Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Kennedy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result is successful, which means Kennedy's sysop and bureaucrat flags are revoked. I am making a request to remove them via Meta. Kennedy may reapply for these rights via the standard RfA and RfB processes. While there is some disagreement as to whether or not both flags should be removed, the administrator bit is just as much a position of community trust as bureaucrat is; there is a fairly strong consensus among editors that the community's trust in this editor has been broken. As a result, I am making the decision to remove sysop rights in addition to bureaucrat rights. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy[change source]

Kennedy (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

Ended: 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have recieved an email from the Admin/CHU, Majorly, advising that he aknowledges my alternative account User:NotGiven and in a recent RFA I voted twice under both Kennedy and NotGiven. NotGiven's vote has been struck by me and the password scrambled and email address removed, hence completely retiring him.

I created NotGiven for two reasons. There was a lot of arguing and bickering at that time and I wanted to see how the community reacted to a new member. Overall positively but with a smattering of suspicion (understandable). Once I completed this I was intent on doing the above and dumping NotGiven, however I began to enjoy editing without the need for drama and he stayed as a undeclared sockpuppet which is not forbidden unless it is harmful to the project or votes twice. As I explained to the Majorly, NotGiven's vote was entirely accidental, as you know I have not been active here for a while, and I forgot I had already voted when I logged in under NotGiven. I looked at the voters and must have missed my signature and voted again. I assure you it was accidental. I was very careful in the past not to cross wires with my other account, however this time I failed. The vote has been struck.

I will however note that Majorly performed a CHU back in May last year when NotGiven was first born, something I am especially displeased at. There was no valid reason to do this as NotGiven was not harmful to the project (until 4th Jan when I accidentally double voted). Now that I have been made aware at the double vote, I have struck it. Majorly has asked me to quietly resign my Admin and Bureaucrat tools, however I feel that the communities trust is the most important thing. I was voted unanimously into admin (Link) and bureaucrat (Link) and I would be sorry to lose everyones trust, I decided to run a de-rfa to allow everyone to have their say. I can confirm that I have no other accounts anywhere, and for the purposes of this would agree to a CHU being performed again if required.

Again, I can only apologise, this was never meant to happen. I hope you can all forgive and forget and we'll all move on? Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: There are words being thrown around here like "got caught", "scrambling to try and save yourself", "major attempt to undermine an RFA". I'd like people to put this in perspective. This is one single edit I have made which should not have been. The one year, eight months I have been an editor here have been successful, and I have helped out this wiki greatly. I have made one mistake, which I know is hard to understand, but it was a mistake. I did not know I had already voted. DJSasso's personal grudge against me may sway peoples votes, so I trust people to really think before voting. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Err... I accept? Self Nomination Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

I have to say I would support the idea that you should just have asked to remove them quietly. I have wondered for awhile if NotGiven was a sockpuppet, apparently I had it to the wrong person as I asked for them to be CU'd yesterday myself, because the vote seemed very suspicious and like Majorly I find it hard to believe with the wording used that it was an accident. Between this, your inactivity and I would have to say the drama you have caused the few times you have edited over the last few months. It would be a very smart idea if you just stepped down. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. I am sorry, but I don't believe your story. It seems very hard to believe that you would forget voting in an RfA for somebody you knew, and have strongly supported throughout both your wiki careers. If you confessed to using a sockpuppet immediately after entering this RfA, and acknowledged the mistake rather than blaming the checkuser who discovered it, I may be voting differently. But the story simply doesn't hold up for me, and therefore I must oppose your continuation at this time. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not blaming the checkuser, I have expressed my disappointment at the way it was handled, but overall I'm asking for people to understand it was an accident. Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above.-- † CR ₉₀ 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The use of the alternative account after eight months of inactivity in an important RFA makes me very suspicious. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to PeterSymonds comment. Kaltxì Na'vi! 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per petersymonds.--Sinbad (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Majorly suggestion was really a good deal, you could have taken a mid term break period from adminship and then - if really motivated - apply again after half a year. I don't think it has been a good choice to take a sort of motion of confidence since it appears that Wikipedians do not generally justify a sysop playing tricks. --M7 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Peter. Tiptoety ^talk 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful support It isn't often you see a support being regretful, but this one is. If I have learned nothing over my time here at this Wiki, it is that BG7 and Kennedy have always gotten along and have always supported each others endeavors. While I can only hope that what Kennedy has said is truthful, only he will ever know 100% for certain, and because of that I feel it would be best for him to step down for the time being. I would however, if he can remain active, like to see him back at RFA when this incident is not so fresh in our minds. I would also like to say something to Majorly. It may not be policy, but maybe it would have been a good idea to tell Kennedy of your findings earlier, as an editor in good standing I think it would have just been common courtesy to inform him.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to add on-to my support here with some links that I found. this one is the reason that I have scratched my vote at BG7's RFA at the moment. To me it looks like BG7 knew that NotGiven was Kennedy. How else could BG7 know NotGiven's MSN account? Did he post it for everybody to see? I don't know. If I am mistaken please let me know. Goblin, please convince me to continue to support you. I really want to.Note: BG7 has given me this link. It's atleast enough proof for me to re-instate my support of BG7.this link is really a blow to the trust factor for me. "I don't have anything to hide" is a quote, and we know that is a lie. I just don't see how we can trust you. this one is just kinda funny. NotGiven posts in a thread that goes on to discuss Kennedy's retirement.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have more than one email address. Well yes, "I have lots of stuff to hide from you" doesn't bode well when starting a new account does it? And yes I made a post mimicking BG7's and Razors sig, the discussion then went on to discuss Kennedy, whats your point? NotGiven was created to get away from stress, bickering and as an experiment, I continued using NotGiven whilst Kennedy was retired. I intended to leave only editing behind the scenes with a fresh account. You'll need to ask BG7 if he knew NotGiven was me. Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked to BG7 and completely trust what he has written below in the comments. That's pretty much what he had told me. No doubt it doesn't bode well, but a lie is a lie. One lie makes one wonder how many other lies exist. The last link doesn't really have any point, other than my amusement as you were mimicking BG7 who was protesting your retirement.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of crat - Sorry, whether a mistake or not, voting twice in an RfA, using different accounts, is simply not acceptable behaviour of a crat. However, I don't feel as strongly about you losing adminship. Tools aren't rewards/punishment. I think you remain trustworthy enough to be an admin. EhJJ^TALK 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. Sorry, but you've lost my trust. Razor flame 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Peter. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Support - While we cannot be certain that Kennedy did this on purpose, equally we cannot be certain that he did not. Therefore his position of trust within the community has been compromised. FSM ^Noodly? 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be sure if I did this on purpose so you revert to guilty? Kennedy (talk • changes). 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The possibility remains that you did do it on purpose and therefore complete trust is not possible, so I support. FSM ^Noodly? 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that goes completly against AGF. You're assuming he's guilty until proven innocent. Yottie ^=talk= 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't automatically AGF for someone wanting admin tools. Otherwise we would give it to everyone as soon as they created an account. People who want admin tools have to proove trustworthiness. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I originally wanted to abstain from this, but seeing how your actions are against the books, I'll have to support your removal of sysop and 'crat bits. —§ stay (sic)! 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of crat per EhJJ. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of crat per Ehjj. Sad business. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support right removal - It was really hard to think about this. One strong point is, that I don't really believe that it was an accidental vote, especially as the RfA was really borderline at this moment. If the RfA would have been a clear cut, I would have stayed neutral on this. Also, I don't want that one of your crats/admins uses sockpuppets that are not marked as such. Now, as I know that you did this, I have some worries. I think it would have been better to just request the removal on meta. Also, I want to say that you are only occasionally active on simple. I want that our cus/crats/os are active here. In this way, I don't see a reason why you should have the tool. I noticed that you're around since you have this RfdA open, I think just because of this. Sorry, but using a sock is not something I can agree with (at least not using in this way). Also the inactivity. -Barras ^talk 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your post sums up this whole discussion. "You're not active. Well now you are. But thats only because you have a RfDe." You have jumped to the conclusion that my activity is a bad thing, like I'm trying to trick you? I can't win. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With profound regret I have to support the removal of your admin and crat flags. I, frankly, just don't believe your story. This diff is actually what convinced me about this. "Kennedy" has been around FAR too long to not realize what autoconfirmed means and that a user account such as NotGiven would be unable to move a page. I think you meant to let the community think you were an old "newbie". I also don't buy that you simply "forgot" that you voted in BG7's recent RFA. The CU was righteous and you got caught by it, tough luck. To be honest, if I'd have found out about this before this RFDeA , I'd have blocked both accounts under the sockpuppet policies. I think you should consider yourself lucky that Kennedy is still able to edit at all. Frankly, if I'd have done what you have done, I'd be ashamed and publicly apologize for my actions!! I'd also have had the good grace to resign my flags; all of them! fr33kman ^talk 07:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when that diff would come up. Again, it is an honest error. I've had the tools for so long I first thought it was an admin only thing, I was going to just remove it but thought I'd reply instead. That wasn't to make anyone think anything. You've read too far into that. Kennedy (talk • changes). 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peter and Fr33kman; I find it hard to trust you now. Sorry, Airplaneman ^talk 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disturbing that you can make a call on whether or not you can trust me having never come across me before. I certainly don't know who you are. Are you qualified to make a judgement on me under these circumstances? Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On all wikis people support and oppose people they have never encountered all the time. A look at an editors edits and his behavior is enough to base this type of judgment on. Just today at EN I supported a candidate for RFA that I have never seen before. You don't need to have close contact with somebody to know whether or not you trust them. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

Oppose - opposing the removal of rights. Compared to some of the blatant socking going on across the WMF, I can't see any issue here Soup Dish (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(oppose struck) I have no problem with you remaining an administrator, for the simple reason that I still trust you, and that you admitted it. This is a self-nomination, so you feel remorse, which in my mind (and in the mind of many prison/jail/gaol authorities), is halfway there. — μ 18:27, Tuesday January 5 2010 (UTC)
He didn't actually admit it, he got forced into talking about it because he got caught. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, however I've put it all out in the open without being asked. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me but you put it out there because if you didn't Majorly would have. To me that isn't honesty, thats scrambling to try and save yourself. Any other user that had done this would have been banned for sock puppeting instantly. So to me, trying to keep your tools when its possible you shouldn't even be on the wiki period is outrageous. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, as I have said already, Majorly asked me to quietly resign my tools. It would not have come to this unless I did so myself. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't comment on what he would or wouldn't have done as I am not him, but from what I know of him, I doubt he would have left it at that had you chosen not to lay it out. Atleast I have to believe he would have done the right thing. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the comments section then. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the comments does he say he wouldn't have outed you if you didn't step down. All that has been said is that he gave you the option to avoid embarrassment. It's my belief that if you didn't take that option, he would have moved forward with his obligation as a CU to confirm you as illegal sockpuppet. (since you had voted twice you were no longer a legal one). Perhaps he can clarify. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing what he would actually do with what I thought he would do. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are a smart guy. I know darn well you know better than to think if you ignored his request that he would have just let it go. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If you don't want the rights, just ask. No point going through this. You deserve the rights more than some other admins. :) Yottie ^=talk= 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to retain them, but I've been asked to resign, whatever the community decides, I'll do. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a more important wiki, but never on Simple, I used to vote twice: one pro vote using my main pseudo and one con vote under an alternate one; it's imho a better way to argue than voting neutral. Even if semi-retired Kennedy has made a slight mistake, I know him and I trust him for so many years to believe he was acting in Good Faith. quoiNonne aka ONaNcle (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: User has been blocked for some time during this request for deadminship. — μ 13:16, Wednesday January 6 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good thing. — μ 22:51, Tuesday January 5 2010 (UTC)
So.... you're socking too?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the comment "You will have to forgive me..." If one user can be forgiven then why not another. Two "good hand" accounts that result in one bad edit is not the end of the world. The votes were four days apart so forgetting about the one from last year is not inconceivable to me. That nearly two years of trust can be entirely lost in one incident that when realised is acknowledged with attempts at amends is too much for me. I realise i don't contribute to this project that much as i struggle with simple English and what vandalism that occurs here is often minimal and very quickly reverted but i felt to put in my thoughts on this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most users would be banned instantly for doing this. He didn't acknowledge it when realized, he acknowledged it when someone noticed. Had he himself said guys I accidentally voted a second time with my good hand account you didn't know about and I have removed the vote, at least a couple of us would have had a different opinion. Instead he waited till Majorly noticed and then tried to blame Majorly for CUing him. His two years of good edits have earned him the right to still be trusted as an editor, but a mistake like this does kill the very high level of trust a crat and admin need. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone challenged my statement, I am entitled to reply, if you don't like it don't read it." DJ as much as i can agree, TRM is right here. Commenting on every comment which is in disagreement with your position is too much. You once offered to block me for this very behaviour. Neither of us are inside the mind of Kennedy to know his intent. There is no proof that i can see that shows Kennedy realised the duplicate voting before Majorly pointed it out to him in an email, as noted in the nomination statement. It is reasonable to believe, given the time of day that it happened at, that at some point in the 14 hours between the vote and the striking of it that Kennedy had slept. I have a very different position from nigh everyone here it would seem regarding trust on wikis. Allow me my own opinion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What happened to AGF? Are we simply going to lose all trust in him just because of a simple mistake made (in possibly good faith) by an editor in good standing? Also, what will happen if Kennedy chooses to resign silently? Will the truth be hidden forever since Majorly wanted Kennedy to "avoid any embarrassment"? That sounds like blackmail to me (especially if the mistake is genuine). I would like another checkuser to weigh in on what he would do if encountering the same situation. Chenzw Talk 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't AGF when there is a preponderance of evidence sitting in front of you. In fact the guideline says "The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence." He broke the biggest rule we have, to do something he himself has been part of banning other users for. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is benefitting from your badgering most of the opposers. It's just adding to the drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not badgering, an Rfx is a discussion and not a vote, people are supposed to do this. It is extremely shameful that people would even consider letting someone keep their tools who has committed our biggest "sin" on a wiki. It's letting stuff like this happen which is why we can't attract more editors to come over here from regular english wikipedia. People already think we are ridiculous for letting former sock puppeteers edit here. Allowing an admin to continue as admin after sockpuppeting would be like signing the death warrant for simple. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, I think we can all see how you feel about this from your numerous responses. I don't think it needs any further drama-mongering, it's bad enough as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely shameful that people would even consider letting someone keep their tools who has committed our biggest "sin" on a wiki. It seems you are blatently accusing him of doing it conscientiously, even though he denies it, and his history suggests he is trustworthy. AGF, please! At least don't say he definitely did it on purpose. Yottie ^=talk= 17:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet he has not answered my question (in the comments section). All the evidence points against him. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But surely we should go with the saying A man is innocent until proven guilty. Talk to Kennedy, maybe it'll help. Yottie ^=talk= 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he missed my question. ~~He has replied to comments below it, which means he would have had to read the comments section.~~Getting my sections confused He probably read the comments section of his RFDA (I would if I was up for deadminship). Griffinofwales (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Griffinofwales (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I am saying he did it on purpose. There is so much clear cut evidence it wasn't a mistake that its almost like a slap in the face, that it would be insane to think otherwise. Things like his freakout last time BG was up for admin and didn't end up with it (which of course leads one to think stacking the deck to make sure it didn't happen again isn't out of the question), other things like the fact the account hadn't edited in 8 months and suddenly shows up to vote in a very close RFa for someone he has been very vocal in supporting in the past. It doesn't get any more clear cut other than him coming out and saying he did it on purpose.-DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once again, you've said your piece. How many more times do you need to reiterate your opinion? It certainly appears the consensus is in agreement with your opinion so, please, quit the badgering, or take it the talk page. This has become a soapbox for you and it's unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone challenged my statement, I am entitled to reply, if you don't like it don't read it. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone must have challenged a whole heap of your statents for you to have made so many replies about it. Unfortunately we can't avoid reading all of your replies as you've bloated the page so much. I'd call it a day now if I were you. The community is in no doubt as to how you see this situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite done badgering me? Atleast I am commenting on the content of this rfx whereas you are attacking the editor. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Griffonofwales, forgive me I've now answered your question below. Theres a lot to take in on this page. Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose --vector ^_^ (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a rationale for doing so? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone wants to oppose, why is it mandoratory that they have to include an explanation? People often support without leaving a comment and that is tolerated. —§ stay (sic)! 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support is default. If you do not have a reason to oppose, you support, no? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an rfa support usually mean I trust him to have the tools. oppose here, on an rfda means I still trust him to have the tools. On an rfda, it should therefore be the supporters who should have a good explanation for removing his rights. Yottie ^=talk= 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it started, and writing my post below, i've thought long and hard about where I stand on this in terms of "being counted" - well, I needed something to think about while paiting floors at Crich!. I won't repeat what i've said in the comments section, but sufficient trust remains in Kennedy from me for him to retain both of his flags, and I am confident that he has learned from this and moved on. I obviously have more of a COI than other users (though I do re-iterate that I did not know about it) so I have no problems if a Bureaucrat wishes to discount my comments when it comes to the final result - though I do think that my comments below should be taken into account (see it as a continuation of this comment, or vice versa - with the exception that this is in a section. Regards, Gob lin 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Oppose - I still trust Kennedy. 203.194.8.10 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crat note: only named users are eligible to vote in (de)elections. fr33kman ^talk 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With a nod to the "support" (interesting misnomer) section. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this is a request for de-adminship, not de-cratship. If that were the case, I would be !voting in the "support" section (since I can no longer trust Kennedy as a 'crat), however I can still trust him as an admin. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 02:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then your !vote would go in the support section under only crat (look through the supports). Griffinofwales (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

I'm just wondering why the CU was done back in May. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, somebody suggested to me that the account was a good-hand sockpuppet, so I checked, which is a common procedure. Note that not all checkuser requests take place on the wiki. I did not tell anyone what I found as I expected Kennedy to use the account appropriately (and, afterall, I have used socks on English Wikipedia too, it's not a problem). I brought this up with him because the wording of the vote ("I may not have been around recently but my past experiences of this user has been positive. Understand the oppose votes but think this user will make a good admin") suggests to me it was carefully thought out, and I find it hard to believe Kennedy would have completely forgotten he had voted already. Also note that NotGiven returned from an 8 month wikibreak on 4 January, and voted on the very close RFA on the same day. I'm sorry, I just find it very suspicious.
Please note that at no point did I release any personal information, and particularly wanted to deal with the issue quietly to avoid any embarrassment. This method is perfectly fine if Kennedy is happy with it though. Majorly talk 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that good-hand sockpuppets were checked. Thanks for the response, as it explains the reasoning which I wondered about. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick comment, I don't think there's anything wrong with the checkuser being conducted in May. People get too worked-up about IP address stuff on the various Wikipedia projects. On any other site in the world, your IP would be available with ease, anyway, so what's the fuss? Given Kennedy is clearly no slouch, I'd probably argue that if he wanted to sock, he could have done so more convincingly - and I'm assuming (though not asking!) that the browser info was all the same, not just the IP address, so it's not really a major attempt to undermine the RFA Soup Dish (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In an RFA where currently a single vote can push him above or below the general 65% threshold that is mostly followed, to me thats a pretty major attempt to undermine an RFA...if it was a clear cut success or fail situation with or without their vote then I wouldn't think it so big a deal. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why would you have voted with the alternative account anyways? Why not use your primary account? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's what any normal user would do. NotGiven was there to see how the rest of the userbase reacted to another editor, so voted to give NotGiven credibility as an independent user. — μ 18:10, Wednesday January 6 2010 (UTC)
  - The user hadn't edited in eight months! Kennedy's experiment no longer worked because the user was no longer new. Why did the user need credibility? Griffinofwales (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forgive me I missed your question: Yes, you're forgetting I'm under the guise of NotGiven at this point, so continuing to edit and to vote in an rfa helps to, as MC8 says, get credibility. Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, if there had been a continuous editing stream from NotGiven, I probably would have believed you. But no edits in eight months, and then a RFA !vote in an important RFA for you is too much. You were not retired at that time, so why didn't you use your primary account? You knew you were logged into NotGiven, and that raises another point. Why were you logged into that account? Had you just remembered it? Did you want !vote without drama? Too many questions, you are the only one that will ever know the truth. I just can't trust you now. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There may not be a continuous stream of editing from NotGiven, but there is from me (the real me, over two accounts). And yes I had forgotten about NotGiven for a while before remembering him. Both accounts had the same password. Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would you have !voted w/ NotGiven in such an important RFA? BG might have wondered (not speaking for BG here) why you were not expressing your opinion (I am AGFing and saying that BG did not know of the relationship)? Why not use the primary account? By !voting w/ NG, you allowed yourself to be seen as neutral, and you could close the contentious RFA. You weren't retired at the time, you had not edited w/ this acc. during some of your earlier breaks (eight months ago is before my time), so why use the acc. again? There's just too many questions that can never be answered. Best you resign, and try again later. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I had fallen out with BG7 at the time. Ask him, he will support that fact. You can see here. I did not speak to him via IRC/MSN/Email or WP from then until very very recently. I will answer all your questions. No, voting with NotGiven so I could close the RfA as Kennedy never entered my mind. If it had, I wouldn't have voted as Kennedy. It is true I did not edit with NotGiven during some of my breaks, those were real breaks away from WP. Kennedy (talk • changes). 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay then. Why would you have !voted with your alt. acc. as its first edit in a long time? That would have immediately raised suspicion. That could imply that your original purpose was to stack votes, and you edited other things to avoid suspicion. Also, why !vote w/ your alt. in such an important RFA? RFAs happen fairly regularly, and you could also !vote in the other things, such as RFDs. Even if everything you said is true, it was an incredibly bad time to come back, you made some very bad decisions, and I can't trust your judgment anyways. However, I do want the full story, and I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Voting in the RfA was not its first edit. I fixed up an article and moved it to its proper title. See Special:Contributions/NotGiven and Special:DeletedContributions/NotGiven and Special:Log/NotGiven. I then voted in two RfDs and fixed up another article. The reason I voted under NotGiven was really just because I was logged in under him at the time. I wanted to avoid suspicion, and given the details already available about him, Kennedy voting immediately after NotGiven was active would arouse suspicion. I never edited with the two of them at the same time (to the best of my knowledge). However I will say that we are going round in circles here, and its unlikely that you will change your mind and see the situation in a different light. Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to simply resign without a week of dramatic debate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Julian, mostly becuase this is leaning SNOW. However, if he loses the mop, we should still give him rollback Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been to resign without going into this... Pmlineditor ∞ 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things on Wikipedia in which the act of assuming good faith does not, in practice, apply. Instead, good faith must sometimes be proven to exist. Sockpuppetry is one of them. Accidental or otherwise, you created an account, NotGiven, that, when it was active, I felt that I would have easily supported a block for general disruption, in the same vein as Griffinofwales when he first started (no offence, he's not like that now). As such, I feel that this may have been (unintentionally) disruptive to the project. No matter what the result of this discussion, I hope that you will at least strip yourself of bureaucrat. I suggest that you resign now, and, perhaps, when the Earth is the other side of the Sun, as long as you are still active, you may wish to re-evaluate and possibly request adminship once more -- before July 6 2010, however, I, and others, will !vote in the middle section out of principle. I worry, also, that you state in your amendment to your nomination, that Djsasso bears a grudge. If this is correct, file a request for him to be revoked of his flags. However, non sequitur: in my time on the wiki, I have never found him to bear a grudge, just rather heavy-minded. Jumping to conclusions is not something an administrator should do. (tl;dr start here) Deadminship should be treated as an extension of the user's original request for adminship, in which users amend their views. Users should, instead of saying that "User x has adminship. x did y. This is bad. x should not have adminship any more.", ask themselves "If, at the time of x's RfA, I knew that x would go on to do y, would I still have supported x?". These are two different ways of looking at RfdA, one focusing on punishment, which is not what deadminship is about, one focusing more on trust & the good of the wiki. I urge those who have been thinking in the former, to think of the latter. — μ 16:21, Wednesday January 6 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why NotGiven was disruptive? Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all my delay in writing this rather short comment on the whole situation. First of all, I would like to state that at no time between NotGiven's appearence and the strike NotGiven's vote on my latest RfA was I aware that Kennedy and NotGiven were the same. Whilst admitedly I do not have any "physical" evidence to back this up (I mean, why would I?) I can give everyone my absolute word that I was not aware of this - nor suspicious - and if at any point I had been made aware I would first and foremost have spoken to Kennedy about the circumstances, both suggesting he let the CUs know and possibly declaring, and also I would have brought up the fact that he had double voted on my RfA with him. Am I surprised at this? Yes, I am, genuinely. But not simply at the fact that Kennedy was operating an alternate account, but also the way that everyone has handled it - it's one vote that's gone awry and I don't think there was any malicious or vote-stacking intentions behind it; the Kennedy that I know out of wiki just wouldn't do that. I'm pretty certain I can remember worse instances of "abuse"... I just can't lay my hands on the diffs. Anyway, to continue with my questions; Do I agree with the socking? No, of course. But with the benefit of hindsight I can understand why it was done (assuming the reasons given are true, which I believe they are) and to be honest wouldn't have had any problems had Kennedy later come out and admitted to it - because, up until now, there had been no problems with the two accounts, no overlap, nada. Finally, do I still trust Kennedy? Yes, of course I do. This isn't anything about his continued support for myself, but it's about the fact that he's a damn good editor and a damn good administrator, and knows what he is doing. I really don't see this as something to de-admin over, though I am still making my mind up about whether I will vote or not due to a COI that could exist. If anyone has any questions about what i've said please ask away and I'll clarify whatever I can. Finally, I just want to re-iterate that I had no idea about any of this until it was brought on wiki. Kind regards, Gob lin 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

I think I may speak for at least a few others when I say that I believe you had no idea about the second account. Happy to see you back as an admin! :) fr33kman ^talk 07:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

don't know, maybe the best thing to do would be, at the moment, to resign. This story does not seems to be true at the moment, and only thing that can probably set this right is time. guilty or not, i'm always for second chance. if this is really innocent mistake, i respect this, i would call it, fight for truth, but you have to (this is the most sad thing in the world) deal with the reality right now, and do what is best. Don't take me wrong ;o) i really hope u r going to stay, continue to edit, and if this voting goes bad, try again with rfa. good luck --Dalibor Bosits ^©> 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.