Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kennedy 2

Support

1. Has my support, trusted and nice user. --@intforce 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Sure, our interactions have always been positive. Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - of course, it is time to move on. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Chenzw  Talk  14:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
5. I'm going to support this. I wasn't around for whatever past issues are being referenced, but since I've been here Kennedy has been a great example for new users and very helpful all-round. I have no doubt he'll do everything properly. The thing that I was most hesitant about the level of activity... (if I click the link for changes above, it takes me back to June). I'm hoping, though, that this will pick up. Osiris (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Kennedy has a rather long history on this site, however, the bad stuff he did goes back to something like January 2010 (when he was stripped his rights here). Then he had some troubles around here and his last RfA was then in November 2011, more than one year ago. He's done some good work here since then. At some point in life one needs to forget about the past. I'm willing to give him another chance here. I really doubt that he's going to do the same mistake again. So good luck with the RfA, Kennedy! -Barras talk 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
7. I agree with Barras; I trust that what happened will not happen again. Good luck. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Looking at the names around, I don't think I have to give any reason at all for this comment. Have supported, do support, will support. Goblin 02:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!

   I should probably clarify, though - for the benefit of newbies - that I am 'involved' so-to-speak in-so-far-as it was one of my RfAs (I forget which) that highlighted the initial double-vote that sparked much of this controversy, although everything I have said on the matter in the past remains true. Goblin 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

9. I will support as well. As Barras says, past mistakes must be forgotten at some point. I am actually positively impressed by Kennedy's effort to continue to contribute positively after the mishap. This shows his true passion and attitude towards the project. Good luck. --Mark91it's my world 10:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Support - per consensus on trustable Kennedy and also because we're both at the same level here: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm ONaNcle (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

    The thing you're supposed to base your !vote on is whether you trust Kennedy, not whether the community does. And while certain stats are needed to reach the threshold requirement to be admin, it's not the sole thing you should be basing your vote off of. However if you want to continue to support, more power to you. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too much funny business in the past, including socking and ban evasion. Kansan (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Have no problem with him as an editor. He does good work in that area. But like Kansan he has had too much funny business in the past for me to trust at the admin level. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm myself blocked a full year on another wikipedia as you can notice here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spécial:Journal&page=Utilisateur:ONaNcle and I'll Oppose this self-nomination as long as User:Kennedy doesn't answer the question below because there is imho a great difference between being banned or blocked. ONaNcle (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how to really answer your question, DJSasso has pretty much summed it up. Actually not sure if you want me to answer, as your post says you'll oppose me as long as I don't answer, I assume you meant unless I answer? Anyway, yes that stuff all happened, and I'm ashamed of it. I acted terribly. I still assure you (and everyone else) that the double-vote was an accident. Therefore being stripped of adminship for an accident was a bitter blow. I lashed out horribly and tarnished my reputation. I'm asking for the tools back to help out, and would hope that my hard work since all this would convince everyone that I can be trusted. Basically the only tools I would be getting is the power to block, delete and protect. If I was to try to damage the wiki I'd get as far as deleting about 10 pages before I would be blocked and the pages would be undeleted within minutes. Anyway, thats not going to happen and I'll be using my tools correctly. I hope this answers your question, or at least gives some background to everything... Kennedy ^(talk) 17:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

3. It's not a question of whether he does good work. The issues are a) trustworthiness, and b) a somewhat erratic temperament: he is inclined to be over-argumentative. As an editor, he is an asset. He doesn't need to be an admin to do what he does well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Could User:Kansan (above) be more specific (diff...) about candidate ban evasion because if he means User:Normandy sockpuppet actions I've just verified that User:Kennedy has indeed being demoted but never blocked. ONaNcle (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look in the administrators noticeboard archive. He had multiple puppets, I believe there were 4 in total but I might be wrong on the actual numbers. There was also NotGiven, the original Kennedy account, Ydennek, GivenThisTime, Hoots. Here is the discussion where he was unblocked and allowed to return. I didn't keep looking after that. If you want the previous discussions they are there but most likely under the other names. I did find one where GivenThisTime was blocked as another sock.-DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Should have read my last link closer it did link to ban discussion.-DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to place a vote, as I'm only slowly starting to try to reintegrate back into the community, however I share some of the opposing editors concerns. However, I'm not going to freak out if he gets the tools. The user has a history of trouble, but also a long history of doing good for this wiki. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not going to vote either because I've edited rarely in the past year, however, knowing Kennedy's past I wouldn't trust him with the tools if I were voting. Ban evasion is not becoming of an admin. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:40, 5 January 2013 (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.