Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Randykitty

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

Randykitty

Final: (85/3/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 08:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Randykitty (talk · contribs) My username is Randykitty and I have been active under this name on WP for almost 1.5 years with over 30,000 edits (but see Q4). I have been mostly active editing articles on academic journals, with some side activity on articles about magazines and biographies of scientists. When checking newly created pages for new journal/magazine articles, I also often look at articles tagged for conflict of interest or anything that tickles my curiosity. I have quite a few user talk page edits, for a large part because I tend to post a "welcome" template on them if they are redlinked. I often list inappropriate usernames at UAA, regularly participate in AfD discussions, and regularly nominate articles for deletion through CSD (log) or PROD (log) tags. As I have noticed that there recently are frequent backlogs in those areas, I decided that it has become time to carry my share of the burden and to offer my help. Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from DGG

Randykitty (talk · contribs) has been active here almost as long as I have, and we have shared many interests here. He's one of the people whose judgement I most rely on, and his active participation and support has been essential in some of the work I do, though he tends to be a little less inclusive than I on some really esoteric subject areas. He has a thorough knowledge of WP, and I can't recall him ever making a significant mistake in dealing with people. I'm co-nominating partly to state that I am aware in detail with his record under previous names, and I know that nothing in it is discreditable in any manner. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Drmies

I have known Randykitty (well, the person who is this kitty) for maybe four years or so, having met him, in his previous incarnation, probably at some academia-related AfD. He is one of my go-to editors particularly for academic biographies (he knows the technical stuff about h-indexes, and his knowledge of the French, German, and Dutch academic world is extensive) and for academic journals. In that last field he is probably the most knowledgeable editors I know, and he participates with an almost Calvinist work ethic in the maintenance, cleanup, editing, expanding, and yes, deletion of articles on journals. This isn't important just for the sake of those articles themselves, but also for establishing which journals have standing and can count as a reliable source by our standards--thus, his work, in which I have great faith, is important all around the project, especially since there is a proliferation the last few years of electronic journals, many of which unfortunately don't pass muster (we now have "journal mills" besides diploma mills). I look forward to his participation in and decisions on such discussions as an admin, since there are not that many editors with such an intricate knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines combined with a deep knowledge of the academic business.

Like DGG, I am also here to certify his previous record; I am aware of it, and I am aware of the reasons for his clean start, if that's the proper word for it. I can vouch for his clean record and for the extent of it, in breadth and depth: I can say, for instance, that the previous accounts got pretty close to 100,000 edits, in case anyone was wondering how he attained all this knowledge of WP. I wish him the best of luck: we can use an admin like this. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2014 (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: I mainly plan to be active in the areas that I have already been active in in the past: UAA, CSD, PROD, and AfD. I have considerable experience with and knowledge of the username policy, it has been quite a while that a report that I filed at UAA was rejected. Given the recurrent backlogs at AfD, with discussions regularly remaining open for 8, 9, of even more days (not counting re-listings, of course), I started a few months ago to perform some non-admin closures. Those are sometimes a bit frustrating, however: obvious "keep" closures are usually NAC closed very rapidly and thus not a cause for the backlog. Given my experience with AfD, I therefore concentrate more on those discussions that are a bit more contentious and may not result in a straightforward "keep", so many of my closures have been "merge" or "redirect". However, and that's the frustrating part referred to above: often when studying a particular discussion, I conclude that deletion is the correct closure, so there is nothing there I can do and the time that I spent on that particular AfD is more or less wasted. As an admin, I would be able to close those discussions, too, using my WP time more efficiently and at the same time help diminish the backlog.

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

A: There is not really a single article that I can point to. However, I think I have been doing a reasonable job at the WikiProject Academic Journals. I clean up articles on academic journals, remove the (frequently present) promotional language, maintain categories, etc. I have several thousand journal articles on my watchlist, enabling me to help protect them from vandalism or the addition of promotional material. Recently we also have an influx of attempts to create articles on non-notable "predatory" journals, which can take up quite some time because PRODs rarely stay for long and many have to go to AfD. When I have some extra time, I create articles (mostly on journals). I am currently (slowly) going through the list of journals that have an impact factor in the Neuroscience category of the Journal Citation Reports and create an article on them if none exists yet (a list of articles that I have created is on my user page). My work on journal articles also regularly takes me to Commons, because many journal articles are created by newbies who upload cover images there, although such covers rarely are in the public domain.

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

A: I usually try to stay clear from drama, but that cannot always be avoided. I have been in a number of conflicts with editors trying to insert promotional material or "defending" their autobiographies. Fortunately, I have a thick skin and don't get angry easily. I try to reason with such editors as much as possible and point them to the relevant guidelines and policies. Often enough, conflicts go away if you patiently explain why something was done. Often enough, other editors pitch in, too. In very rare cases we end up at ANI. The most tenacious conflicts that I have been involved with concerned COI editors and socks at OMICS Publishing Group and boundary 2. I don't intend to deal with this any differently in the future: being involved in these discussions, the tools obviously should not be used. At this point, I don't intend to hang out more at ANI than I currently do (i.e., hardly at all) and get involved in any of the disputes listed there.

Additional question from Randykitty

4. Do you or have you ever edited Wikipedia under another username and if yes, which one(s)?

A:: I have never edited WP using more than 1 account simultaneously. However, I have used other usernames in the past. I originally registered about 7 years ago, using my real name as handle. I actually prefer editing under my own name, but have come to the conclusion that such is only possible if everybody else here would do the same, an obviously unattainable situation. Several times I was harassed in RL, in one case even with a troll emailing colleagues of mine that they apparently perceived as my superiors, asking them to make me stop (this was a conflict on COI editing by said trolls). I decided to make a clean start and edited under a different name for a short while (a couple of hundred edits), when I discovered that I also could ask for a rename. So I abandoned the new account and had the old account (with my real name) renamed. My reasoning was that trolls and really abusive editors are only very rarely familiar enough with WP to be able to find out about my earlier username. This went well for a while but in the end, even though renamed, my account was still inextricably linked to my real name and, I guess inevitably, one bad day a troll found out and I got harassed all over again. At that point I abandoned the old account completely and became Randykitty. I informed ArbCom of my clean start and a few people here know of my real-life identity (notably Drmies and DGG). Under none of my previous three usernames (my real name, the abandoned clean start, and the renamed account) have I ever been subjected to any restrictions or been blocked (except for a 30-sec block that an admin did by mistake and for which they apologized profusely). For the purposes of this RFA, I hope that my current 16 month edit history is sufficient for the community to judge my suitability as an admin.

Additional question from John Vandenberg

5. What is your plan of attack and/or exit strategy if your real identity is again linked to your wiki identity? (Please see the talk page for background)

A:John, that would depend on whether the outing was on- of off-wiki. On-wiki is relatively easy to deal with: I would ask an oversighter to revdel the edit that tried to out me. As this would almost certainly be a troll and not a regular editor, the troll probably would end up blocked, too, but that is not really that important (they could easily enough create a new account). Off-wiki is more problematic and I don't really have an exit strategy for that. If that happened, well, so be it and I'd have to live with it. I'll do whatever I reasonably can do to avoid that situation. So while I very much appreciate the advice of Wee Curry Monster (below under "neutral"), one thing is certain: I will not let cowardly anonymous trolls get the better of me. When I was still editing under my own name, the community did a very good job of rallying around me and dealing with harassment and I trust that will be the case in the future, too, should it ever happen again. I obviously prefer to avoid the stress, hassle, and waste of community time of dealing with these things, but in the end, there's not much that trolls can actually do to me.

Additional questions from Ottawahitech

6. Many editors complain they are hounded by others on Wikipedia. What can they do about it?

A: In my experience (which I don't claim to have any WP-wide validity), at least 95% of those complaints are incorrect. Many editors, when they see an edit that they think is problematic, will subsequently look into the contribution history of the editor who made the problematic edit and look at other edits by the same person. This will often result in that person subsequently claiming to be stalked or wikihounded. As long as the "stalker's" intentions are simply to check some edits, there is actually nothing untoward or abnormal going on here. Usually, the "stalker" in these cases is an established editor and the stalked one a (relative) newbie. This is almost always reversed in real harassment situations. In both cases, I feel that the important thing to do is staying calm. In the first case, one should calmly explain to the editor feeling stalked why one is doing certain things. Perhaps also give some editing tips (but be careful not to sound condescending, some people are really sensitive about that and tend to view advice as being talked down to). An intervention by a third, uninvolved, editor may often also help to assure the person feeling stalked that no personal harm is intended. In the much rarer cases where somebody really is harassed on WP and calm reasoning does not work, one should report to ANI. In my experience, the community has generally been pretty fast in intervening and, if the case is clear (which it usually is, we're not talking ordinary content disputes here), the offender rapidly gets blocked. Sysops then often place the page(s) where the harassing was taking place on their watchlists and any socks popping up get dealt with rather rapidly. If things still persist, it often helps to leave the offending area alone for a while and come back after a few weeks. Wikihounders rarely have enough patience to hang around that long.

Additional question from Anupmehra

7. Hello and best of luck for your RfA. Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to block an editor who has either only received one warning, or no warnings at all?

A: There are a few, but not many, situations that merit an immediate block without warning. The most obvious one is where an editor vandalizes multiple pages, with the vandalism being ongoing. Another would be where an editor adds grossly inappropriate negative material to a BLP ("inappropriate" implying a lack of adequate sourcing) and the editing is ongoing. A further one would be a bot that appears to be malfunctioning. A final case would be an account that is otherwise in good standing but suddenly starts behaving in a disruptive way, especially if this is a sysop account, because this might indicate that somebody's account got hacked (I guess this qualifies as "shoot first, then ask"). In all these cases it is important that the inappropriate behavior is ongoing, as blocks should be preventative, not punitive. If the disruptive editing has stopped when it comes to the attention of a sysop, a stern warning can be issued, but any resumption of the disruptive behavior should lead to an immediate block. There are also cases where it is not necessary that the behavior is ongoing, which is when an editor is subjected to some editing restrictions and violates them. Whereas in the former cases the block would be indef and the editor could explain themselves on their talk pages and ask to be unblocked, in the latter case the block should follow the prescriptions given when the editing restrictions were imposed. And in a demonstration of not seeing the obvious, let me add a final example: a username that violates our policies.

7(b). Please give us your opinion on WP:PRAC.

A: This is in fact the first time that I hear of this essay, I must admit. In general, it seems to me a rather sensible one, making several valid observations. We need a firm scaffolding of rules and guidelines upon which to base our editing process, because without those we would just have chaos. Preventing these r&g to develop into red tape that hinders progress is indeed imperative. Personally, I must say that WPs r&g are generally straightforward and follow directly or indirectly in a logical way from our most basic principles. A current ongoing event illustrates the need for clear r&g. I am referring to the huge discussion on whether or not bird names should be capitalized. However one feels about this question (or even feels nothing at all about it), it is clear that we'll need a rule here because otherwise people will waste their time in unending edit wars (and probably at some point leave in frustration). I don't see this as rule creep, by the way: we already have rules about capitalization, we just need to make sure that everybody interprets them in the same way.

7(c). Do you believe Zncx12NJjkiab09toQpxMZ is an allowable Wikipedia username? Please explain, why in each case.

A: This would clearly be a case of a confusing username, "including those that are extremely long" or "inordinately difficult to remember". However, the UAA instructions also say that "it is usually not sufficient to block an account for being confusing alone". Being confusing or difficult to remember is not an egregious violation of our username policy, so I would not block an editor for that. Things would be worse if they had an equally difficult but different string of characters that they would use as signature, because that could indicate an intention to confuse. In any case, I'd try to reason with the editor first and recommend a rename. If they'd stick to their name and subsequent editing would prove that this would lead to confusion on the part of other editors, I think that a block, in the end, would be warranted.

General comments

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

---

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

• Just an FYI, the template {{u}} automatically inputs 'User:' when mentioning an editor. That's why the link to User:Wee Curry Monster is red above in answer 5. Mkdw^talk 21:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support. While I'm not a fan of non-admin closures as a rule (and I still feel his closure here was questionable given the quality of sources), I have no doubt that Randykitty operates with the best interests of the project in mind, and more often than not makes the right decisions for the right reasons, even when I disagree with him. Happy to support. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, without any reservations. This is perhaps the place to state that I have on occasion disagreed with Randykitty, finding him more critical than me (perhaps that's a good thing), but I have no doubt that in closing deletion discussions, for instance, he will be as fair as an admin can be. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I see Randykitty around the place quite often, always saying and doing sensible things. --Stfg (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support If DGG, Drmies and Stfg all say something then it is probably true. --John (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. I have seen much of Randykitty's editing and know him to be a knowledgeable and level-headed editor. He should make an excellent administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
6. Support. No qualms. Deb (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
7. Support A useful mop wielder like Randykitty in the AfD and journals area would be a welcome addition. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 10:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
8. Support No further explanations needed. Unless if you speak more RP British English than GenAm American English, or you know only the former, you know that Randykitty's username isn't a WP:USERNAME violation. Everything's going good with his community standing and editing interests, and our noms' sentiments will justify the handing over of another wet mop to a user trustworthy of it. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Because in the past some people misinterpreted my username (I frankly didn't think of any alternative interpretation when I created it...), I have added a short explanation on my user page for those who'd be more likely to think of Randy Andy than of Randy Crawford... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

9. Support Good to go - "Mop please"! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
10. Support. Although this AfD nomination is somewhat concerning, Randykitty's AfD contributions are generally good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
11. Support I don't see any problems. I am One of Many (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
12. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Seems eminently reasonable. The AfD that Axl brings up doesn't seem to be a problem to me: sometimes you nominate something at AfD and make a mistake. The right thing to do is to withdraw the nomination. No concern about them using the mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
14. Support While I don't really like not being able to see the whole history (I 100% understand why, it's just an unfortunate reality) I trust the people vouching that it is non controversial, and what I can see I like, so I support. Chuy1530 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
15. Support I have always found Randykitty civil and sensible, and I think the answer to question 1 is a really good rationale for becoming an admin. The AfD mentioned by @Axl does not worry me at all; the mistake is very understandable and it shows a willingness to change course in the light of new facts. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
16. Support Huh. One of those times when I thought the candidate was already a sysop. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
17. Strong Support based on his work in AFD and with academic journals. We need more subject experts as admins. Secret ^account 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
18. Support More than ready for the mop; since no socking was done, past accounts are no concern here. Miniapolis 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
19. Support Okay, I will support your request. If Drmies and DGG know who you are in real life and they trust you to become an admin (as well as some users I trust above) then so do I. I have my reservations because, you know, we've had several cases (I won't mention them to avoid drama) of users who ended up having a big sockfarm, but this does not look like to be your case at all. I must admit that I'm still a bit uneasy, but I am willing to do the leap of faith given your current strong editing history. → Call me Hahc21 17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
20. Support - Seems to know what they're doing (clueful, has experience in article and non-article space, etc.). The non-disclosure of a previous account isn't a big concern for me right now. Randkitty could have simply not mentioned it at all to avoid controversy but was forthcoming about it. We allow people to abandon old accounts all the time for privacy reasons. It can be argued that running for adminship means stepping willingly into a spotlight (and under a microscope) but a candidate is allowed by policy to not disclose old accounts. -- Atama頭 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
21. Support fully qualified. I also made the mistake of having too much personally identifiable information with an account, faced the same harassment problems and made the same decision of resetting everything with a new account. I could see no other way of escaping the trolls. It's important to note that Randykitty did not violate any policy in letter or in spirit. He's the victim here and he should be treated as such. Let's not let trolls dictate outcomes of RfAs. Pichpich (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
22. Support I have to acknowledge your willingness to preemptively ask and answer the issue around your multiple accounts. You're clearly aware of this issue in line of RFA's and have done your best to address it. Further, you have two respected editors of the community who are aware of your other accounts and not only express no concerns but have co-nominated your RfA. I don't always agree with DGG, Drmies, and yourself at WP:AFD but I still greatly respect your opinions, especially when I'm wrong, and credit the work you all do. Thus I feel more than satisfied to fully support this RFA on the word of you three. Mkdw^talk 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
23. Support. Sensible person with a good track record at helping with maintenance jobs. utcursch | talk 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
24. Support What I've seen of this account's work is good. If admins like Drmies and DGG are prepared to vouch for the past being satisfactory, I can accept that. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
25. ///EuroCarGT 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
26. I checked a random sample of the candidate's contributions and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
27. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
28. Support. I have not reviewed Randy's edits. I have read the co-nominator's statements and read Randy's answers to the questions. I have absolute faith in both Drmies and DGG if they confirm there is nothing untoward with Randy's account history. Both administrators are beyond reproach (well, Drmies did have one lapse when he co-nominated me). Randy writes well. He appears to have a very sound approach to editing and a good plan for using the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
29. I always kind of thought Randykitty was already an administrator. I don't see why he shouldn't be one. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
30. Support – You have two great admin nominators nominating you, and you have a clear plan for using the admin tools, Randykitty; I'm sure you'll make a great admin.
    I only have one problem, though, with the age of your account (even though you've been here for several years in reality). However, it is a trivial issue, as I have seen users being promoted to admin status when their accounts were as new as three months. --Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
31. Support. We don't always agree, but this editor knows his/her policy backwards and I'm sure will act in accordance with it as an admin. To those who worry about editing under undisclosed previous accounts, I had a bout of curiosity some time ago relating to a 'new' editor who was highly knowledgeable about policy and uncovered Randykitty's previous main account, and can confirm it was an editor in good standing who was well known to me (in an on-Wikipedia context). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

    For the sake of redundancy, Espresso Addict, he knows his policy forwards as well! Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

32. Support Very good user --cyrfaw (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
33. Support The candidate is qualified, and, considering my own case, the old account isn't something that I can get bent out of shape over. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
34. Support I strongly support this candidate i have talked to him as well as worked with him before and he is more then qualified to be a wp:mop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguard18 (talk • contribs)
35. Support I'm generally pleased with what I've seen of Randykitty's editing, and I trust the nominators enough to take their word as regards previous accounts. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
36. Support Per nominators (and very respected nominators at that). On the past account - If, as is stated (and I have no reason to believe for a moment this is not the truth) the old accounts have been abandoned and were in good standing then they're irrelevant. More to the point however, Randykitty could easily have never mentioned the prior accounts. The fact that they did is actually more transparent and honest, than pretending they never existed. Pedro :  Chat  08:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
37. Support - pretty much per nominations. No concern about the old accounts, as the reasons for keeping them confidential are pretty solid (and I'd be wary of logging any blocks in the near future, for obvious reasons). Drmies and DGG are aware of the old accounts and are happy, and that's more than enough for me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
38. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
39. Support - I haven't came here often to support a candidate... but those opposes are taking fearful policy wonkery to an extreme. So here, take a support... I'm sure you won't cause the entire world to collapse. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
40. Support - largely due to having seen this editor's significant and knowledgable participation at AfD. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
41. Suppport per above. buffbills7701 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
42. Support per nom -- Tawker (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
43. Support. Looks good to me. Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
44. Support. Despite the undisclosed account that hid a problem in another case, even though vouched for, I trust Drmies and DGG to have this one right. Randykitty's record and significant contributions under his new account also alleviate that concern and this work raises no others for me. By the way, I am familiar with being blocked for a minute (and luckily only a minute) by mistake so I feel a bit of solidarity with the candidate. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
45. Support - Per the nominators. I've seen him around as well, and have had a good overall experience, assuring me that he has the right demeaner for using the mop. Looking at the opposing votes, I respect their sincerity but I'm unaffected. Most people are anonymous around here, wanting to keep your real world name disconnected from your Wikipedia identity is considered acceptable, and since he started with his real world name, this is the only option he has. I choose to use my real world identity (which does come with a price), but until policy dictates real names only, I think you have to accept that this is his only choice to exercise his right to remain anonymous, something that every other Wikipedian currently enjoys. I would not feel comfortable singling him out and treating him as less than equal just because he started with his real name. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
46. Support - I have no problem accepting the explanation of previous accounts and the nominations are reassuring anyway. Those interactions I can remember have been positive and I think the candidate will make a good admin. Stalwart111 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
47. Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
48. Strong support. As the answer to Q2 indicates, the candidate has an editing interest in some aspects of neuroscience, and consequently, they have repeatedly crossed paths with me, so I have a strong basis of observation on which to base my comments here. I fully trust this editor as someone who is very smart, clueful, hardworking, and fair. I also happen to be in a position to speak to the concerns that have come up in the oppose section and on the talk page. When edits from the "Randykitty" account first showed up on my watchlist, I wondered who this person was, because they seemed experienced and not like a typical new account. After a while, I noticed some things (that I'm not going to reveal here) that lit up a light bulb above my head, making me realize that this is the same person as some previous accounts that were retired (and which did, indeed, connect to a real life name). I'd say I'm 99% certain that I know who the previous accounts were, and I crossed paths with them a lot too. I know the subject matter well enough to assure editors that the candidate has not been violating WP:COI, as questioned in oppose #3. And I can also assure editors that the previous accounts were never disruptive, as questioned in opposes #1 and #2. This is not attempt to conceal any skeletons in the closet. And I strongly support every editor's right to not give in to harassers. I can vouch for all of that, for whatever my vouching may be worth. (Full disclosure: if I'm correct about this, I've also briefly met the person in real life, but not in a way that would bias my support for the RfA.) This is a fully qualified candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
49. Support --Rzuwig^► 20:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
50. Support I believe this editor has good experience, the right intentions and would make a strong administrator. Please keep in mind the comments of John Vandenberg and Wee Curry Monster that if given the mop, you will eventually get on-wiki (and likely off-wiki) abuse and people will be determined to find out and publicize your real life identity. Good luck dealing with this difficult situation. - tucoxn\^talk 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
51. Support I hope it works out for you but don't forget if you find it is undermining your enjoyment of editing you can always hand it back. WCM_email 07:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
52. Support I see no reasons here to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
53. Support Solomon7968 11:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
54. Support, what Drmies said: "we can use an admin like this" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
55. Support per Pedro and Tryptofish. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
56. Support I especially like your answers to questions 4 and 5, and as somebody who likes to maintain a separate profile online, wholly sympathise with your course of action. James^x12345 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
57. Support. He is very much qualified for this. He is what we need for a administrator.Nhajivandi (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
58. Support An outstanding candidate for Admin. I have had quite a few interactions with RK, mostly in the AfD forums and without exception the candidate has demonstrated a solid grasp of policy and an enthusiastic "can do" approach to the work at hand. Track record as far as I have looked is excellent. The endorsements from the co-nominators are the icing on the cake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
59. Support - everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions (especially about his previous accounts) are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
60. Support Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
61. Support No concerns. benmoore 10:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
62. Support - yep, seems fine. GiantSnowman 11:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
63. Support per noms, answers, and several of the supports above. Not that we edit in the same circles, but I've seen them around, and Randykitty has my full trust. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
64. Support Ok, so I've dug around enough to add my name to support. Unlike current oppose #3, I have no issue with the "frisky feline" nomenclature, even if that was indeed the root of their username. ES&L 12:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
65. Support. No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
66. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 13:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
67. Support A hugely experienced editor, who appears to have a mature and scholarly attitude to the project. Only concern is the possibility of a renewal of outing attempts/attacks by trolls, (as per the comments by WCM below) but this is not relevant to the RfA, as I see it. Irondome (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
68. Support --প্রত্যয় ^{(শুভ নববর্ষ!)} 15:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
69. Support - Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
70. Support Solid candidate.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
71. Support No reason to oppose really - seems like a good candidate. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Seems good to go. Widr (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
73. Support We like experts. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
74. Support Wikipedia needs good experts like you .Best of luck.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
75. Support Seems a good candidate. I am content with DGG and Drmies's reassurances regarding the clean start. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
76. Support Although I have never crossed paths with the candidate, a review of his contributions seems to indicate a dedicated contributor with sufficient experience in the community processes he intends to focus his efforts as an administrator upon. Further, and perhaps most importantly for a sysop, he seems devoted to the principle of civility and to a slow and measured approach to discussion that, it is to be hoped, he can bring to conflict resolution where necessary. His co-nominators being Drmies and DGG further suggests that his conduct is above-board and appropriate to an admin. It would be preferable to know the former accounts, of course, but given the unequivocal statements the two have made concerning the value of Randykitty's contributions and the good-faith reasons he abandoned the older accounts, I think the benefit of the doubt can be given. I should note also, as a point of procedure, I don't see the need to ban the other accounts, especially if abandoning them was an effort at anonymity. After-all, taking into account that he is willing to refrain from using those accounts, we would have no more transparency into whether he was operating that account in violation to a formal (if procedural/no fault) ban than if just in violation of any assurances given here. That is to say, whether the other account is formally banned or not, since most of us will not be privy to the identity of that account (or accounts), we would have to depend upon DGG and Drmies to bring the matter to light if they ever noticed it, seeing as Randykitty seems to be stipulating that as a voluntary condition to his administrator status. Snow (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
77. Support. Seems to be a good candidate. Though I am a little concerned about the candidate's old accounts, I trust the nomination by DGG and Drmies. Salih (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
78. Support The backlog in CSD & AfD is calling you. Harsh (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
79. Support Everything I can see is great. I trust co-noms that there's nothing negative in what I can't. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
80. Support ThemFromSpace 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
81. Support It will be fantastic to have more eyes over at AfD. Whispering 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
82. Support We can use more admins with knowledge of academic journals. I hope wielding the mop will allow you time for regular editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
83. Support. On the accounts issue, I trust DGG and Drmies, both of whom have excellent judgement when it comes to such things. There don't seem to be any other issues, and I've seen the candidate around and always thought they seemed sensible. And non-batshit-insanity is just what we need in the admin corps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
84. Support – Appears sensible enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
85. Support Sorry to be a wimp by jumping on board at the last minute, but I wanted to wait and see if there was any strong substance behind the "opposes". I fully understand Carrite's concerns, but am willing to accept the reassurances of those who know the inside story. The candidate seems well-qualified to me. If DGG and Drmies are willing to support so strongly, then I offer my support as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - While I very much appreciate and respect asking and answering Q4, I believe that the editing of all previous accounts by a candidate need to come under scrutiny. With no transparent linkage of accounts, I can not support this or any similar nomination for power tools. "One person — One account." Carrite (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Tim, I think the rule is really "one person--one account at a time", and in that respect there is no conflict with policy. Randykitty has left the old account, and if you like (and if Randykitty agrees--I don't see why they wouldn't) we can have that account blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   If you blocked it right away, it would probably make it easier for someone else to connect the dots. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Of course I have absolutely no problem with blocking the old accounts. To avoid the problem that NA refers to, I can email a trusted admin not involved in this discussion and ask for a block, that way nobody will be able to connect the dots (at least not conclusively). --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, Northern Antarctica, that's why I didn't do it yet. Randykitty, maybe you can do this anyway since you say you have no objection, and I can come back and confirm. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   It wouldn't take too much effort to go back over the block log for the past few days and see which accounts have been blocked - and it would presumably be fairly obvious which the old ones are. I would recommend against any blocking of the old accounts while the issue is high-profile. Thrub (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   (And bear in mind that there are people out there who like nothing more than outing Wikipedia editors, especially admins - and they'll be watching this for sure. Thrub (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

   I also thought about the timing but didn' think (yet) about said off-wiki crowd. Would the following be acceptable: An admin with whom I have been in contact only rarely has emailed me offering to block the old account. I'll ask this person to do so at some random point in the coming month (regardless the outcome of this RFA). If this RFA is successful, I will disclose my RL identity and the previous account to the closing bureaucrat and I agree to the closing being made conditional upon me disclosing this information. Should even a single edit be made with the old account before it subsequently gets blocked, I agree to an immediate de-sysop and an indefinite ban from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Accountability is one thing, but this all sounds rather drastic. The blocking admin would potentially need to disguise the block amongst other related edits, also providing a convincing rationale for blocking such an old account. In any case, Randykitty could quite easily just establish a new account if really inclined to do so (which I sincerely doubt would be the case). Blocking of the abandoned accounts at the time may have been helpful, but to do so in connection with this RfA could attract attention to the matter. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Of course, if ever I would want to sock, then using an old account of which several admins and ArbCom know that it is me would be rather stupid... Perhaps my above desysop/ban proposal is also acceptable without blocking the old accounts? --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   I'd say it's more than acceptable already. You've done nothing wrong, you've been open about it, and you're bending over backwards to help here. A block would be risky, and I don't think you should be expected to undergo that risk. --Stfg (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   In this scenario, the best solution is to scramble the password (set it to a random value), or set the password to something simple, and give the simple password to someone you trust for them to scramble the password for you. Perhaps DGG or Drmies can do that for you? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

   John, that's a good idea. Why don't you do this for me? I have emailed you the password so you can scramble it. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose I understand your situation and I don't have a good answer for you regarding it. However undisclosed past accounts are something that gets an automatic opppose for me. The community has been burnt before after recieving assurances from arbcom members that there were no issues with past mystery accounts, only to learn at a later date that this was someone who never should have been granted the tools, and would not if the truth had been known. I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but it's just a chance I'm unwilling to take.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Temporary Oppose Until we can take a look at the edits done with the old account(s). The solution proposed above (letting a trusted admin block the accounts) is not good enough for me. If there are privacy reasons, you can request that a bureaucrat (maybe one serving on ArbCom such as Worm that Turned) rename your old account(s) and then ask an oversighter to hide the logs so that nobody can be aware of what your real name is and at the same time make your previous edits publicly available. → Call me Hahc21 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   Wouldn't help - signatures would still be there... ansh666 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   True. Good catch. Anyways, I am satisfied now per some recent developments so moving to support. → Call me Hahc21 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   @User:Hahc21: Maybe the old account could be renamed by an arb/crat, then the rename logs could be oversighted. Then, Randykitty might finally be induced to give his old user account. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

   That doesn't change the problem I noted above. You can still figure out who a vanished user is by looking at talk page comments and such (I've done it before, oops). ansh666 02:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose The candidate seems to have a professional interest in neuroscience and it does not seem appropriate for them to be concealing their identity when they have a stake in the topic. The case of neuroepistemology indicates that they would rather delete something than fix it. Andrew (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Excuse me? If I am understanding the first part of your comment correctly - that you believe that people with an (apparent) serious interest in neuroscience should be editing under their real names - that's not something I can get behind. Anyone can edit any part of the project that they wish to, unless they're specifically excluded from that area or from the project. Anyone editing the project can do so under any name that meets the username policy, or under no name at all. As for the second part of your comment, if an article is a copyright violation, it needs to be removed. Users have different philosophies on how to do so - I personally am of the believe that the article should be deleted or all of the edits containing copyvios should be revision deleted, but not everyone takes handling copyright violations to such an extreme. His response, given the context, was completely valid. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   I don't actually think the username satisfies our policy, which forbids disruptive/offensive names. It has a salacious lolcat sound which might well enrage good faith editors when wielding admin tools. The candidate is active at WP:UAA and their userpage indicates that they are well aware that their name might cause such concern. They have changed their user name repeatedly but continue to use one which may offend. Andrew (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Randykitty was our cat, as I explain on my user page. In the past year and a half, only 1 editor has ever misinterpreted my name (hence that note on my userpage). Do you think that Randy Crawford is unacceptable, too? --Randykitty (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   We should perhaps explain that, in British English, randy means "lustful; eager for sexual gratification; sexually aroused. (Now the usual sense.)" (OED). To me, the name comes across like sex kitten, say. I fully accept that this was not intended and may sound fine to Americans. But to me, it is unacceptably undignified and provocative for an admin. Andrew (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, and in British English it can also be used in a amiable and non-threatening manner, such as in how the tabloid papers refer to Prince Andrew as "Randy Andy". User names are what they are and, providing they are within the guidelines, don't need to be picked apart for hidden meanings. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   And the world would be a poorer place without a Randy Baumgardner. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Shag carpeting must drive you bonkers, Andrew. -- Atama頭 15:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Since we're looking at a name, have we forgotten that Randy is also a name. If one looked in a name dictionary the order of the results would be different. In it's current context, being used in a username, and therefore by default a noun, the burden would be on Andrew to prove that it's being used as an adjective and not a noun. Ironically, Randy is sometimes derived from the name Andrew. Perhaps we should scrutinize any British names that are also adjectives that could be inappropriate: Scarlet which means "flagrantly offensive", Claudia which means "lame" and Gideon which means "stumps for hands" which are both obviously offensive to amputees and people born with disabilities. Mkdw^talk 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   I've known a good number of people in real life named Roger, and we have two active administrators with that name (one of whom is a CheckUser and Oversighter). I'm not crude enough to expand on what that refers to in British slang, though our article on this project does. Clearly there is precedent that names which may be vulgar in slang, but otherwise are normal names in English-speaking cultures, are perfectly fine for administrators on Wikipedia. (I'll note that both Rogers had no opposes in their nominations; well, one had an oppose that was withdrawn, and it wasn't name-related). -- Atama頭 22:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Roy Rogers Restaurants... oh, does he now? What about an aggressive takeover of The Sporting Cock by Fannie Mae. The negotiations could take place here. I could go on all day, but I think you get my point. Stalwart111 23:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I am minded toward support this RfA and have only paused to wonder if this is right for you. I used to edit under my real name, I don't anymore because harassment in real life stemmed from it, so I do have some experience of where you're coming from. If you are given the mop, you will get on-wiki abuse and there are people out there determined to find out your real life identity. I've been around long enough to hazard a guess at who you are (and FYI that would also lead me to support this). However, some of those who will seek to out you were around then and I have to ask is this what you really want? It may well lead to more harassment. WCM_email 09:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Switched to support but I think the comment still stands. WCM_email 07:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm an active editor working on improving Wikipedia content. I edit under my real name since March 2008 and I'm an admin for about 3.5 years. I have no problems with real life harassment or with on-wiki abuse. How's that possible? And what about the real people, the subjects of our articles? They are often subject to defamation and harassment by anyone (since anyone can edit here), without the comfort of safe anonymity of the Internet. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:44, 15 April 2014 (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.