Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orangemike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Orangemike

Final (51/3/3); Originally scheduled to end 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Orangemike (talk · contribs) - I've seen Orangemike around a lot. I even thought that he was an administrator. He have been editing project space pages lots of times, like WP:AIV, WP:UAA, Wikipedia:Help desk, etc. Sometimes, he fights vandalism as well as well as cleanups and adding tags. His earliest edits are almost four years ago, and he has nearly 10,000 edits. He also have done several mainspace editing as well. So ladies and gentlemen, Orangemike! NHRHS2010 talk 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. --Orange Mike 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Clean-up, basically. I hope to take an active role in patrolling for spammers, vandals, etc. and helping keep the project as encyclopedic as possible. I have no exaggerated idea of the powers of an admin, but it would enable me to do the stuff I've been doing, on a more advanced level.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Vandalism and spammer watch, mostly. I've done a few articles on topics with too little here about them, fought against an occasional overzealous deletionist. I've tried to be a good member of the community, not a Star. Some folks seem to obsess over nurturing FAs; I'd rather have a good crop of solid articles then one prize-winning beauty. I'm proud of the fact that my own strong opinions (fully disclosed on my user page) do not prevent me from working with people I disagree with, or reining in folks I agree with who cross the line.
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: More with vandals and spammers (gee, can you tell I don't like 'em?) than anything else. I've messed up a time or two, but I think in the long run I've made peace with everybody it was humanly possible to make peace with. (Some folks are in the "unconditional surrender" mode, and will accept nothing less; I don't bend that way.) I think you will find my history shows some blunders, but a lot of genuine reconciliations and not a few constructive forays towards a solid middle ground. I'm still working on my tendency to be a little too snarky and blunt in my edit summaries (but it never spills into mainspace, and I try to tone it down in talk as well.)
Optional Question from SJP
4 Will you please give a summary of the blocking policy? Thanks for your time. Good luck!--SJP 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A A block is imposed to stop a particular user from causing damage and/or disruption to the Wikipedia project. It is not for punishment per se, though some blocked editors may perceive it that way; nor is it a weapon in a "war" on any person or group of persons. It is to be proportionate to the offense(s), both in severity and number. While an admin must be firm in the enforcement of our norms and policies, any admin imposing a block must be prepared to defend and explain his/her actions, and be prepared to change their minds if demonstrated to have been out of line.
Optional Question from Keepscases
5 Do you believe ghosts should be permitted to edit Wikipedia articles? Keepscases 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
? I'm not familiar with that term in a Wikipedia context; nor does it appear on the dab page. --Orange Mike 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from Jossi (talk · contribs)
6. You have been editing for a while, but I have not seen you much around policy pages. In a scale from 1 to 6, how would you rate your understanding of the core content policies, and which policies you consider to be core?
I don't think the core policies are that badly out of whack, that I need to putter with them; so I don't hang around there much. I'd say I rate around a 4.8-5.4. The most core, to my way of thinking, are perhaps verifiability; civility (including AGF); and NPOV.
7. Have you ever used alternative accounts to edit Wikipedia?
Heck, no. I have very rarely forgotten to log in; but I don't think I do that more than once or twice a year.
Optional question from Malinaccier (talk · contribs)
8. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing

the encyclopedia? Thanks!

Haven't thought about it a lot; I assume around 10-20% of my edit time, unless I see there's greater need than that. --Orange Mike 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from bbatsell (talk · contribs)
9. You stated in your answer to question 6 that you believe WP:CIV to be one of the core policies of Wikipedia. I don't believe I've ever interacted with you in the context of a discussion that involves WP:CIV, so could you elaborate a bit on what your approach to that policy is? Perhaps including some hypothetical examples of what, to you, would constitute civil and uncivil behavior? No litmus test/gotcha question here, it's just a slight bit of a red flag for me so I wanted to allay my unfounded fear. Thanks!
It's grounded in an attitude of collegiality: a stance that we're all trying to make each and every article as good as we can, and pooling our skills and knowledges to do so. AGF is part of it, as is an honesty about partisan stances, combined with a willingness to acknowledge that others can honestly differ without being out to sabotage Wikipedia. As a Quaker, I'm committed to "speaking truth to power" and not back down in the face of opposition: but it never, ever, hurts to apologize when one is in the wrong; and yup, I've been in the wrong here a time or n. Namecalling, assumptions of bad faith when disagreements arise, shrill POV-pushing: these destroy any cooperative enterprise. I like to think that my edits to articles about people whom I oppose politically, such as Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson and Fred Thompson are the toughest tests of that; but I believe all but the most partisan of advocates of those individuals will concede that I have met the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
10. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A: First and foremost: never unblock without talking to the blocking admin first, unless it's a blatant typo or similar error (and then I'd try to get hold of him/her). If there is sufficient evidence that I feel an unblock is in order, I would still tend to defer to the blocking admin's judgment, unless the admin shows really clear evidence of a blind spot. Even then, I'd take it to the administrators' noticeboard to check my own reasoning. I certainly intend to adhere to these policies. --Orange Mike 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from Epbr123 (talk · contribs)
11. You stated above "Some folks seem to obsess over nurturing FAs; I'd rather have a good crop of solid articles". Which of your solid articles are you most proud of, and why? Epbr123 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"your solid articles" implies a violation of WP:OWN. There aren't any articles here I think of as "mine", even ones I myself started. My pride is in the articles that I've helped clean up, wikify, and strengthen; and in the protection of articles from vandalism and POV-pushers. I take pride when an article is "constructed in a competent and workmanlike manner": clearer, in better English, with nuanced content and a balanced POV, fully contexted with good and relevant wikilinking, buttressed with sound citations and fully sourced information. I do believe that Wikipedia's coverage of topics such as: Milwaukee and UW-Milwaukee; science fiction conventions and fanzines; and certain aspects of 20th-century politics, is better and more nuanced for my contributions. --Orange Mike 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
12. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR? Epbr123 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Editing is not a matter of wikilawyering, but of making the articles, and Wikipedia as a whole, a better reference source for the readers of this planet. An edit may be a superficial violation of a guideline or even rule, but still be the right thing to do, in some cases; and "you've violated the rules" is not an absolute death sentence in all cases. No information is lost; if an edit was wrong, it can be corrected. (That said: WP:IAR, along with Be Bold!, is often an excuse for foolish or vandalistic behavior; I am not amused when this is the case.) --Orange Mike 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Your joking right? --Mark (Mschel) 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I fear I am sometimes a bit snarky in my edit summaries; but my fishy counterpart is... ummm... something else. --Orange Mike 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That was fairly rude and uncalled for. And I am certainly not this guy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Orangemike, please retract that. Mercury 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's for blind people who can't decipher between unrelated users. Such as...Gracenotes and Grace Note. Not anything, but clarification. :-D Miranda 03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Discussion stemming from an anonymous !vote in opposition to this candidate was moved to the talk page, and may be found here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've removed the discussion. I've rarely seen a sock give themselves away so easily, between the first post "you're joking, right? I guess wikipedia really IS communism!" and the geographical proximity to User:AntiCommieMike, I think this one screams WP:DUCK. WjBscribe 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - thanks again! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support as a nominator. NHRHS2010 talk 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I see his great efforts fighting vandalism all the time. I am sure he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. There is no concerns here at this point. I have had little, but good communication with him. Good luck Mike!--SJP 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support no concerns with this editor. Though vandalism patrol is of high importance, and the candidate does it well, I look forward to seeing Orangemike branch out into other areas that might need admin attention. Good luck, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. I've spend some time looking though Orangemike's contributions and I don't really see any problems with his editing or behavior. Good luck with the Admin mop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support--Mike has done an very good job with WikiProject Wisconsin. If he does become an administrator, I hope he will still be in WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you Mike for all you do. Thank you-RFD 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Thanks for answering my question! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support based on my overall experiences of this user. We need more mature adults as admins and he fits the bill. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support while my experiences with Mike have admittedly been brief, he seems to be mature and more than able to handle the job. Good luck! IrishGuy talk 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Cool with me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support How can I not support with such a cool beard? GlassCobra 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support From all my interactions with him he seems like a good editor and should be a good admin. Given his slow pace that he began editing with, I don't think he will rush headlong into admin tasks without knowing what he is doing. I'd also like to see an admin who still wants to be a productive editor and not just a full time admin. - Optigan13 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Yes Mike. You are now ready. Weild the mighty mop with prestige, honour (though adminship isn't honourable), and The Grateful Dead :D Maser (Talk!) 06:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I've intereacted with Orangemike several times and found him fair-minded, direct, and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. Mike Christie (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support good vandal fighter as far as I can see. Carlossuarez46 07:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Experienced contributor who will make good use of the tools. utcursch | talk 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I have encountered the nominee at various points throughout the project and have always gotten the impression that he is knowledgeable, friendly and committed. For these reasons, I support. The fact that my favorite color is also orange is completely immaterial. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support My involvement with OrangeMike at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin has been extremely positive. His decision-making processes are always on target. He has a level head: knowing when to revert vandalism without discussion, what to say in his comment in his edit summary on rare cases of reverting a topic with some controversy, and when to discuss on the talk page first before reverting. His discussions demonstrate he understands policy properly. I completely trust that he will not abuse the tools. He will make a fine admin - I wish that I had thought of nominating him! Royalbroil 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, found no reason not to, more than adequate time with project meets my standards. Not sure what the basis for "snarky" oppose is. Anyone who recognizes social science fiction when he sees it is obviously discerning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support While orange is not my favorite color, I'll make an exception here. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I've interacted with him only one time but had the impression of someone who takes the whole project seriously. Therefore, I think he will be a good admin. --Meile 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Yeah Haven't looked at anything but the nom. Saw a funny question on the hel desk about why he has a userpage, that's enough--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Good experience with this user on several articles. Will make a great admin. —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - I've known Mike and have seen his work almost since the beginning of my time editing here and have always found him to be a constructive, well-reasoned and gregarious editor who is not afraid to own his mistakes on the rare occasion that he makes them. He strives for a level of civility that I admire and I think he would make an excellent administrator. Into The Fray T/C 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. This user seems to be worthy of trust with the tools.. The answers leave a little to be desired but no reason to oppose. SorryGuy 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Good experience, good answers. Constructive editor. Oppose arguments are weaker than my new kitten. Doczilla 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Some editors want reassurance that you're familiar with the policies you'll be executing, so please just be sure to go slowly and review blocking/deletion policy, etc., before you actually make those moves. I'm confident that you will, and so I'm going ahead and supporting now. Also, Humpty Dumpty. Jeez, that had me laughing for about ten minutes straight. Good luck, ··coelacan 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support--MONGO 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. No real reason to oppose. Neil ☎ 13:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Support Your answer to Question 3 gave me a lot of thought. I've gone back in reasonable detail over your last 2,000 edits. I agree that sometimes your edit summaries could be a bit "brash" and that perhaps you shouldn't include extra information in them that is better on the talk/project page or article (particularly at WP:HELPDESK where newbies are unlikely to review the edit summary). I am a stickler for the letter and spirit of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL but I really don't see anything that was out and out wrong. I also took note of this conversation and agree with your senitments. Far better to be honest and upfront - you recognise that there is a minor issue and will work to fix it. Further I noticed from contributions there were some thought provoking and sensible debates on talk pages, particularly where you have variously voiced that your opinion is not important but the factuality of the article is. I see from edits that you have probably watch-listed Racism so you're not afraid to deal with tricky and heated articles. Your XFD work seems sound, with comment given for sound policy based reasons. In short although sometimes a little more thought before action could go into some of your comments, I see you as a productive, knowledgable and helpful editor, ready to acknowledge your shortcomings and humble enough to do so. This establishes for me the key elements of adminship - that you will know when to use the tools, and that you can be trusted to use the wisely. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. All of my interactions with Mike have been positive. He's a quality editor, and making him an admin would be a good thing. Coemgenus 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support No major concerns here. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Switch from oppose. Reacted well to my criticism below, and gave good answers to my questions. Epbr123 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support — Save_Us_229 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Looks like a solid contributor. --krimpet⟲ 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. K. Scott Bailey 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - great work on RCP. Excellent answer to the old 'IAR' question, and per his use of the word 'florid' below. Kuru talk 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per solid answers to questions. --Bloodzombie 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - honest answers to questions. Seems to have a good sense of humour. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - Why not?. --Sandahl 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - lack of policy acumen for a new admin isn't a concern if the person is trustworthy and intelligent. I believe Orange Mike will research the relevant policies and guidelines as the need arises as he goes, before applying admin tools in any given situation. The Transhumanist    07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Strong support b/c we can never have too many science fiction fans serving as admins. He's also got a great track record at WP.--Alabamaboy 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. I was going to support this RfA earlier. A fine user who will make good user of the tools. Acalamari 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support; user has a great track record and appears plenty trustworthy with admin tools. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - nothing from what I can see. :-) Lradrama 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Seems a very capable editor --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, good editor, worked with him on AIV report. Dreadstar † 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Its no Big Deal *Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 16:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Has been around since 2004 and has over 6000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Orangemike has done an very good job on the project. Give him the mop--Hu12 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

Oppose per snarky and blunt edit summaries. It seems odd for someone so interested in WP:CIV. Epbr123 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence? If you do please share it:) Cheers!--SJP 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
He's said so himself. Epbr123 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Where though? Cheers!--SJP 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Question 3. Epbr123 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Switch to support. Epbr123 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose-'nuff said. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Not really. AvruchTalk 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Avruch beat me to it. Besides a possible orange joke, do you have a real reason to oppose? And if so, please do state it. SorryGuy 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose per Question 3. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per question 3. Jmlk17 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose (switch from support) Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Formica where the candidate demonstrates a total lack of ability not to WP:BITE or WP:AGF. "misunderstanding of or hostility to the principles" ? Hell, we don't need any more admins that can't understand that newbies are an asset. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I am deeply concerned by the calm acceptance by everyone that this series of IPs is who he/she claims to be; and some folks' positions seem to verge on, "Well, of course, we'll remove any articles that the subject doesn't want here"; in other words, we'll self-censor. I do not feel I was biting the noob; I don't even know if there is a noob at the other end of that IP. (That said: I'd rather have honest criticism than sly weaseling. You stated your position clearly and explained it well. Thanks for the honesty.) --Orange Mike 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Calm acceptance is also the spirit of WP:AGF. Sorry. Your RfA will pass for sure but I can't support it in good faith. Thank you for your honest reply. Best. Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I rather agree here, and I have rarely, if ever, been accused of biting newbies or not assuming good faith. What the IP editor seems to disagree with is the idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it wasn't unfair to point that out. The subject's wishes should carry a little bit of weight, but shouldn't prevent us from keeping an article that enhances the encyclopedia. I think Orange Mike's comment showed a clear understanding of policy there. If it could have been worded more gently, it was still more a nibble than a bite. And I think he did a good job of calmly accepting your oppose while explaining himself. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he did credit to himself in his response. I'm going to abstain. Pedro :  Chat  11:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. I usually never comment in the "neutral" section, but in this case I will. Something about the answers given, does not make me comfortable to support, or oppose at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Will you be more specific? Tell us what in the areas make you uncomfortable? Or is it just a feeling that you can explain? Thanks for your time:) Cheers!--SJP 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sure. The answers regarding his understanding of policy, where not satisfactory. An admin is expected to have a solid understanding of core policies, and these include WP:NOR, and WP:BLP, which the candidate missed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Jossi:) Cheers!--SJP 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Appears to be a good editor. I was annoyed, however, when he labeled one of my edits as vandalism, leading me to believe that he may be a little too quick to revert without looking at the situation. [1]. When I asked him about it, he seemed genuinely remorseful, but didn't really seem to understand why it wasn't vandalism.[2] It's just one incident, but as it comprises the entirety of my experience with this editor, I cannot support. I'd be interested to know, however, if this editor has changed his position on what constitutes vandalism. -Chunky Rice 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    That's the silliest neutral/oppose I've ever seen. The edit did look like vandalism, and that error could have been made by just about anyone watching RC. IMO, Orangemike did the right thing. —Viriditas | Talk 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    It was the discussion afterwards where it wasn't apparent to me that he understood why it wasn't vandalism that bugged me. Regardless, I realize that it's not necessarily a big deal. Which is why I didn't oppose. -Chunky Rice 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    I can see that. There was a bit of a miscommunication on both sides. IMO, Orangemike was trying to explain why he reverted what he thought was vandalism (what anyone would see as vandalism if they missed that the sig was added by the bot in error) in spite of your good faith removal of the sig. Orangemike's reply says it all: Well, I clearly have offended, and I do apologize. If there were some way to do so, I'd strike out delete the summary to indicate my regret. Really, I can't see how you could hold this against him unless you were still upset by such a tiny error. I would rather that an editor like Orangemike make the same mistake then let a vandal go on a sig-removing spree, and I have personally encountered several of those in the past. It's time to chalk this up to bot-induced human error and move on. —Viriditas | Talk 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - per this edit. I appreciate that Orangemike has made some great edits, but the lack of assuming good faith when another editor had already said some of the content was "reasonably good", shows (IMO) a lack of keeping level-headed. Rudget zŋ 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    1)The accusation that I was a sockpuppet did irritate me, and my response was a bit florid. 2) The list in question boiled down to "Oh, look, there's a corset in such-and-such a video; I must add it to the Corset article!" I'm not a deletionist (even if one person I'd class that way is on my "Support" list); but I believe that such lists are wasteful and injurious to our chances of being regarded as a serious project, and my response was affected by this opinion. You will notice that in that very post I did apologize for the original use of a template incorporating the term "nonsense".--Orange Mike 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider his disagreeing with me about such a relatively troublesome article the least bit inappropriate. DGG (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate and understand your concerns, but looking at the contributions of that editor, it seems at the time of the incident it was their 5th edit. No new user would be fully acquainted with guidelines likebiting or even community punishments for agressive editors (I'm not referring to OrangeMike in the latter). The consequence is, we now don't have a user, who apart from this edit, didn't make any other controversial edits. And therefore, I stand by my decision of neutral. Rudget zŋ 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Calling that an apology stretches credulity. -Chunky Rice 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    To which party? Rudget zŋ 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    To the IP. I'm just saying that "I couldn't find a template for "embarassingly pointless and silly fancruft that degrades the article"; so I used the one for "nonsense"; I apologize if that offended you." isn't much of an apology. Its more insulting than apologetic. -Chunky Rice 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Rudget zŋ 18:38, 14 November 2007 (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.