Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grondemar

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

Grondemar

Final (86/2/5); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Grondemar (talk · contribs) – Just over one year and 7,000 edits after creating this account, I have decided to nominate myself for the role of administrator. I wholeheartedly believe that as an administrator I would be a strong asset to the project. While the focus of my first 7,000 edits has been the state of Connecticut, especially the Connecticut Huskies, I have had the opportunity to edit articles on nearly every topic under the sun, and am eager to do what I can to continue to make Wikipedia an ever higher-quality, more reliable, informative, and collegiate place to be. –Grondemar 00:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who participated in this review. I will take all comments to heart, both positive and negative. –Grondemar 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: My primary initial administrative focus would be at Did You Know. I have been increasingly concerned over the backlogs that have formed in the process; several times over the last two weeks DYKUpdateBot had to post a warning that there were no queues available to place on the Main Page less than two hours before the scheduled update. Administrators such as User:Materialscientist have been doing a tremendous job in making the last-minute updates necessary to keeping the process working, but they desperately need help. Over the past year I have compiled countless DYK update sets that have appeared on the Main Page, and in fact have made nearly 1,000 edits to Template talk:Did you know alone. I realize that there has been significant controversy regarding Did You Know recently, especially considering the quality of the hooks being promoted and the frequency of the updates. However, as long as Did You Know remains what it is, tied to the most-visible part of the website, it will need additional administrative support to keep functioning.

I would also focus initially on other administrative areas where I have gained experience, such as redirects for discussion, templates for discussion, and categories for discussion, where I have participated in several discussions, including an extended one regarding the naming of Category:Connecticut Huskies and its subcategories where I initiated an RfC that helped to cool tensions and reach consensus. I would also help with speedy deletion: I have tagged many pages for speedy deletion in various categories, and I'd estimate fewer than 2% have been declined. I participated in recent changes patrol earlier this year, but have increasingly been beaten to reverts by either ClueBot or Hugglers; I have to say I've been impressed at the rate at which vandalism is caught nowadays. Regarding other administrative areas where I may have less experience: I pledge to involve myself in them slowly and carefully with a full understanding of policy, similar to how I've approached all other areas of Wikipedia.

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

A: For a list of content and review contributions, see User:Grondemar/Contributions.

I'm personally proudest of my featured content contributions: I nominated 2009 International Bowl for featured article status and List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games for featured list status. A third article I've worked on, 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl, is currently a good article and a former featured article candidate. It is my eventual goal to make Connecticut Huskies bowl games a featured topic, but I am still several articles away from that achievement. I take a lot of pride in my written contributions; it has always been my goal to improve the depth, breadth, and accuracy of the world's finest free-content encyclopedia with every edit I make.

I am also particularly proud of my contributions to Wikipedia's Main Page, the public face of our endeavors. As mentioned above, I have compiled countless Did You Know sets; in addition, I have been a frequent participant at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and have nominated several articles to be placed on the Main Page. I believe it is highly important to focus on the quality of the content directly linked from the Main Page, as this is what the outside world judges us by.

I am also proud of several other contributions which are perhaps less glamorous: I have uploaded 57 pictures to Wikipedia or Commons, 51 of which I took myself. I have reviewed 35 articles as good article nominees; two of those reviews are currently in-progress. I have also created over 100 redirects, several disambiguation pages, and a few other articles including nine of which appeared on Did You Know.

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: In general my philosophy has been to avoid escalating conflict, as for the most part it does nothing to advance the mission of creating an ever-higher-quality encyclopedia. I try to treat all users I interact with in a polite and friendly manner, no matter if there is a dispute between us. There have been various users who have been unhappy that I tagged their article for deletion; in all cases that I can remember I tried to engage with the person to explain to them why their article was not acceptable and how they could better contribute to the project. Probably the most frustration I caused other users was during an RfC at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. There was a discussion on whether to remove part of the criteria; after no new edits to the discussion in roughly two days and the appearance of a consensus (at least to me) to change the criteria, I went ahead and removed the part of the criteria under discussion. Shortly thereafter several other editors arrived, upset that I had changed the criteria without consensus. There was debate over whether the RfC originator had properly notified all interested parties; I ended up sending a talk page notice to everyone who had participated on a similar earlier RfC. I maintain that my edit in this circumstance was by no means improper, if not by the appearance of consensus then by the philosophy of WP:BRD. In the end, there was no consensus to change the criteria.

My most stressful personal experience at Wikipedia came recently, when Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1 failed to achieve consensus for promotion. Although a couple of editors supported promotion, a couple of others opposed due to prose quality and other concerns, including requesting the undoing of changes asked for by the earlier supporting editors. While the archiving of the review was demoralizing, I don't hold anything against any of the participants; I know all editors involved have the same common goal: to ensure only the highest-quality articles that meet the featured article criteria are promoted. The best course of action, which I am in-process of undertaking, is to review and improve the article, and try again later.

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

4. Specific question: This article featured on the main page in DYK recently. If, while it was on the main page, I had posted to WP:ERRORS or WT:DYK asking that it be pulled because it was sourced to a partisan source, what would you as an admin working in DYK have done? General question: Aside from checking a hook and article length, what else should admins at DYK check before approving an article or placing it in the DYK queue?

A: In regards to your specific question, I would first reply to your note at either WP:ERRORS or WT:DYK asking for clarification which source was partisan, and which statements specifically were objectionable. The key questions are whether or not the source in question is sufficiently partisan to be unreliable, and whether the statement in question is in any way contentious (see WP:QS). If the source in question appeared to be unreliable, and any statement it was backing appeared contentious, I would either remove the statement if it was only a small part of the article, or pull the entire article if a significant portion had a problem. If after review the source did appear reliable and/or all the statements in question were not contentious, I would leave the article in place. If you didn't reply to my inquiry within 5-10 minutes I would try to reach another trusted editor more familiar with Indian politics and sources to determine whether your claim had any validity.

Note the above course of action is predicated on the fact that Moni Guha, the article in question, is not covered by WP:BLP as Guha died in 2009. If Guha was still alive I would have pulled the article from the Main Page immediately, per the "first-do-no-harm" principle behind WP:BLP.

Regarding your general question, there are several elements of articles nominated at DYK that need to be checked beyond the content of the hook and the length of the article, including:

1. The article must have been newly-created or moved to mainspace no earlier than five days ago in the case of new articles, or expanded 5x within no earlier than five days ago in the case of expanded articles. Newly-sourced BLPs that have been expanded at least 2x no earlier than five days ago can also be listed. The five day limit is sometimes treated flexibly, per WP:IAR, depending on circumstances.
2. The hook fact must be explicitly and unambiguously cited in the article text, with an inline citation directly after it. The cited source must be reliable; the source is allowed to be offline in which case we assume good faith that the source does in fact verify the hook, although highly-contentious or unlikely hook facts are still likely to be disputed.
3. The article must meet WP:NPOV requirements, especially if it is a WP:BLP. Articles and hooks that are largely negative toward their BLP subjects, even if sourced, are generally rejected.
4. All statements in the article must be cited; it is not acceptable for articles to have entire paragraphs uncited, for example. The citations must also support what the article is saying (allowing for AGF for offline sources).
5. The article must not violate copyright or closely paraphrase sources (allowing for AGF for offline sources).
6. Pictures and other media in the article, especially the hook media if applicable, must be properly licensed and free.
7. The article must not have appeared on DYK or In the News before.
8. The article must not contain cleanup banners or be the subject of an open deletion debate. Articles at AfD are held until the deletion debate closes.

This is not counting set-balancing issues, such as making sure there are not too many US-based hooks in a single set and not too many biographical hooks in a single set. Administrators approving a hook (although not only administrators can approve hooks) must check all of the above; the adminstrator placing the set in queue must ensure all of the hooks meet all of the requirements above, for it is they who are ultimately responsible for the content of the hook appearing on the Main Page. –Grondemar 01:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: You spent a great deal of time answering this question, so you had to have spent a good deal of time looking at the article. May I ask why you didn't edit the article in that time? NW (Talk) 03:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A: While I did spend significant time answering this question, it should be noted that I've spent significant time answering all of the optional questions in this RfA: I try to be careful and thorough in my answers in respect to the questioners and the RfA process. I actually spent a significant amount of time researching the DYK approval history of the article—unfortunately the way DYK is designed it involves looking at the history of several pages to determine how a particular hook made its way to the Main Page. In the case of this hook, I discovered that it was reviewed and approved by User:Materialscientist, an admin with extensive experience at DYK, and moved to the preparation area and then the queue by User:Allen3, another admin with extensive DYK experience (see [1], [2], [3], and [4]). Regarding the article itself, I must admit with my very limited familiarity with Indian politics I didn't see any statements that looked derogatory or particularly contentious, except maybe the "In the latter part of his life, Guha was accorded pension as a freedom fighter." line, and that was directly supported by the source: "[Guha] was very happy that after a long struggle he got his freedom fighter’s pension that allowed him to travel free on Indian Railways." Since we're now talking about the article as it is right now, versus as a candidate for the Main Page, and there is no edit war in progress that I can see, I think issues over whether the article is neutral should be determined by consensus discussion on the article talk page rather than by fiat from someone who knows virtually nothing on the subject. If you believe the article is truly inappropriate for Wikipedia, I would suggest either editing it until it is appropriate or nominating it at Articles for Deletion as appropriate. –Grondemar 00:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

5. When is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a warning, or "enough" warnings? What do you think about the current warning-levels system?

A: In general, users should not be blocked until having received a clear final warning that their behavior is unacceptable and needs to change. There are limited circumstances under which per the blocking policy (WP:BLOCK) a user may be blocked without warning, including: selecting an inappropriate username per WP:U (these users are encouraged to simply create a new account with a new username); evasion of a block or ban on their primary account; making legal threats (see WP:NLT); purely promotional accounts used only for creating advertising pages or spam; shared accounts; open proxies; bots that are unapproved, exceeding their approved scope, or malfunctioning; and accounts that very clearly exist only to vandalize (although I would prefer on the last one to assume good faith and provide at least one warning before blocking). The current warning level system provides for four warning levels before a user is blocked, with the first warning being more of a greeting and a "you may not have known, but you shouldn't do that", and the following warnings escalating in harshness until the fourth and final warning makes it explicitly clear that continuing the unacceptable behavior will lead to an immediate block. The system also provides for an immediate final warning template that can be used when appropriate to bypass the four warning system. While I don't believe there's any explicit policy covering when to immediately escalate to a final warning without going through each previous warning stage, my personal philosophy has been to escalate to an immediate final warning in cases of particularly vile vandalism against WP:BLP subjects. (For example, I encountered the page of a US federal judge being vandalized with accusations of being a homosexual and other anti-gay slogans by an account whose name matched that of the judge, and in fact improbably claimed to be the judge himself. I reverted the vandalism, issued an immediate final warning to the user, and also reported the user at WP:UAA as a probable disruption-only account. Eventually the user was indefinitely-blocked and all the edits in question were rev-deleted, including the (so-far) only example of vandalism to my own user page, made by the erstwhile supposed judge.)

Personally, I think four warnings is excessive; I would favor merging the second and third levels of warnings, and perhaps also better codifying when it is appropriate to escalate to an immediate final warning. However, the role of administrators on Wikipedia is to implement community consensus of the policies as they stand, not to unilaterally reinterpret policy against community consensus. I would always use the existing system until consensus existed to make a change. –Grondemar 18:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned when you mention "accusations of being a homosexual". Is this indicative of prejudice you may hold? You say that you removed anti-gay slogans, so was the "accusation" thing just an extremely poor choice of words? 64.183.42.24 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

While I don't believe there's anything wrong with being homosexual, I doubt the vandal agrees with me. The judge in question had just made a court ruling I believe related to gay marriage in California that the vandal I presume strongly disagreed with. –Grondemar 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

6. A user writes an BLP about "Michael DeRoy". He is of questionable notability, and someone tags it as A7. You delete the page and the next day, Mr. DeRoy somehow finds you and emails you, thanking you for deleting the article because he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia, regardless of his notability status. However, the day after that, the user who created the BLP asks you to undelete it, because you apparently missed a claim of notability (Mr. DeRoy won a Pulitzer twelve years ago). Ignoring the fact that you should have been more careful in reviewing the page before deleting it in the first place, do you now restore the page or leave it deleted, and why?

A: First, if there was a credible claim to notability in the DeRoy article like winning a Pulitzer, I would hope that I would have noticed and declined the speedy deletion tag. Assuming I missed this, I would first reply to the email from Mr. DeRoy, warning him that the page was deleted by mistake and would be restored shortly. I would explain that, as Pulitzer Prizes are awarded for significant achievements in journalism or creative writing, persons who win them are generally considered notable per our notability policies (see WP:AUTHOR, part 4c, to which I would specifically direct him). I would let him know that we do not currently allow notable people to "opt-out" of Wikipedia; we have in the past removed articles for people with weaker claims to notability when they have indicated they do not want to have an article, but the Pulitzer Prize is too significant to do this without wider Wikipedia community consensus. I would explain Wikipedia's WP:Deletion policy, and specifically how WP:Articles for deletion works; I would indicate that, if he so desires, I would originate a discussion at that forum on his behalf, posting his comments and perspective and allowing for the Wikipedia community to decide whether the article on him would be kept or deleted. I would also let Mr. DeRoy know that, no matter what the consensus result of the discussion, I would courtesy blank the discussion page following the conclusion to prevent it from being picked up by search engines. I would then explain, should his article be kept by community consensus, how our WP:BLP policy works and the steps we take to prevent vandalism and ensure a neutral point of view would be present in his article. I would finally apologize for the inconvenience.

I would then reply to the user who created the article, and let him know that I agree that the article should not have been deleted and would be shortly restoring it. I would warn the user that I was contacted by the subject of the article, who indicated that they did not want the article to exist; I would warn the user that should the subject desire it I would list the article at WP:AFD to allow the community to decide whether the article should be kept or deleted. I would also apologize to the user for the inconvenience.

I'm not familiar if it is possible to edit an article before undeleting it, but if it was then before restoring the article I would ensure that it met WP:BLP, removing all unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. If this is not possible I would make these corrections immediately after restoring the article. I would then wait about 24 hours for Mr. DeRoy to reply to my earlier email. If he replied indicating that he still wanted the article deleted, I would list it at AFD immediately. If he replied indicating that he no longer desired the article to be deleted, I would leave it alone from there. If I heard nothing, I would strongly consider listing the article at AFD anyway, based on the last thing I heard from the BLP subject. –Grondemar 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Gfoley4

7. What is your opinion on Ignoring all rules?

A: WP:Ignore all rules is the triumph of common sense over bureaucracy. One of the oldest policies on Wikipedia, its goal is to keep the focus of the project on its original mission: building a high-quality, comprehensive, free-content encyclopedia. In the end, all policies and guidelines are intended to support that original mission; if a certain interpretation of or loophole in a policy would, if followed to the letter, go against the original mission, it should be ignored, and the right thing done.

One quick example of a good use of "Ignore all rules": By DYK rules, submissions must be made within five days of the article content being placed in the mainspace. Let's say someone works hard and expands an article 5x, and submits it to Did You Know. A reviewer notices, however, that the submitter actually took slightly more than five days, since the submitter's first edit was at 7:00 AM, and his DYK submission was at 8:00 PM five days later. A purely legalistic interpretation of the DYK rules would result in the hook being rejected. This would result in the submitter becoming discouraged, and perhaps not creating new content for Wikipedia again. This goes against the original mission of both Did You Know, which is to promote newly created or improved content, and of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is correct to apply WP:IAR and allow the submission, and in fact this is (or was, I do think a few overzealous users have been pushing back on this) standard practice for Did You Know.

Like every other policy and guideline on Wikipedia, however, the interpretation of IAR, and even Wikipedia's original mission, is governed by community consensus. Consensus determines what is an appropriate use of IAR; it is never appropriate to invoke IAR as a justification to do something against policy when consensus does not agree that the use of IAR does in fact further Wikipedia's original mission. For instance, an administrator might believe that Wikipedia's free-content mission would be best served by eliminating all fair use of copyrighted photos. If that administrator then went and unilaterally deleted all images on Wikipedia not licensed under a free-use license, IAR would not be a legitimate defense if the community did not agree that the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting all of the fair-use images. It is understandable that reasonable people would debate the meaning of the original mission and how to balance between the free-content mission and the comprehensive, high-quality mission. Ignore all rules should only be invoked to improve the encyclopedia when the community agrees that the action taken does in fact improve the encyclopedia.

As a personal note, even before I started editing Wikipedia I discovered IAR and found it a remarkable and liberating philosophy. I find that it reminds me to keep my eye on the big picture, and not let rules and legal minutiae get in the way of doing the right thing. No system of rules will ever perfectly cover every situation that could arise in a way consistent with their original intent; in such cases, it is important to follow the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter, because to do otherwise would be to defeat the purpose for which the rules were created in the first place. –Grondemar 22:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from User:Franamax

8. I once went through the DYK-submission experience, c/w wondering if it would be accepted and at the appointed time wondering where the hell the admins were, so I'm all for having more eyeballs there. Two-part question though: a) you mention the recent copyvio/plagio issues, but I've seen them happen repeatedly over the course of years at DYK. Can you show some examples of where you have given DYK articles appropriate scrutiny and flagged up issues beforehand? and b) one of the "defenses" I've seen from DYK regulars when these things come up is "too much volume / the rotation is so fast / we can't look at everything in detail / we need more eyeballs on this / we're doing our best". So would you support 3 rotations/day instead of (I believe) the current 4? And generally, what are your ideas to "fix" DYK? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A: Regarding examples of when I have challenged submissions, see: Wormy hillock henge, Indiana (Matthews), The Listeners (novel). Regarding the current rotation speed, I agree it is currently way too fast based on the number of people participating and the scrutiny required of reviewers; I pushed for the rate to be slowed to 3 sets per day, but was rebuffed (even though I thought I saw consensus, see here).

After quite a bit of consideration, I think the root cause of Did You Know's problems may be the speed of the process. Despite Wikipedia's overall philosophy of WP:There is no deadline, there are certainly deadlines at DYK: new articles have to be completed in five days (I have personally found challenging at times to write a high-quality article in the time demanded by DYK, for example compare the current version of 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl and the DYK version that appeared on the Main Page); enough articles have to be reviewed and approved to meet the update schedule of (currently) seven hooks per update, four updates a day (i.e. 28 articles/day). This is a lot of work that has to be done in a very short period of time; it was worse during the summer, when due to the WikiCup nine or ten hooks were being placed in a set (36-40 articles/day) in order to keep the backlog down. I never understood what was the problem with having a longer backlog, since I didn't really care if it took one week or three weeks for my article to appear on the Main Page, but other participants did not agree with my position. It is very difficult to attempt to maintain quality when attempting to review so much in so little time; there is an old saying that, for any project there are three key variables: speed, quality, and cost (in this case, number of editors involved in the project). A project manager can have any two of the factors, but not all three at once. If you insist on a speedy process, you either need a high number of editors involved to promote quality, or else quality suffers.

There have been suggestions to reduce the speed of the update process indirectly (thus avoiding increasingly backlogs) by raising minimum quality requirements (such as the minimum number of characters in an article or the level of expansion required). The problem is that this does not address the root cause of the problem, since it just makes it harder for submitters to write an article within the required creation/expansion timeline without "cheating" (i.e. close paraphrasing). I have become increasingly of the mind that the best long-term solution to DYK's problems is to radically overhaul the process; instead of drawing hooks from newly-created and expanded articles, perhaps it would be better to draw all hooks from recently-promoted Good Articles. This would eliminate much of the deadline pressure, reduce duplication of effort in reviewing articles, and ensure that higher-quality articles are the ones appearing on the Main Page, creating a better impression on our reading audience. Making this change would reduce an incentive to produce new content, but I'm not convinced that it would have a significant impact; it would change the incentive to creating higher-quality articles, as part of Wikipedia's general transition from a focus on quantity of articles to a focus on quality of articles. Such a change is a long ways away from achieving consensus, however, and until there is general agreement on a change we have to work with the system we have. –Grondemar 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Morgankevinj

9. Do you use a strong password or if not will change your password to meet these guidlines before you become an admin? (Yes or No answer is okay, to maintain some privacy)

A: Yes, my current password would be considered strong by the guidelines provided in that article. I may change it to strengthen it further should this RfA pass. –Grondemar 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from User:The ed17

10. Grondemar, I believe I was the one who first welcomed you to the project, and I have nothing but praise for your editing since then. However, I have kept an eye on RfA for you, as I have always been a bit wary on a certain point: have you ever edited Wikipedia before signing up under the name "Grondemar"? Based on your early contributions:

• You knew to use edit summaries from the first edit
• You left a speedy deletion template on your fourth overall edit (after your third now-deleted edit, when you CSD'd an article citing G11 admins-only link)
• 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 ..."
• In your sixteenth overall edit, you knew what {{hangon}} was and how to use it.
• By overall edit 25, you knew what alt text was and how to use it.
• By overall edit 26, you knew how to use image licenses.

While separately I could understand how you picked up this knowledge as a "long-time reader," together they make me extremely suspicious. While I don't believe you are Pastor Theo, I saw many of the same flags in his editing, and he gave an extremely similar defense in his RfA's questions. I was content to let you improve the encyclopedia as an editor, but I could not stand aside during an RfA without raising my doubts. I hope you understand my apprehension and can assuage my concerns. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A:I have never used an account other than the "Grondemar" account to edit Wikipedia. Prior to registering the "Grondemar" account I made a few edits as an anonymous IP on an experimental basis, doing no more than fixing typos or other minor edits. At least once since the "Grondemar" account was registered, I accidentally edited while logged out; since then, I added the mod that turns the "Save page" button green when I am logged in, to prevent this mistake from happening again. (It also helps that I still use the Monobook skin; if the site switches to Vector, I know I logged out.)

While I didn't register an account until December 2009, I had been reading and studying Wikipedia since at least the spring of that year. In my real-life job (I'm trying intentionally to keep this vague, to avoid revealing excessive details of my real-life identity), among the duties I attend to is document revision control: ensuring that changes to various documents are properly justified, tracked, and recorded. I was very curious to learn how a website that allowed anyone to edit would be able to maintain quality in its articles; I was amazed at how well in general the Wiki system works. I learned about featured articles, the pinnacle of Wikipedia's quality system; I remember reading featured article candidates on a regular basis for over six months prior to registering the "Grondemar" account. From there I learned about "alt text", images licenses, and other nuances of Wikipedia. I honestly don't remember when I learned about speedy deletion or other matters, but I'm sure it was either during that six-month or so period or shortly after registering. Regarding edit summaries, in my job I am constantly badgering people to provide better justifications for the various changes they propose so that, when people look up the changes five years later, they can figure out what was changed and why the change was made. I would be highly hypocritical if I did not do the same!

What finally inspired me to create an account was discovering User:JKBrooks85's featured topic (since defeatured) on the Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. Among my passions (which should be obvious from my editing history) is the Connecticut Huskies football team. I was inspired by the Virginia Tech featured topic to create a similar topic on the Connecticut Huskies bowl games (I have personally been to all of the Connecticut Huskies bowl games, so it is a subject of great personal interest to me). More immediately, upon learning of Bobby Bowden's impending retirement from Florida State Seminoles football I thought it would be a good idea to place an article to commemorate his career on the Main Page; the only appropriate featured article was 2000 Sugar Bowl. Since JKBrooks85 had been inactive for some time and WP:TFAR was at the time semi-protected (I don't believe it is anymore), I had to create an account to make the suggestion. I remember having a hard time finding ten things to edit in order to get autoconfirmed (this is not something I have a problem with anymore ;-) ). I posted the question on WT:TFAR because, just before I was going to post the suggestion, I re-read the instructions and was unclear on whether only the original FAC nominator could propose an article at that page. Rather than risk making a fool of myself and disrupting the proceedings, I sought clarification. Once it was clear than it was allowed for me to nominate the article, I went ahead and did so. (Actually, I believe the question on WT:TFAR must have been when you first discovered me and decided to greet me, Ed, since it was shortly after that I received your Welcome message. Thanks again for the cookies by the way.)

I would like to assure everyone that I am not User:Pastor Theo (whom I don't believe I had heard of prior to this RfA) nor any other blocked or banned user. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I can't prove I'm not any specific banned user. I'd like to make a comment on WP:Assume good faith, which should not be read as an attack on you Ed, whom I have the utmost respect for, nor an attack on any other participant in this process. Assuming good faith is one of the key principles Wikipedia is built upon, and for good reason: it would be impossible for the Wikipedia open-editing model to work if the majority of users were not trying to participate in it in good faith, and if participants did not assume good faith of one another. The further we get away from assuming good faith, the further away we get from attracting the volunteers needed to maintain and grow the encyclopedia. Recently there have been a number of incidents that have strained the ability of the community to assume good faith; I'm thinking of the incidents surrounding the retirement of User:Rlevse in particular. I had interacted with him several times over a multiple-month period through Did you know (he was the most-active admin participant there for several months prior to the incident), and he even gave me one of his User of the Day awards. I was shocked and stunned when it was learned that he had plagiarized sources to write featured articles, to the point where I backed away from Wikipedia and considered retiring for a month or so. However, in the end I decided that one bad apple, no matter how high up the tree, does not mean the entire tree should be cut down. The mission of Wikipedia is still something worth contributing to. We must not let incidents like that destroy our ability to assume good faith; if we lose that ability, the only certainty is that Wikipedia itself will slowly wither and die. –Grondemar 04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Dusti

11. What are your views on Recall and are you placing yourself in that category?

A: If it becomes clear through whatever means that the community does not have confidence in my ability to exercise the role of administrator, I will immediately resign. I do believe there needs to be a better way to remove administrators who abuse their powers, but I did not support the WP:CDA proposal as I thought it was too susceptible to gaming and would reduce the number of administrators willing to make unpopular yet correct decisions. I believe there is great promise in the idea of setting up an Arbitration Committee subcommittee to investigate admin abuse that I've seen discussed recently. –Grondemar 05:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional question by Spartaz

12 What other accounts have your edited wikipedia with? Please can you explain how your early contributions are clearly those of an experienced editor?

A:

Comment: this is an unfair loaded question, and makes the assumption the candidate has edited before. I don't see how the candidate's earliest edits are any more remarkable than yours, Spartaz. Your first edit is creating your userpage with an edit summary and signing your name. Your first 50 edits all have summaries. In your second edit, you add a "cat" - how did you know what categories were? Your third edit was discussing a page move on a talk page, and you sign your name again. Your 10th edit was creating a redirect. The list goes on. Of course you were not a sockpuppet, and I wish you would assume the same of this candidate too. AD 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• A very fair point. Stricken. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But once we're at it, would you Spartaz mind telling us what your previous username was (if you had one)?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my answer to Question 10 covers this. –Grondemar 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Spartaz, not you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Racepacket

13. Many of your edits are in the area of college football, an area which draws repeated POV challenges. Most active contributors to these articles are fans of the particular college team. What are the most effective means for maintaining NPOV and an encyclopedic tone, when the editors drawn to this topic appear to be partisans who are trying to emulate sports-writers?

A:This is something that I've worried about in my own contributions to Wikipedia: whether I was unintentionally inserting a pro-UConn bias into the bowl games articles I was improving. In general fans of a sport are also fans of a team, and fans of a team generally want to focus on improving articles related to their team. There is nothing wrong with this. However, it is also critical that Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view and not a fan's point of view. I've found two means that I use to try to avoid POV and tone problems:

1. Citing neutral reliable sources. For instance, for college football coverage I try to keep the majority of citations to national sources such as ESPN and the Associated Press rather than to local newspapers. While local reliable sources can and should be used since often they contain much more detailed information on the particular team, national sources provide a better, more neutral overview of the subject, helping to avoid POV problems.
2. Requesting feedback from other editors. I've found that processes such as the Good Article and Featured Article review systems, as well as Peer Review, do a good job of attracting input from person who might not even be sports fans but are willing to provide their perspective as to whether the article is properly neutral and has the correct tone. I've also tried, for example in bowl game articles, to get input from fans of the other team to make sure they feel that the article deals with their team fairly and neutrally. I've worked on internalizing the feedback I've gotten from past reviews into the work I do in new articles in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes. I think it's difficult at times for people to see the flaws in their own work, but as long as they are willing to accept the feedback of others and to look beyond their own perspective their contributions can be highly valuable. –Grondemar 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

14. The Wikimedia Foundation determines that change is needed, and as an administrator, your first task will be to come up with a new name for Wikipedia. It must be totally new; no "wiki" anything or anything-"pedia". What name do you suggest? Why?

A: First, in my opinion it would be extremely unwise for the Wikimedia Foundation to change the name of Wikipedia at this point. Wikipedia and the unfinished puzzle globe logo have become a brand with global awareness, maybe not to the level of the McDonald's golden arches or the Nike "Swoosh", but certainly significant enough that it would be a major risk abandoning them. The only reason I could think that the Wikimedia Foundation would want to abandon the Wikipedia brand is because they are convinced that an external source like Wikileaks has done so much damage to the name "Wiki" that it is necessary to change the name of the project. (Note: The previous sentence takes no position on Wikileaks.)

If the Wikimedia foundation were to conclude that a change in the project brand is necessary, the first place to start is to look at the key features and attributes of the project that they would want to empathize in their brand. Based on the original mission, I'd say those themes would be:

• The sum of all human knowledge (see [5].)
• Free as in libre

After some experimentation I kind of like "Summa omnia humana liber", a rough Latin translation of "The sum of all human knowledge free" I got from Google Translate. I like the way the words flow together. However, I would definitely favor keeping the original name as I noted above! –Grondemar 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Grondemar: Grondemar (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Grondemar can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk by Grondemar. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not voting on this one but I'm concerned with Kevin Rutherford's oppose. A big problem on Wikipedia is the way we treat newbies, and our opinions of them. We were all a newbie at one time. Looking back at my earliest days, I certainly did not know everything, but I wasn't an idiot. Every thing that "looks like a sock" can easily be explained. For example, the edit summary isn't exactly a big secret thing. It's there right next to the save button. It's good they used edit summaries, not suspicious. Long-term readers (as I was) do actually read the site, including policies and such. I certainly did - I was curious how the site was operated, and I run two wikis of my own. It's not impossible that they knew about featured articles - they are, after all, only on the most viewed page on the site. I could explain away more of the "concerns", but if I didn't know any better, I'd assume the candidate had read around a bit, perhaps had edited on another wiki, or just worked it out for themselves. I'm concerned that KR doesn't seem to have asked the candidate about anything, merely jumped to oppose. As I said, there's a simple explanation and it's not exactly rocket science using Wikipedia. In short, not all newbies are clueless. AD 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• But have you ever met someone who was able to use speedy deletion templates (correctly, no less) by their fourth edit? I certainly haven't. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• He might have edited as an IP, or seen them on an article as a reader. They're not hidden away from everyone, nor are they difficult to use. There are so many possible explanations here, and it's sad that people are jumping to oppose at the slightest "worry". AD 04:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are many explanations. I would like to hear what his is, and if I am satisfied, I will happily change my !vote. In the meantime... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note to Ed: Ed, you have written to Grondemar, I have kept an eye on RfA for you, as I have always been a bit wary on a certain point. Specifically, if you had had issues with an editor whom you've personally welcomed on-board, these should have been brought forward much in advance, rather than at the time of the editor's RfA. You also mentioned the off-wiki discussion and have written, "If he responds to our satisfaction, we can always change our !votes. ". I think you should not have voted as a group (although I note that Kevin has indented his oppose and so, perhaps, might you). Your view also leads me to question whether as a community, we're supposed to utilize milch editors till we can, and refuse the Curtius-types the entry just when they arrive at the Lacus... Kind regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a long explanation for why I did not bring my concerns to light until now. Briefly, I thought Grondemar was a net positive to the project – even if he was a sock – and there was no reason to get an editor blocked for doing good work, whatever his past. However, administrators have a bit more power (in the technical sense of the term, e.g. blocking, deleting etc.), so I allowed him to operate and create quality content as an editor while keeping watch for a potential RfA. I have never and still do not have enough evidence to go to SPI, and Grondemar's response in detail has soothed some of my concerns. Regarding "our," I did not mean to imply we were !voting as a group; although I did discuss my concerns with Kevin prior to posting the question/opposing, I was referring to the three opposing editors, including myself. I am not intentionally part of a cabal or anything similar. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note to the closing bureaucrat: Being an editor who had actually proposed a policy that included compulsory checkuser of all RfA candidates (a proposal which is close to being a perennial proposal and has been defeated quite handsomely time and again), I understand and appreciate Ed and Kevin's point of view to be careful when analyzing RfA candidates. And despite my above note to Ed, I should appreciate it, if the oppose votes aren't rejected simply because opposing editors were opposed by many editors. I believe the oppose voters have purely considered the benefit of Wikipedia in their perspective, rather than anything else, while pointing out to their worries about Grondemar. This is, in case Ed continues to be in the oppose column. Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Following indented bulletpoint moved here from Questions for the Candidate #10 - this is not a followup question. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• <<applause>> Brilliant answer! I believe this is a sequentially inappropriate method for me to leave a message, but given the purchased context of the question and the effervescent judiciousness/articulateness of the reply, I applaud Grondemar's sincerity. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. User has experience in different areas, seems intelligent and level-headed, and has a clear idea of what they will do with the tools. Trebor (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Support - Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 00:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Definitely could use the tools to benefit the encyclopedia. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support No present concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose, something is not right here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

   I'm re-supporting because your answer is quite honest and I believe you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

   Indented. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

5. Support Why not? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Looks ready for the tools, and has identified a good place to put wiki skills to work. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support- I see no real concerns. Reyk _YO! 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Supportper Trebor. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support – Good candidate. —mc10 (t/c) 05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Highly active for almost exactly one year, the candidate is familiar from college football pages. Adequate content building (26 article creations and 110 redirects) combined with factors such as a high level of technical skills, trustworthiness and cerebral answers to questions warrants a vote in favor.--Hokeman (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. Enthusiastic editor with a positive attitude and enough experience/clue to do a good job of administrating. -- œ^™ 08:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Support See no concerns feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
14. A fine editor. ceranthor 19:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Grondemar's focus on DYK is clearly an area where he could usefully use the admin tools. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - Seems like he will use the tools, trustworthy, no complaints from me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Support: He will fine as an administrator. WAYNESLAM 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Strong candidate with the required experience. Agree that DYK needs more involved administrators and that the rate may need to be slowed (although disagree with the all-GA DYK idea). User shows intelligence and thoughtfulness in his responses. The Interior(Talk) 00:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Candidate knows their strengths and weaknesses and has identified areas of Wikipedia where they can apply those strengths best, and minimize those weaknesses. Uncommonly gormful. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Fully qualified candidate, intending to focus on an area that could use more administrators. Very strong answers to the questions, IMHO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Very good answers to the questions, a user to be trusted with the tools. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
22. Support per above. One two three... 02:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
23. I have a weird feeling, but I think I'll go with a weak support here. I don't like opposing for things I can't put in words, and I don't care enough about the answer to Q4 to oppose. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
24. Strong support, candidate knows how to follow our policies and plans to follow them carefully. Most important to me is the response to the IAR question — this policy tends to be forgotten about far too often, and we need an admin who sees it as a benefit. As long as it's genuinely improving the encyclopedia, there's never anything wrong with an action done in the spirit of IAR. My only disappointment with the candidate is about DYK policies, and that's an editorial matter that shouldn't affect this RFA. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
25. Sooner Magical Support May your RFA go well and may your Fiesta Bowl be a crushing disappointment. ;-) ^{BOOMER SOONER!} KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy user, seems like a good candidate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. Answers show thought and thoroughness. A GA reviewer. Substantial contributor to an FA. No issues I see worth opposing over. Lambanog (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Is he perfect? No. Is he ideal? Close enough. Is he acceptable? Yes. The RfA is a nasty process and attracts nasty people. It's a nit-picky process that attracts nit-picky people. I see no need to be either. Sure, he might have answered Q4 better. In the end though, I still have a solid 90% confidence in him, and that's a whole lot higher than I have for a handful of current admins. In the end, the fact that he has stated his target niche and demonstrated the proper level of knowledge to effectively operate in said niche, (and meets all my basic requirements, such as putting in six months and not having a long ban log), is enough for me. Good luck and don't screw up. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
29. Support I like the generally well thought out answers, esp. answer to #3 in which he emphasizes that his philosophy is to avoid escalating conflicts. KeptSouth (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
30. Support #I was leaning towards neutral on the basis of the response to Q4; it's not what I would do, then again I'm not experienced with DYKs, and the response does not seem too bad. Based on the other responses, and great user contribution to wikipedia... I'm supporting on the basis of WP:Net Positive. Aeonx (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
31. Support - Thought out his answers well—I think he will make a good admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
32. Support I'm surprised the user hasn't received more support !votes by this time. Seems extremely intelligent, mature and a brilliant example of why a combination of regular civil communication, reasonable cross-forum experience and well-thought out RfA replies almost always works brilliantly in influencing Wikipedia editors positively. I'm also quite appreciative of all the other editors in the neutral section who've taken care to explain their positions so well for the sake of the editor. Grondemar, I look forward wholeheartedly to have you contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator; my best wishes. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. Superb candidate. An excellent addition to the admin staff. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Another admin at DYK would definitely be a good thing. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
35. Support. I've seen a lot Grondemar around, and been very happy with the level-headedness. I may be slightly biased, due to similar interests, but I'm confident candidate will be a good addition to the ranks of admins.--SPhilbrickT 18:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
36. Support No red flags. Grondemar's response to Q4 is what I would have done as well.--Banana (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. I appreciate this editor's calm, positive attitude and believe he will be an excellent addition to the team. Cind.amuse 01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
38. Support: Excellent Job. would make a fine sysop. Good Luck. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. I don't think that Grondemar got the answer to question 4 quite right. However, I am very impressed withthis editor's experience in a very exposed area of wikpedia, and the lack of drama. I see a commendable his focus on content combined with a diligent attitude to policy and guidelines which gives me confidence the q4 shortfalls will be learnt from. So I'm very confident that this is just the sort of responsible person who should have access to the tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
40. Support No red flags here.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 07:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Clearly trustworthy. Steven Walling 21:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
42. I wasn't planning on actually voting, but having read the opposes, I feel obliged to comment. Why is it that everyone assumes that incompetence is required for new editors? There are two reasons that new editors can show competence, either they read the copious documentation that has been provided for how to edit wikipedia, or they are exercising a WP:CLEANSTART. Neither of those reasons should be a problem. If a clean start is so clean that one cannot say who the original account was, who cares? Clearly the user has remedied whatever deficiency lead him or her to leave the project. If the user is someone who has read the manual, then they are exactly the sort of user we want contributing to the project and as an administrator, not someone to discourage with allegations of sockpuppetry merely for showing competence. I believe we have a case of the latter here, and I thus give my full and unqualified support. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
43. Seems to be a fantastic candidate; I don't have any problems with supporting. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
44. Wonder why he isn't one already.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
45. Per Sailsbystars. Have seen the work that this editor has put into doing over at DYK, and through the suggestions in the oppose gave me a momentary pause, the rational that some editors do spend a considerable amount of time viewing / editing this website before finally seeing the benefits that registering an account, and fostering trust from the community can have. I am interested in the candidates response to the above question posted, but for now, I believe this would be a welcomed addition in an area that is unfortunately under-served at this time (coming from one that should be spending more time over there) and experiences frequent burnouts and turnovers. A net positive. Calmer Waters 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
46. Clearly here to build an encyclopedia. The answer to #5 will correct itself fairly quickly once he starts actually tackling vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
47. Support I really pity the users who are opposing for such lame reasons below. Dusti^*poke* 03:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

    Let's not call people lame, thanks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

    That was an honest typo (notice it didn't make sense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusti (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

48. Support Here for the right reasons and doubt he'll break the place if given the tools. AniMate 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. Questioning is overly intrusive and aggressive; I see no reason for that. Chick Bowen 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
50. Support I don't think he will abuse the tools. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
51. Support. Lots of work on DYK where admin tools would be of great benefit. Candidate clearly has a deep understanding of the way things work on Wikipedia, and has a professional background that will be a great boon to the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
52. Support Has experience contributing to FA level (although not successfully but will eventually). Admins need to understand the effort that goes into producing quality content. Graham Colm (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Have had good interactions with this user. upstateNYer 12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
55. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
56. Support. No qualms whatsoever about this candidate. Communicates with clarity, edits with common sense, would easily be an asset as a level-headed admin. Accusations of sock-puppetry are unsupported by any evidence, and in my opinion, such accusations are troublesome in the context of this RfA. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
57. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
58. Support - Trust worthy, good DYK work Peter.C • talk 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
59. Support - I've observed Grondemar's good contributions in two areas that I'm also active in: DYK and college athletics. I'm confident that, while not perfect, adminship for Grondemar will at the very least be a net positive for Wikipedia. In particular, Grondemar has displayed a willingness to ask questions when unsure, to acknowledge their errors, and to act based on consensus even if they disagree with that consensus. cmadler (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - Good track record, seems very enthusiastic and willing. Wexcan  Talk  18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. See no issues here, and DYK needs help. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
62. Support I've seen Grondemar at FLC and FAC, and am impressed with his work. Two words come to mind when describing him: "sensible" and "articulate". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
63. Support A person who likes to help out with the Main Page, especially on the DYK aspect. He/she is an intelligent and important candidate to grant adminship for. Minimac (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
64. Support: Looks good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
65. Support. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
66. Support: Thoughtful answers. Looks good.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Per Sailsbystars' excellent reasoning. I'm willing to AGF that the candidate is what they say they are and if that turns out to be incorrect, we can still do something about it later. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
68. I was waiting on Q10, but I'll happily support. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 15:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
69. Support: No reason to oppose. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
70. Support - Answers to questions, while not all 100% correct, show that he has his head in the right place. Seems clear to me he's not here to reinvent the rules, he has the capability of carefully interpreting the rules and enforcing them, even if they are counter to his personal opinion. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
71. Support. I think Grondemar can be trusted with the tools and will put them to good use. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
72. Support. Looks like someone... that would be an even greater asset with admin tools. Nephron  T|C 04:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
73. Support - good answer to Q13. Racepacket (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
74. Support. Good contributions & good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
75. Yes. Everything looks great. The answer to Q10 was exceptionally good. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 14:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
76. Support because the candidate gives thoughtful answers and DYK has a need. I'm pleased that the oppose issues got resolved as they should have, and I think that it is possible to over-analyze the answers to questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
77. Support fully qualified candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
78. Strong Support – Excellent, well thought out, detailed responses to the questions above. Will be a huge help keeping things mopped up! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - highly qualified user. I'm particularly impressed by the way you handled unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry on this RFA with coolness and dignity, which bodes well for how you'll act as an administrator. Robofish (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
80. A little over 12 months' experience, not a very high edit count, but enough to show that he knows what he's doing and a desire to work in admin-short areas where the work can be tedious. No reason to think he wouldn't be a net positive with the admin bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
81. Support Despite a low edit count, I'm satisfied with this candidate's answers to the questions, and he seems to be an experienced user. I've no reasons not to trust this user. HeyMid (contribs) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
82. Support I don't think that the his behavior when he created an account is an issue. He stated that he'd been using Wikipedia as an IP. That's good enough for me. He hasn't damaged the Encyclopedia and has been, as far as I can tell, a net benefit. A good user that actually takes the time to think before making possibly damaging edits. Definite support. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
83. Support Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question. Keepscases (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
84. Stephen 23:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
85. Appears competent. Nakon 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
86. Support This candidate handled his quesitons well without losing his cool. This added with clear demonstration of expirence leads me to a yes vote. Lord Roem (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - at the very least until q10 is answered. I think your editing is positively phenomenal, but I have grave suspicions based on your early editing. Apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving to neutral based on answer to q10. I am satisfied with the answer, and although I can't bring myself to support, I no longer have qualms about Grondemar obtaining the tools. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I was talking to a fellow editor an hour ago and I decided to dig a bit deeper into your history here. After a bit of looking, I have run upon things that are quite worrisome to me. One of the first ones is how you started off with rather experienced edit summaries from your first edit. For any Wikipedian who supposedly hasn't been here before, this is rather odd. Your first edit summary was "adding link to 2010 Gator Bowl". A new editor might write that, but the fact that you follow up a few edits later with Fixed red link to point to intended WP page section shows that you seem to have had some sort of experience here. I could go on, but the edit summaries at the bottom of this page are quite concerning from a standpoint of you being a new person here. For your first few hundred edits, you seem to have quite a knowledge of the ways and means of this encyclopedia. Finally, your first sentence here is quite concerning. You say, "I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Wikipedia, and would like to suggest the article 2000 Sugar Bowl for January 4, 2010." At this time, this was your eleventh edit. Someone who has generally been here for a long time would likely be able to ask a question in such a manner but you seem to have intricate knowledge of how to edit here. They also wouldn't likely start a sentence talking about how they are new here. That looks a tad suspicious in that you are trying to hide something. I find it hard to believe that a new editor would stumble across this page, as I didn't even find this place until a few years in. Even a person who casually reads Wikipedia is unlikely to go there rather soon in terms of them starting at this project. A year ago we had a user Pastor Theo who white knighted not only at my RFA, but fooled others into giving them the tools. A few months later, the user was blocked after it was discovered that they were a sockpuppet. If you look at their earliest edits, there is a parallel between you two is quite worrisome. I am not saying that there is a link between the two users but there is quite a similar modus operandi that is rather worrisome. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User Moved back to support. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Kevin and I were discussing this off-Wiki. I wanted a second editor's opinion before drafting and posting my question (the references to Pastor Theo, however, are purely incidental). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Theo's latest sock (that I know of) was blocked in April, so the checkuser investigation would probably have turned up Grondemar if it was really him. —Soap— 11:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the point was to provide an example of similar behavior, not to accuse Grondemar of being Theo. Based on how they write and the subject areas they worked in, I would find Gronde=Theo hard to believe (if your post was aimed at Kevin, my apologies) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I came to that same conclusion last night about any link. The users don't overlap their page edits on the major accounts and I don't really think there is any sort of link between the two users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

@Soap: Just to point it out, Theo's last sock was The Pebble Dare (talk · contribs), blocked in June. Which basically makes your point stronger still. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am rather concerned about the way in which Kevin R has raised this. Grondemar's explanation here that zie was a long-term reader but a new editor seems to me to be quite plausible. I know several people who have never made a single edit but who read wikipedia carefully, checking edit histories and talk pages and looking at how policies and guidelines affect its development. If any of those readers started editing, they would do so with an awareness of conventions which far exceeds most new editors ... and since it is possible that this is the case with Grondemar (as he said in that diff), it seems to me that what Kevin is doing here amounts to a gross assumption of bad faith. I see no suggestion, let alone evidence, that Grondemar has been in any way disruptive or tendentious, or that zie is pushing a POV. All we have is an editor who began editing in a reasonably well-clued-up state, rather than diving in and figuring it all out every time they trod on a hornet's nest. Kevin seems to see this as suspicious, but it is equally explicable as the conduct of a responsible person who tries to learn about something before jumping in ... and that latter interpretation seems to me consistent with Grondemar's track ecord over the last year.

Kevin is concerned that Grondemar may be a sock or a reincarnation of a banned user, but instead of seeking a checkuser or directly asking Grondemar where zie has ever edited anonymously or under another account, he leaps straight in with an oppose. Is this really a fair way to treat an RFA candidate?

Kevin's final comment can be read as withdrawing the suggestion, but I'm not sure if that is the meaning Kevin intended. Kevin, please can you clarify? If you are still concerned about this you should take it further take this further (and explicitly notify Grondemar of this major concern), but if not you should withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, Theo's socks tend to be created immediately after the last sock was blocked; Theo came along just after Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) was blocked/sitebanned, Warrah (talk · contribs) was created just after Theo was blocked, Joal Beal (talk · contribs) was created just after Warrah was blocked, and The Pebble Dare was created just after Joal Beal was blocked. Grondemar doesn't fit this pattern; if he did, his account would have been created on June 1. His account was created on December 13, 2009, while Warrah was still active. Save for the Theo and Mrs. Wolpoff (talk · contribs) accounts (also with minimal overlap between the Mrs. Wolpoff and Ecoleetage accounts), he's never used more than one account at the same time. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 18:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have said twice before, I do not believe that there is a link but I am making a point there there are some similarities between the two that are unnerving. If I came in with an accusatory tone, that is not what I had in mind but the history just looks rather weird. It is possible that they did look around and learn things before they began editing but I find that highly unlikely and his behavior looks more like the nicer socks (ones that hang around and then get blocked a thousand edits in) that I have seen. Again, I am not accusing the editor of anything but it just looks suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reading wikipedia policies from the start of this September, including things like AfD's and various Wikipedia user essays. I was afraid of "breaking" Wikipedia, so I never really started contributing until late September, when I read WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. Grondemar might just be the same way. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get your oppose rationale. Because he knew how to edit from the beginning? Is that what you are saying? Am I missing something? Just because it took you 200+ edits to figure out the use of edit summary, doesn't mean other people can't figure it out early. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there really an issue with a user who may have done wiki gnoming as an IP, and then 7,000 edits later as a registered user asking for the mop? I don't think so. This is one of the many reasons I am now staying away from RFA because of opposes like this, where you are literally looking for a reason to not give this user the flag, rather than looking at why you should give them the flag. This is honestly pathetic, and majorly petty. [[[User:Grondemar|Grondemar]] you have my support (I'll post it above in a sec.) Dusti^*poke* 03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of badgering Kevin and calling his thinking pathetic, perhaps we should let Grondemar answer for his/herself. Move along, please. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling this thinking pathetic, I just really don't understand his oppose rationale. I just wanted some clarification. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? None of you see anything that worries you in his early editing? Or at the least want to know why Gronde is clearly experienced from his first edit? I'm frightened that the RfA culture has flipped so far as to condemn necessary and extremely important questions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets say, speaking figuratively, that this user is a sock. Has he done anything to harm the encyclopedia? No. If he passes this RFA and does something wrong can we reverse it, and block him? Yes. So, If he is doing nothing wrong, I don't think he should be getting yelled at. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see a decent, competent editor going about their business. If they did stuff wrong, they'd have been shouted at. If they did stuff right, people are suspicious. Is it possible to do anything without something going bad for you on here? AD 04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he has not harmed the encyclopedia as an editor, which is why I did not bring up my suspicions in December 2009 when I welcomed him. He can do much more damage as an administrator, however, which is my reason for posting Q10. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His Harm can be reversed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Grondemar yesterday querying their early editing patterns and had no response. I'm not seeing a noob in their early contributions either and, in the absence of an explanation (and I tried to keep this off wiki in case there were privacy concerns) then I must oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) struck after I checked my own early contribs. Hmmm I must be a sock too....  :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

is it possible that he didn't respond because he is busy, or perhaps doesn't want to waste his time giving you a reason which, since you are opposing this now, you most likely wouldn't accept anyways? Additionally, you might want to take a peak at WP:CLEANSTART, WP:DBQ and notice the fact that, because there are no arbcom members here, if he did take a clean start he followed the proper procedure. If you have some serious concerns, waste everyone's time and open a case at WP:SPI. Otherwise, please stop impeding this user's ability to further help this great encyclopedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If he responds to our satisfaction, we can always change our !votes. If he cleanstarted, he should tell us that, email a trusted admin the account name, and allow this person to confirm the old account was in good standing. AGF should not be held like a hammer over opposers' heads to stifle honest concerns about a user. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not an option, it's one of the five pillars and you three have all failed to adhere to it. Not one of you has waited for an explanation before opposing, and none of you has considered the possibility that the user might have actually been competent and read around a bit before starting. I pointed out above that Spartaz has a very similar early start to the candidate, and of course he is not a sockpuppet. AD 04:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that you need to brush up on your policies Ed. You should know that any user is permitted to have a clean start and not tell anyone. As I said above, if such a user files an RfA, it is recommended that they tell arbcom privately about it. As I also said above, since arbcom has stayed completely out of this, that means that he either did a clean start by following the correct procedure, or it isn't a problem. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand AGF. If I have a very pertinent and relevant concern, AGF should never be used to bury it. I have considered that possibility and consider it extremely unlikely. Regarding clean starts, he doesn't have to tell anyone. However, if he's running for administrator, I'm going to oppose until either an arbcom member or a trusted admin confirms that the last account was in good standing (your argument has a gaping hole: the lack of arbcom involvement could also be that he has not told anyone). Now, if you'll please stop badgering opposes and move on... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering how long the discussion has been going on, I'm pretty sure that someone from arbcom would have raised a red flag if there was a problem. Additionally, considering how little substance your position holds, perhaps you should AGF about the user. Judge the user by his contributions, not by the tiny, unconfirmed chance that he is a sockpuppet of someone else. We aren't badgering opposes, we are pointing out critical flaws in the arguments. That is what an RfA is for - community discussion on whether or not the candidate is suitable for adminship. That involves discussion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But the concern is pretty baseless, when we see that both you and Spartaz have similar early editing histories. How did you know about RFA so early anyway? Did you have another account? See how ridiculous I sound? Of course you didn't, you saw a link to it on someone's page, or their contributions. So many explanations, but the difference is I assumed good faith, and you didn't. Now, if you had actual evidence the candidate was a sock, I'd be opposing with you, but what you have is essentially circumstancial nothingness. AD 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose per interest in enabling a dysfunctional DYK process that harms content, rather than being focused on reforming it (a worry about a "backlog" there is precisely the wrong thing administrator material should be focused on). Anyone remember User:Rlevse?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Q4 - anybody who can look at those sources and not simply answer "those are not neutral sources" does not understand our key policies. If the answer to Q11 were "I will submit myself for fresh community approval in X years", I would be happier about this, especially in light of the praiseworthy answer to Q5, which should be read widely; but this is likely to be the only chance to object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't know of any reason to oppose Grondemar (and am sorry the archiving of a recent FAC was demoralizing :) and am satisfied with his response above on DYK, but neither do I know him well enough to Support; I may revisit later if I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

   Pending Q7 answer. Nakon 04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2. This is a genuine "neutral". It isn't a "I'm not supporting". The answer to q4 was fine to the extent that it isn't wrong. I particularly liked the identification of a responsibility to detect plagiarism, which has been a huge problem across the main page recently. But I think the candidate dodged the actual issue in the specific question. The article in question only has one real source so it would have been abundantly clear where the problem was without having to ask a follow-up question of the complainant. The other problem is the idea that non-reliable sources are less of a problem when they support "non-contentious material". What is contentious? How do we know? What to our unknowing eyes might be an innocent factoid might in fact be a highly contentious claim. For example the article says "In the latter part of his life, Guha was accorded pension as a freedom fighter." "Freedom fighter" is an extremely value-laden word. This statement, like the rest of the article, is sourced to avowedly communist material that is fawning of the article's subject ("Comrade Guha!"). In my view, the article isn't fit to be on the mainspace, let alone the main page. I hope the candidate's refusal to say arose from RfA diplomacy rather than a genuine tolerance of the article. Anyway, I'm just throwing thoughts out for discussion and contemplation rather than rushing to a conclusion early in this RfA. My gut is much closer to supporting than opposing. DYK either needs to be (a) tanked; (b) overhauled; or (c) given an influx of qualified admins to help the current admins do the detailed scrutiny described in question 4. Given that (a) and (b) will probably never happen I'm inclined to think giving Grondemar the tools would be a good thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

   Just confirming I'll stay here. The follow-up to q4 was equally disappointing - not that the candidate didn't edit the article, but the attitude that there is nothing "particularly contentious" in the article. With respect, I think this approach is myopic. The real issue is an article about a communist politician that relies almost entirely on a rabidly pro-communist source. The issue isn't whether particular statements are contentious; it is that the whole article is affected by the biased source. Yes the article was created by a highly active DYK contributor and approved by two active DYK admins. Which makes it all the more problematic. I would have liked to promote a DYK admin with sufficient clarity of thought to make the bold calls necessary to pull articles like this. But the next best thing is another DYK admin to at least get the hooks through the queue, so I won't oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

3. I'm not happy with A4 or its followup answer. Mkativerata says it well. I shall park myself here for now, but I am leaning towards oppose. NW (Talk) 00:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Moved from oppose, see reasoning there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I'd love to support, and would do so except that while there is distinguished support, I'm not seeing names I recognise as DYK process mainstays. Perhaps I'm wrong - please anyone feel free to point to ones I've missed. December 24th is probably not the best day to launch an RFA, & I'll keep an eye on this until the 31st. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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.