Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rodhullandemu

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (68/1/7); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I present to you my first nominee for adminship, Rodhullandemu. Rodhullandemu is a tireless contributor who has achieved an impressive record in his time here. He is already involved in activities where he is exposed to administrative responsibilities, as evidenced by his extensive record with CSD and AN/I. He also has significant vandal patrolling experience and some competent article building to boot. Rodhullandemu has demonstrated the judgment and patience necessary to be an admin, and I believe he would be an invaluable asset with the mop. - Revolving Bugbear 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept User:Revolving Bugbear's kind nomination. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the community here is prepared to express its confidence in me, I will do my best not to let the side down. Sure, I've made mistakes, but in doing so I have taken the opportunity to learn from them. I'm sure they won't be my last, but having spent some time here and here, I think I'm aware of most of the pitfalls, and I do try not to rush into things in any event. Knowing that any action I might take as an admin would be under scrutiny would make me even more aware of thinking before pushing that button. My editing experience I leave to speak for itself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially, much the same as I do now, reverting vandalism, of which I have seen a lot, and dealing with CSD & AFD; I have learnt our fair-use policy the hard way and feel confident that I can be of use there. Meanwhile, there are always backlogs here and I would take a part in WP:AIV and WP:RfPP. I would of course study Admin School and over time would seek to develop skills to deal with more contentious matters as my abilities improve.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have started a number of articles and improved others; whenever I have seen incorrect or clumsy language, I have tried to improve it. I have reviewed one article as a WP:GA candidate and as a result I hope it's better for that. Vandal-fighting is sometimes invisible, but necessary, and I have made a useful contribution there too, I feel. In general, I consider my contributions have improved the encyclopedia, and that is a good enough reason to be here.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I am lucky to have escaped some of the more contentious issues which seem to produce so much drama here; when conflicts have arisen, they are normally matters of sourcing or interpretation which I have normally been able to resolve through achieving agreement or consensus. Dealing with some editors can be stressful, because they may be less aware of our requirements for reliable sources and verifiability, but if I advise them of policy, even in informal language, it's frustrating when they just don't get it. However, I've usually got the angel of mercy over my left shoulder. In future, even based on recent experience, I will walk away for a while, take a deep breath and then return with, hopefully, a clearer mind.

Question from The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

4. What is your opinion of editors who make a spectacle of "retiring" from Wikipedia only to return a short time later?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't be asked to judge another editor personally; but in general terms it can be all too easy to get carried away by the drama, and it is always difficult to tell whether editors who "make a spectacle" of retiring are merely trying to make a point. The fact that they return shows either masochism, self-confidence, addiction, or commitment to the goals of the project, and we have only their edits by which to judge any of these things. I've heard it said that in human communication, body language conveys about 80%, tone of voice 15% and the actual words used, the remaining 5%. All we see here are the latter and some part of the former. However, if such an editor returns, we should assume good faith and accept that they want to edit here, and let water pass under the bridge. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Tiptoety

5.What are your thoughts on administrators open to recall? Would you add yourself, why or why not? Tiptoety ^talk 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would always consider myself accountable to the community, however, I'm not yet convinced that recall is a properly constituted process given that I would be able to set out both the mechanism and the criteria for that procedure myself. I am aware of the need to defend against frivolous complaints, which occasionally happen, but if it became obvious that I no longer deserved my colleagues' confidence, then I would resign the mop anyway, and if I felt strongly about it, launch a new RfA. I am open to persuasion, and for the time being would not subscribe to that category, but reserve the option to do so at a later date. If I am trusted with the mop, I hope I would also be trusted to do the right thing should things go wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6.What is the difference between a ban and a block? Tiptoety ^talk 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Both are ways of protecting the project. A block is a mechanism for preventing an editor from editing and may be temporary or indefinite, but is appealable. A ban is a community policy decision, or a decision by ArbCom, that an editor is not welcome to edit here under any circumstances, which include an existing account, as an anon IP, or by using a sockpuppet account. In practical terms, banned editors will have already been blocked, and the effect of a ban is that no admin is prepared to unblock that editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NASCAR Fan24

7. Suppose that you were CSD-tagging and came across the following articles. What would you tag each page as, if necessary? NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"John Roberts is a well-known amateur film-maker from Tallahassee, Florida. Most of his videos have been viewed over one million times on YouTube."

A: It doesn't fall within any of the general criteria for speedy and it's not a CSD#A7 since notability is asserted; would probably do a search for independent reliable sources and send to WP:AFD if none were found or tag with {{Unreferenced}}, bearing in mind YouTube is not necessarily regarded as a reliable source in itself.

"Elroy Budkip is an auto mechanic from Las Vegas, Nevada."

A: Delete using CSD#A7 as no assertion of notability.

"Bob's Gutter Cleaning Company is the best gutter cleaning company on the east side of the Mississippi River. With their friendly, professional service, you know that you are getting the best treatment possible!"

A: If that's all it consists of, it's a CSD#G11 - blatant advertising.

Redirect: Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre -> Spanish Wikipedia

A: Not being a Spanish speaker, I can't tell if the language is correct, but it seems to be a plausible valid redirect not obviously falling foul of CSD#R3. If I hadn't seen anything like that before, I might take advice before deleting it.

"The Manchester Southern Connector Motorway is a proposed upgrade of the A556 that connects the M56 motorway to the M6 motorway. Construction is due to start in 2028."

A: Even though WP:Notability (highways) is not policy, I would take it as persuasive and regard United Kingdom motorways and A roads as inherently notable. If unable to find reliable and verifiable sources, given that projects like this usually have a long lead-time, would probably send it to WP:AFD per WP:CRYSTAL.

• See Rodhullandemu's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Rodhullandemu: Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rodhullandemu before commenting.

• I have said above that I have made mistakes here, and learned policy the hard way. I make no bones about that. I did not wish to air my past health problems here, but User:Edward Morgan Blake's comments below, despite the fact that he has only 237 edits to the project, mean that I now may have to, and it is only fair to the community that there is an explanation. It is late here now and there are still other issues besides the Wikistress of going through this RfA; so if I can, I intend to sleep on this for now and return refreshed tomorrow. I would ask any concerned colleague to either wait until I am in a position to deal with those comments rationally, or to pose further questions if you prefer. I will do my best to address them. But not right now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could sleep on it and ignore it. I don't see anything you need to address, unless you feel like you want to clear the air. Otherwise, take care of yourself. the_undertow ^talk 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have many edits, but I would have hoped a focus on my comments if you were to respond (which, as noted, is not necessary) instead of an ad hominem attempt at belittling me as you did to Gustafson. That is un-called for and sadly unbecoming, yet again. And whatever health problems you had are not important as long as you are fine now - the point is the unprofessionalism, ignorance of policy, and veiled personal attacks exhibited during that incident (and, frankly, above). Instead of accusing me of being a sock-puppet (and showing further reason to oppose based on your lack of knowledge on what kind of activity warrants a checkuser), you should either address the issues or ignore them. It is up to you, but don't insinuate I am violating policy when there is not one I have crossed... such haste is troubling for a potential admin. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 5 6 edits to the above post. It appears you are obsessing. Perhaps you will allow the candidate to respond. the_undertow ^talk 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(diff) --Iamunknown 06:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, given further thought, I realise that this isn't really an appropriate venue for continuing this dialogue. I've removed my previous comment, but will leave a diff in its place. --Iamunknown

I'm curious. Did you realize that AFTER it was revealed that Blake was a sockpuppet? I stand by my assertion that the editor was acting in an obsessive manner, and the use of a sockpuppet would be a length that one would consider to be a bit out of the realm of normal RfA behavior. the_undertow ^talk 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I came to the realisation before it was revealed that Blake was a sockpuppet. --Iamunknown 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not strike the comment? Leaving the diff is sort of like making an accusation but deciding it's not the proper venue for a response. the_undertow ^talk 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to make an accusation, instead to point out what I considered to be an unfair comment. I posted in haste, however, because I then realised that I thought it would have been more appropriate to post to your talk page. I thus removed the comment; striking out the comment, in my mind, would have had the same effect, but would have left this page more cluttered and off-topic than it was previously. --Iamunknown 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nom. Watchlist for the win. - Revolving Bugbear 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I've been generally impressed with Rodhullandemu and from interaction with him, I believe he is ready and has the required knowledge to use the mop effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - I've noticed the user around wiki and have found their involvement to be helpful and calm. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Concur with those above, and add that I have no reservations about the candidate's judgement or use of the tools. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per having most mainspace edits to an article that I wouldn't touch. I mean I would, just not the article. the_undertow ^talk 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Aye. BLACKKITE 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support no concerns here NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Obviously trustworthy. VanTucky 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Uber support! - Yes yes yes! I guess i missed co-nominating you, sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Super special awesome support I looked over his recent contribs and I believe he is ready for the job. --EinsteiNewton 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Contribs look good. Plenty of mainspace experience. Keep up the good work and good luck. Timmeh! 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks good from here. --Sharkface217 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I've seen this user around doing good work. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - no reason not to. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support: Yes, for sure going to support here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Suppoer active and trustworthy. Bencherlite^Talk 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support just don't go fiddling with your aerial... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, a good vandalism fighter. King of the NorthEast 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support per Ryan. Nick (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. There's somebody at the door --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per interactions we have had in the past and solid record of contributions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - good editor.   jj137 ^♠ 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Seen this user many times around AFD, and in recent changes reverting vandalism. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Seen the user around many times, has the required knowledge and experience. Woody (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. From what I've seen, I have two words on the topic. Heck and Yes. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Won't abuse the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Weak Support The diff below worries me, but I think he still can be trusted. Spencer^T♦C 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. bibliomaniac15 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. No worries at all here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Personal interaction based. A pleasure. As ever, Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support No objections and knows the CSD well. NF24^{(radio me!)} 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, regretfully changed to Weak Support. This user appears to have a good understanding of policy, and everything I've seen has been positive. Was very helpful to me whilst I was making improvements to The Jeremy Kyle Show (see that article's talk page). However, I'm changing to weak support as this diff is worrying for an administrator hopeful. The article both provides enough context to identify the subject, and makes a definite assertion of notability. I hope this diff is a one-off, as everyone makes mistakes.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. I read the stuff in neutral; all I say to the candidate is remember to chill. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Seen him about, seems good. Majorly (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Strong support without hesitation. I've looked through your contribs and your userpage/usertalk and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have the admin buttons. Absolutely spot on (IMO) with answer to Q7 by NF24. Keeper | 76 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Added Strong support Re: levelheadedness in the face of accusations, and being correctly suspicious of a "left field" oppose as a sockpuppet, and for keeping everything on-wiki for transparency. You rock,RHAE. Keeper | 76 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - Good editor --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - The diff listed below, while a bit beyond snarky, does not change the fact that the user has a solid understanding of policy and is a positive contributor to the project. If that's the worst we're going to see out of Rodhullandemu, then I see no reason to oppose. --jonny-mt 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Good editor, understands policy. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Good answers to questions, strong editor, knows policy. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Weak Support - all-round good guy but got .. umm ... "twitchy" about page protection some months back over the constant vandalism of the theft article. Has moved on a lot since then, however, and is involved in many areas. Should be just fine - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Good answers, good record. ~ priyanath talk 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, seems like a great editor. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support a solid reliable contributor. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support I don't see any great causes for concern. Lara❤Love 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I spent five minutes constructing an elaborate pun about falling off a roof, which frankly wasn't in the best taste, so I gave up on it. This Rodhullandemu will be fine. Seen him buzzing around the admin boards and usually makes sense. Neıl ☎ 11:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Supporting Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. miranda 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Will ^(talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Yup. KrakatoaKatie 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. The candidate is trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Yes, a strong support. --Bhadani (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Dureo (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. No concerns. Looking over his Wikipedia space edits, I noticed him expressing an opinion on a recent arbitration case, and (without commenting on the position he took) his reasoning seemed to show good understanding of policy and of the expected behavior for administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Has demonstrated appropriate composure during difficult circumstances. If he brings the same to his adminship I'm sure he'll do a fine job. Ronnotel (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Sensible and committed to the project. Acroterion _(talk) 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - Meets my criteria, have seen good work and contributions from this user (especially in arbitration and AN/I), and I see no evidence they will abuse the tools. Everybody's allowed a couple of early mistakes, it's whether they learn from them that matters. Orderinchaos 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Nice attitude, bit surprised he wasn't one already. Greg Locock (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support as hard working Wikipedian. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strong Support - He will make a wonderful administrator. I only wish him the best. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Strong Support - See this user's excellent third-party statements on Talk:Elvis Presley. Sounds like a comment from an administrator. Onefortyone (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Will be okay. Acalamari 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My contact with Rodhull have not been the most pleasant for the most part. After an issue on RFPP a little while back, I felt as if he overreacted quite badly. This is not to say I was not in the wrong whatsoever, but I am left with a bad taste in my mouth from the whole issue. I know I will be asked for diffs, etc., and for the time being, this is the only one I have time for right now. I felt as if he jumped the gun right away, and am concerned about what this would mean if he was to get into an argument or issue elsewhere as an admin. Jmlk17 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry you feel like that, but I was in the line of fire and virtually the only editor protecting that article at the time. But at least you did wish me a Merry Christmas here! You ought also to bear this in mind --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Sorry. This user's done a lot of good stuff; however, I can't help but worry that he may use his tools when he doesn't get his way. The diff from Jmlk was presumptuous and arrogant, and I can't support someone who talks to another editor that way. GlassCobra 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. GlassCobra 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unprofessional editor with a track record of image upload violations and one troubling incident involving admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Rodhullandemu left this note on Jeffrey's talk page, a note Jeffrey was thoroughly creeped out by (told to me via private correspondence, sorry, so make that what you will). After Jeff had soon removed two fair use images from Rodhullandemu's user page (a common and accepted practice), Rodhullandemu reverted (as vandalism, no less!) and left a note on AN/I actually questioning Jeffrey's sanity. Those familiar with Jeffrey O. Gustafson know about his ... eccentricities... but to question an admin's sanity for enforcing policy is a bit much. Then Rodhullandemu had the gall to, after noting Jeffrey's failings (a rather troll-like move, IMO), question Jeffrey's commitment to the project (something Jeffrey believed in vehemently and devoted much of his time to) by saying "I've created several pages from scratch. I've taken several pages from sows' ears towards silk purses in the few days since I joined the Wikification project. I don't see you doing that. Again, nothing personal, but exactly why are you here?" (Which, of course, is not just insulting but ignores his many many contributions, including featured content.) Rodhullandemu then flipped out, and stormed off in a huff claiming he was going to be dead soon and that the removal of the fair use images from his userspace meant that no-one would have any clue who he was. Lovely. Veiled personal attacks in retaliation of policy enforcement, even against a certain controversial admin few had love for, followed by dramatic overreaction is just not acceptable to me (but maybe I am a little biased). --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Threaded discussion of this oppose comment moved to talkpage. I am disappointed by the edit warring over this comment. As it seems the community members participating in this RfA are unable to agree on its validity, I will make some comments that I hope will put an end to this. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson shows that this user shares a strong IP connection with the adminsitrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Edward Morgan Blake denies being a sockpuppet of Mr Gustafson. Jeffrey O. Gustafson is free to oppose this RfA - either he has done so or someone else (also entitled to oppose) has done so. There is no suggestion of trying to distort consensus by expressing more than one opinion and the events upon which the opposition is based took place and may be reviewed by other commentators. I therefore think this oppose should stand to be taken into account by other commentators and by the bureaucrat who ultimately closes this RfA. I hope this will bring an end to the disruption caused by the circumstances surrounding the opposition expressed by Edward Morgan Blake/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. WjBscribe 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Addendum: ArbCom were later able to confirm that Mr Gustafson and Edward Morgan Blake were indeed two separate individuals. WjBscribe 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   #Oppose per Edward Morgan Blake. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per this comment. Daniel (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Moving to neutral. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Huh? The candidate is worried and sleep deprived as many are at this stage. Is there something seriously wrong here? Jehochman ^Talk 06:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's a rather interesting supposition, myself. the_undertow ^talk 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Erm, the fact that his basis for boldly accusing Edward Morgan Blake of being a sockpuppet is "I've never heard of this guy and Jeffrey emailed him" (paraphrased) strikes me as a massive assumption of bad faith, further tinged by the fact that the candidate showed poor judgement by suggesting it at all (as Rodhullandemu is hardly neutral on the matter). The other two reasons Rodhullandemu gives for Edward Morgan Blake being a sockpuppet is "there are large gaps in [his] contributions, which means he's away doing something else" which is nonsensical, and "he has a good grasp of mechanics and policy", which the Arbitration Committee has ruled isn't any part a justification for accusing someone of being a sockpuppet. Not only was this a bad-faithed assumption on the candidates' part, but Rodhullandemu showed bad judgement in a) accusing someone who he is currently in a conflict with, and b) not discussing it with the user in question but rather attacking Edward Morgan Blake on an unrelated page, which strikes me as discourteous. Daniel (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Check my contributions. I've been spending a lot of time at WP:SSP and WP:RFCU lately, so I'm well practiced. The allegations seem credible. See [1]. It's up to the bureaucrats to decide what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If he suspected it was Jeffrey, then he should have done the courteous thing and emailed him first. Imagine if, should he become an administrator, he believes I'm abusing sockpuppets and publically accuses me before having any solid proof whatsoever (as in this case), or even blocks me? We all know how something like that ends in disaster, and have a pretty recent case study to prove it. Regardless of whether Edward Morgan Blake turns out to be a banned user, Jeffrey, a sockpuppet of myself or none of the above, I still believe Rodhullandemu has handled this inappropriately and gone about resolving it the wrong way, and it concerns me in how he would handle a situation should he become an administrator. We don't need administrators creating drama by throwing about sockpuppet allegations, especially in situations like this (potentially alternate accounts of departed users), thanks. Throw in the conflict of interest and I felt I must oppose. Daniel (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   He did exactly what I would have hoped. Instead of using the privacy of email to contact an administrator, he expressed his concerns quite transparently on the talk page of one. I don't see a problem with that. Blake brought to light a conversation that may or may not have occurred via 'private' correspondence and the nom chose to keep his concern public, even during his RfA. I do not agree that emailing Jeffrey is the right way, nor do I think it would have produced any results. the_undertow ^talk 07:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, because we all love drama. -- Ned Scott 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For a closer look at why someone might suspect Blake is a sock puppet, read the following sentence, which is posted at the top of Blake's talk page: "I've been around for a while, but I just started editing with this account." Ehm, that's basically admitting that he has another account. - Revolving Bugbear 07:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   There's a difference between an alternate account and a sockpuppet. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ehm, not everything that's black is a crow, that's true. But a sockpuppet is just an alternate account used for disruption or to avoid scrutiny. When a user has no logged prior contact with the user he's opposing or the user he's invoking in his oppose, has never participated in a prior RfA on this account, and has an edit pattern which indicates that, if he's familiar with these incidents regarding RodHull, it must be under a different name, the suspicion of "avoiding scrutiny" becomes, if not reasonable, at least understandable. - Revolving Bugbear 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Rodhull made a good point. Jmlk17 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I have seen a lot of good work from this user, too much good to even consider opposing. However, the diff that Jmlk17 posted above concerns me. Having a bad day or not, I don't care for his seemingly difficult time remaining civil. And I really unimpressed with his rather insulting implication that Jmlk did not care about the situation the article was about because he's in the US. Trusilver 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. The diff given by Jmlk17 bother me, but I won't oppose you over it. Good luck anyway, Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I'm still rather worried about how this editor may react under pressure; however, I guess if Jmlk himself has moved on from the incident, I can't hold it over Rod's head. GlassCobra 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral per above. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per my rationale above. I still think the candidate erred in his/her handling of the event above, for the record. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. The situation above is too bizarre to base a decision off of what happened. But that said, I'm not too impressed with the "meltdown" type incidents that have been documented here. It seems to me that questions 3 and 4 were an opportunity to address this -- but in this case, a missed opportunity. --JayHenry (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearing in mind that both questions were asked, and answered in general terms, before this bizarre situation arose. Sorry, I'm not psychic. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll find, Rod, that I'm a reasonable person who hardly expects admin candidates to be psychic. In your answer to question 3 about times you've been caused stressed you referred to dealing with new users who didn't understand our policies. But the fact is that you've been under considerably more stress than this, to the point of a retirement essay. You had an incident where you became stressed and did not deal with it all that well. That's okay, but I would have liked to have seen you address that in Q3 and Q4. I don't believe that's any sort of request for psychic powers. --JayHenry (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.