 6 - Juliancolton * 6 - Joelpw122 * 5 - TomCat4680

(hide)Wikipedia

* 150 - Today's_featured_article/requests * 60 - Good_article_nominations * 38 - WikiProject_Connecticut * 25 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 25 - WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog_elimination_... * 21 - Good_articles * 20 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Connecticut_Huski...   * 17 - Featured_article_candidates/2010_PapaJohns.com_Bow... * 16 - Peer_review/2009_International_Bowl/archive1 * 13 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention

(hide)Wikipedia talk

* 28 - Today's_featured_article/requests * 28 - Did_you_know * 17 - Featured_list_criteria * 12 - WikiProject_Connecticut * 9 - WikiProject_College_football * 8 - WikiProject_Good_articles * 6 - WikiProject_College_Basketball * 3 - Featured_article_review/History_of_the_Australian_... * 2 - Requests_for_adminship * 2 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

(hide)File

* 3 - Huskies_of_honor_womens_closeup.JPG * 3 - UConn_Bowl_Game_Banners.JPG * 3 - PJcomBowl_Logo.png * 2 - 2009_International_Bowl_trophy.jpg * 2 - 2009_International_Bowl_Rogers_Centre_exterior.jpg * 2 - First_Congregational_Church_of_East_Hartford_CT.jp... * 2 - 2009_International_Bowl_pregame_UCMB.jpg * 2 - 2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl_UConn_on_offense_4th_quart... * 1 - Ebenezer_Grant_House_South_Windsor_CT.jpg * 1 - St_Johns_Episcopal_Church_East_Hartford_CT.JPG

(hide)File talk

* 2 - Donald_Brown_at_2010_UConn_Spring_Game.JPG

(hide)Template

* 122 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 * 92 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 * 22 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_3 * 17 - Huskies_of_Honor_Navbox * 12 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_4 * 5 - 1999_Connecticut_men's_basketball * 5 - Big_East_Mascots * 4 - 2004_Connecticut_men's_basketball * 3 - Connecticut_bowl_games * 3 - Connecticut_Huskies_men's_basketball_coach_navbox

(hide)Template talk

* 998 - Did_you_know * 1 - Huskies_of_Honor_Navbox * 1 - Category_redirect * 1 - 2004_Connecticut_men's_basketball * 1 - 1999_Connecticut_men's_basketball * 1 - 1999_Connecticut_basketball

(hide)Help

* 1 - Using_colours * 1 - Color * 1 - Colors * 1 - Colour * 1 - Using_colors * 1 - Colours * 1 - Using_Colours

(hide)Help talk

* 3 - Using_colours

(hide)Category

* 3 - Connecticut_Huskies_football_coaches * 1 - New_York_Giants_players * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_templates * 1 - Spanish_Roman_Catholics * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_templates * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_football_templates * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_football_bowl_games * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_soccer * 1 - Connecticut_Huskies_men's_basketball_templates

(hide)Category talk

* 3 - Connecticut_Huskies * 1 - UConn_Huskies

(hide)Portal

* 1 - American_football/Intro * 1 - American_football * 1 - Contents/Portals/People_and_self * 1 - Transport/Selected_article/Week_34,_2010

RFA and sockpuppeting
What is going on here? Kevin is getting the online version of crucifixion for actually investigating a user's edits and !voting based on what he found, eg what RfA voters are supposed to be doing with every candidate? AGF'ing admin candidates is allowed, but it should never be lorded over honest opposers to stifle relevant concerns. It's fine to oppose first and change the !vote after an explanation is given (which we are still waiting for, in this case). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fine to oppose someone because you think they are a sockpuppet, without waiting for an explanation from them. The so-called concerns are trivial and easily explained away. AGF is not an option, and without any evidence, the candidate is not a sockpuppet so should not be opposed for it. If anything, they should be strongly supported, if they're showing a level of competency that early, they must be amazing now! AD 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Competence alone should never be considered grounds for sockpuppetry accusations. With other evidence, sure it's worth mentioning and investigating, but that's not the case here.... Heck, you commented on several RFAs in your first 100 edits, what was your previous account?  New users never comment at RFA.  On the other hand maybe you had a lot of competence to begin with, which is why you're a competent administrator.....  Sailsbystars (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny you should bring this up, Sailsbystars. I had a look at what was about The ed17's 57th edit, the first RFA vote, and it was "I am a pretty new user, but he seems like he would be a very good admin.". Similar to 'In your eleventh overall edit (counting deleted), you left a message on WT:TFA/R, where you – without prompting – gave yourself an immediate defense against this exact question in case TFA regulars noticed your lack of experience. "I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Wikipedia ..."'. AD 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, I haven't looked at these edits in a very long time. Sequence of events:
 * Jedi6 leaves me a message about my signature.
 * Ed finds RfA box at the bottom of his user page with Jedi's name in it.
 * Because Jedi6 was so kind, Ed !votes in Jedi's RfA (very naively, I might add).
 * The !vote was quite different from Grondemar's. Saying I'm new and displaying incompetence (and sheer weirdness) is quite different from "I'm a long-term reader [hence my competence in editing]." Now, I'll thank you guys to focus on Grondemar and to stop introducing red herrings. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So Grondemar not only found his way there, like you did, he read the instructions and proceeded with caution. Desperately dodgy, eh?
 * I don't object to politely asking a candidate about something, as you did, even if the grounds are little more than a niggling doubt. However there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, and clear evidence of unusual competence and courtesy, so accompanying that question by an immediate oppose was not WP:AGF.
 * Unfortunately, Kevin was much less restrained, which was why my objection was posted in response to Kevin, not you.
 * I'm please to see Grondemar's reply, and pleased that Kevin has struck his observations. But I'm very disappointed that you describe AGF concerns as a red herring. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment did not convey what I wanted it to. The red herring I refer to is analyzing my own contributions rather than Grondemar's. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not a red herring either. You applied a test to Grondenar's contribs, and AD applied the same test to yours, which neatly illustrated the limitations of that approach. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Opposing
I saw this comment "No, it's not fine to oppose someone because you think they are a sockpuppet", and beg to differ. All Wikipedians are welcome to vote any way they choose, for what ever reason they choose. Ed and Kevin, have every appearance of acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. While AD or even myself might have chosen to vote Neutral or deffer voting until the question was addressed, Ed and Kevin made a different choice, that is well in the range of appropriate. It is fine to vote your conscience and their researching before making that choice, should be applaud. Jeepday (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are no rules against it, so what that comment really means is "I don't think it's fine to oppose someone because you think they are a sockpuppet". And I, for one, don't. Of course, people can vote however they want and we can't stop them, but we can challenge their opinions and explain why we think they are wrong. Ideally, a discussion might even break out. Some people seem to think that if several people argue with an "oppose" vote, that they are being unfair to the opposing editor who should be left in peace to vote how he wants. I've never understood this. If we really want RfA not to be just a vote, then we should be encouraging discussions, encouraging people to defend their votes, encouraging people to challenge votes they disagree with. Debate is good. Trebor (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)