Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Werdna648

(42/20/8) ended 14:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Werdna648 (talk · contribs) – Werdna has been around on Wikipedia since July of last year, and has since shown himself to be as friendly and dedicated a bloke as one could hope to meet with as many numbers in his username. He has been active in many kinds of janitorial and behind-the-scenes work, including cleaning up after vandalism, contributing to discussions on AfD and RfA and IRC and BBQ. I think he has the maturity and know-how to be trusted with admin tools. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks for nominating me. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my nomination, as there's no way I can get 18 more supports or lose 7 oppose votes. Thanks to all those who participated, and I'm leaving a thanks note on my talk-page. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to bureaucrats: There's been some nasty sockpuppetry in the 'oppose' section already. The following are all the same user (one queensu.ca dorm IP): Fdhfkhkfh, I Hate Colleges, PoopinaBucket, QueensuStudent08, Werdan44747, Werdan548, Mcphysical and Zipperfly. Note the impersonation usernames as well for clear evidence of actual malice. Presumably one is the 'real' user, but I really don't care at this stage and have left a note for a queensu.ca sysadmin to contact me before I unblock the IP. - David Gerard 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, I'll take Mark's word for it \o/ --Andy123(talk) 11:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems like an experienced user. We need more admins closing AfDs. DarthVader 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. While the user is prone to being persistent about things, persistence is often good. Acts in good faith and seems to be hoping to do something useful for the project. Rob Church (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Weakened due to apparent campaigning. Rob Church (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support because Mark Gallagher is not going to put up a bad candidate. Also, I'm glad he has contributed to discussion on BBQ; we need more admins willing to do that. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Only problem is, he has no edits to WP:BBQ. ;) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I see currently no reason to oppose. And commenting about age as an indicator of maturity is just childish ;) - FrancisTyers 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Belated lesbian nominator support. Who's a silly billy, then? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support, the wording of user's vote in HRE's RfA is a bit harsh, but he did apologise on his user talk page. No reason to oppose. Kimchi.sg | talk 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Will (E@) T 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - age is not a factor -- Tawker 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support having read the oppose votes to this point, and the HRE RFA, and talk pages etc., I trust this user with the tools Pete.Hurd 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. While some of Werdna648's user interactions suggest a mildly underdeveloped sense of decorum, his ability to reflect and (when appropriate) appologize off-sets most of my concerns. -- MarcoTolo 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. <del>Support. At least in my dealings with Werdna, despite our...differences, she has been cool, calm, collected, and to the point. I couldn't think of a better canidate who's name starts with the letter W</del>Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    For future reference, I'm a "he" ;). Werdna648T/C\@ 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Readding support. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support™ --Rory096(block) 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, doesn't seem likely to abuse admin tools. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Changed from Oppose, I read through question 4 below and read his explanation as to the reason I opposed. I didn't think he was that bad an editor to begin with, but that comment stuck to me for some reason. Since this is effectivly the last RFA I am going to vote at, I want to make a more positive impact rather than negative. Moe ε 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Committed editor. Danny 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak support Betacommand 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom, Francis, and Locke, to name three. Joe 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Joe I 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Wizardry series support per nom ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per me and Werdna's conversation on IRC, people deserve second changes and i am convinced that this comment was a one time thing. Adminship is no big deal and admins are human and do screw up too. Mike (T C) 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per nom. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support for great justice. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, by the way - David Gerard 16:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - changed from oppose after reading his response to the vote on HRE's RfA. — FireFox (υ|τ) 18:51, 28 April 2006
  30. Support - I agree with you. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Support me too. --manny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.38.173 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 April 2006. After clarification with Essjay, I am striking this vote as it came from an anonymous user. If this user has an account, they are still welcome to vote. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I think it's poor form and judgement to manage your own RfA. The bureacrat can deal with deciding which votes to count and which to strike since in the end, it is his/her count that matters. --Tbeatty 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    I was trying to be fair, but I suppose I can leave things like that to others in the future. Werdna648T/C\@ 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support: reasons for opposing don't convince me. TimBentley (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, I don't see any problems with him. --Terence Ong 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support He is a good editor - aaclarkcdr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by aaclarkcdr (talk • contribs) .
    Note to bcrat: User has 7 edits, and this is his first in a month. --Rory096 18:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support; I trust Mark and don't see anything wrong with the user. Ral315 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a very worthy candidate Hoopydink 13:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Šυррōгt per fuddlemark, RobChurch and question 4 – Gurch 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support: Great user, seems to act responsible for age, so lets go for it, it's about time we show that young people have the talent and to stop putting them down, so all for it! --NigelJ talk 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support as I cant find a reason why not. He isn't perfect... Noone is perfect. --Cat out 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Good activity all over Wikipedia. Interesting spectrum of supporters, which is a good thing. Rx StrangeLove 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support we all make mistakes, Werdna has the good grace to apologise for it. He might not make it in this time, but he's willing to work away at the backlog and that's a valuable thing for admins to do. If he could just work on some articles and get them to FA status, I'd give him a strong support. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Racist-baiting isn't a good idea... but hey, that's one less mistake for you to make in the future, right? This user would probably help out the 'pedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose for now. Nothing personal, but I don't think you should have jumped into the Brandt situation. Also, listing your nom at the wrong end of the WP:RFA page is slightly concerning; do you not know how RFA works? NSLE (T+C) at 11:16 UTC (2006-04-27)
    • Listing the nomination at the other end was a mistake (It's 7:18 AM, and I read the howto at 10:58 last night - just before the internet turned off. The internet turned off between accepting and adding to the page). Most Wikipedia pages want things listed at the bottom, and I basically skimmed the instructions as adding yourself to the page is fairly straightforward. As for not knowing how RfA works... this is my first nomination, so RfA is a new process for me. As for the Brandt issue, I would like more info as to why you think I shouldn't have "jumped into" it. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me remind you that in IRC, (I appreciate this did not happen on the Wiki itself), you did say you'd do anything to get on hivemind (or something to that effect, forgive me for not having exactly what you said, I don't log freenode). That aside, there is no reason anyone SANE would even try to get on hivemind and jump into an issue they know very little about. I do not understand why you chose to get involved in such a complicated issue. NSLE (T+C) at 11:22 UTC (2006-04-27)
    Addendum: I'm also concerned at the weak number of edits for someone who's been here nine months, and this is concerning: User_talk:Werdna648#HRE_RFA_vote. NSLE (T+C) at 11:28 UTC (2006-04-27)
    On hivemind, I wasn't seriously thinking of doing something just to get on hivemind. All I meant was, it was amusing that Brandt saw hivemind as a punishment, when many editors saw it as a bit of fun. I chose to get involved in the Brandt issue because I saw that he had had a bad run on Wikipedia, not really managing to get his point across before he was silenced for legal threats. Additionally, I thought I could help - or at least try - to help Brandt to see WIkipedia's view, and to help some of our editors here see it from his point of view. As for the HRE RfA vote, the full text of my vote was " 'Get the hell out you stupid racists' Support". When challenged on the vote, I responded that the vote was directed at the people that voted either way due to racial intolerance, and caused the vote to be restarted. The fact that racism is intolerable on Wikipedia is a non-negotiable belief to me. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. The manner in which he expressed 'vote' on the HRE (here) and reaction to my suggestion that his tone may be inflammatory (here) suggest to me that his temperment is not suitable. That he is 15 or 16 may suggest that this is a maturity issue. --Bucketsofg 13:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to neutral
    What concerns you? The fact that I have no sympathy for racially intolerant voters? On reflection, my wording was a little harsh - however I don't really see how this is a reason to oppose me overall. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    No, I'm concerned that you'd call anyone a "stupid racist". No personal attacks, remember? Bucketsofg 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair to him, he did not attack anyone specifically in that RfA. Kimchi.sg | talk 15:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    I would agree that the wording was certainly a result of the combination of a recent dose of caffeine and a rush of blood to the head. Next time I'd probably say something like "Anti-racist" Support, if anything. Werdna648T/C\@ 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it be better to talk about the nominee and his strengths and/or weaknesses rather than those of the other "voters"? Bucketsofg 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    I normally mess around with the "Support" comment that I put there. I.e. Tawker's RfA (Support, bitch), Idont havaname's (Super-extreme "I thought he was already an admin" Support), et cetera. It just livens things up. Apparently this time, the first thing that came to my head was a bit over-the-top. I've learned from it to be more careful. Werdna648T/C\@ 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose This guy seems to young and tempermantal (look at the conversation above). Zipperfly 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppetry - David Gerard 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Play down the self-righteousness a bit there buddie. I don't think anyone should be called a "stupid racist" unless they are truly hardcore racist, like some Klan memeber or something. Being accused of being racist is really really harsh. Mcphysical 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppetry - David Gerard 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Self-righteousness? I don't understand how I'm being self-righteous. Werdna648T/C\@ 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    I do not see where Werdna648 *specifically* called anyone 'racist'. --Andy123(talk) 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Specifically, here. _-M o P-_ 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Werdna did not call anyone a racist there. Note the plural, he was referring to racists in general, not a specific racist. Seems obvious to me. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per all of above. The problem wasn't "having zero tolerance for racists"; the problem was that you seemed to lump all HRE opposers together as racists. That lack of discernment, together with the low edits/time ratio, convinces me you need more experience. Xoloz 15:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    You might want to take a look at my clarification below the vote. Werdna648T/C\@ 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    You're opposing per a sockpuppeteer - David Gerard 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Nope, I was opposing per all of the above. Read my concerns, and it should become clear that they arise from editor's conduct, and not from any unsubstantiated user opinion. "Per" was used because I wasn't the first one to raise these concerns. Amended for those who fail to grasp this. Xoloz 18:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Requires more experience. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Needs more experience, in my opinion. — FireFox (υ|τ) 17:11, 27 April 2006 (changed to support)
    oppose, he's a dick and I hate him lol! --Rory096(block) 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    A joke, obviously (strike is his). Don't get too overzealous and block him :P Werdna648T/C\@ 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    STRONG Oppose Recently on HRE's RFA, he called a group of editors racist. That is completely unacceptable. Moe ε 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Since this is the last RFA I am ever voting at, I want to make this person happy. Changed to Support. Moe ε 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose; the comments at HolyRomanEmproer's RFA are not only unencyclopedic, but also bordering on a personal attack against a group of editors. _-M o P-_ 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per NSLE, the comment you left on HSE's RFA was unacceptable. There are times where that may have been funny, but it was the wrong thing to say at the wrong time and that lack of judgement concerns me about difficult admin tasks you need to do. Mike (T C) 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose only 500 article edits, and from the userpage it indicates only a few articles?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per your recent uncivil comments.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose lack of experience, judgement and maturity.--Tbeatty 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, lack of experience. I'd prefer to see more edits all around. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose needs more experience in main article space and article talk to better understand how this encyclopedia is built. Also I prefer to see an uninterrupted, healthy level of activity for at least 3 months. Could support in a month or two. Joelito 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, not active enough. The fact that he has amassed less than 2000 edits in nine months concerns me. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to neutral.
    That's because he wasn't active for about 3-4 months. --Rory096 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose He sounds like a bit of a fool. --George W. Bush14:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Vandalism struck out by fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I've looked at contribs and talk page and he doesn't strike me as admin material. I don't see maturity, I don't see full understanding of process, nor do I see wide community involvement. Sorry. --kingboyk 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. A future admin. Spend a few more months on Wikipedia and I will be happy to support you in the future. (^'-')^ Covington 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose needs more experience --rogerd 02:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose partly because of the HRE RFA thing but mainly because others, whose judgement I value, are neutral or opposed. Adminship is no big deal, so waiting a few months to be nom'd again is nothing at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Sad, mega-sorry, dont-hate-me Oppose Per some uncivilness and borderline personal attacks on the HRE nom... that said, if you can demonstrate 6 weeks without any uncivil comments, I'll fully support a re-nom. -Mask 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Opppse needs more experience --ForestH2
  15. Strong oppose I'm sorry, but I can't see how anyone who can leave the note "Get the hell out you stupid racists" in RfA or anywhere else on Wiki is in any position to deal with difficult issues in the best way. I am aware of the apology for it, but the comment was only made 5 days ago. It doesn't matter who it's directed at: it's still unacceptable. I don't accept promises for future conduct; I am judging on a recent reality. Prove restraint and come back later. Tyrenius 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose calling your fellow editors "racists" just isn't right.  Grue  07:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, should not be promoted so soon after a decidedly unacceptable edit. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: not ready. Thumbelina 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - Needs to be more civil in future, which is easily done. --Knucmo2 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose try again in 6 months. Merecat 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. I'm not a racist, thank you. My distaste for edit warring and article ownership applies equally, regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, marital status, age, or zodiac symbol. Nominating Daniel Brandt for deletion at his own request is another edit I would have preferred not to see you make. Try again later. — May. 3, '06 [07:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  22. Oppose I find the number of edits to the main space is really too low for an admin, sorry--Aldux 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Needs a bit more experience. JIP | Talk 18:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Changed from oppose after user showed maturity in his answer to my question. _-M o P-_ 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Better with more experience.--Jusjih 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, not enough experience, hope to see greater involvement and maturity before a successful RfA in a couple of months Deizio 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, not enough experience. Royboycrashfan 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, I like the user but not enough talk page or mainspace edits. Also, there's no category edits. Computerjoe's talk 14:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, same motivations as Computerjoe. Werdna648 seems pretty committed to improving the quality of Wikipedia as a project, and I think this will make him a good administrator (be it now or later), but there's really no better way to demonstrate commitment than to invest time and effort into the mainspace, where it's needed the most. Warrens 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, leaning oppose. A committed and enthustiastic editor and in time will be a good admin. The question is whether that time is now or later. I lean later, in part because of concerns about judgement as evidenced in the HRE RFA. Bucketsofg✐ 14:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Edit count as at 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC):

Username Werdna648
Total edits 1982
Distinct pages edited 1174
Average edits/page 1.688
First edit 12:53, 25 July 2005
(main) 613
Talk 45
User 197
User talk 502
Image 5
Template 21
Wikipedia 586
Wikipedia talk 13

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'm most likely to get involved with clearing some of the administrative backlogs, deletion and dealing with problem users. This means probably speedy deletion, closing AfDs, sorting out problems on ANI, AN, AN/3RR. (I've had those three noticeboards on my watchlist for a while, along with AIV and, more recently, AIV/TB2 (I intend to put my name on WP:AMDB if this passes). I'm probably going to cross over into other areas, just to get to know all the different corners of Adminship. And if I need help, I'm almost permanently on IRC (I'll probably end up helping users there, too!).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My contributions have been all over the shop, and as the nom said, largely behind-the-scenes janitorial work. That being said, there are a number of article contributions that I am particularly proud of. These include my expansions and watching of TA Spring, which was a 3-sentence substub before I got to it; Knox Grammar School, which I have watched for vandalism and added a section to; and Weapons in Deus Ex, which I saved from being a non-formatted rant about each weapon - categorising the weapons, bolding the weapon names, NPOVing all the descriptions, and taking all the new edits to the page at face value, but making them better by taking a look at spelling & grammar. Non-article-wise, I'm quite proud of the amount of vandalism I've reverted and new pages that I've sorted out (either by cleanup or tagging for speedy), I'm proud of my ability to mediate in a conflict (I've got to have been one of the more civil editors toward Brandt in the incident), but I'm not bothered by being bullied by those I'm trying to mediate with, (I eventually got onto Brandt's hivemind for closing his AfD early as a speedy keep per the snowball clause). In the area of cleanup, I'm quite proud of my ability to take an article, and then give it a few tags, do some limited spelling/grammar and NPOV editing, move it to a more appropriate title, all in about 5 minutes, making it a much better article - although still in need of some verification usually. Anyway, that's the end of my brag rant - I'll add more when I think of it.
Update: I thought of more. I forgot, I also run Werdnabot to bypass double-redirects - and I have my .NET Bot Framework that I give to approved users.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: To be honest, not really. As I said to Ral315 the other day, I've kept my nose embarrassingly clean during my time here. Whenever I've got into a disagreement with another editor, Brandt included, I've simply calmed down, taken a deep breath, and spoken to them either on IRC or through talkpages. I do my best to Assume Good Faith and avoid entirely Personal Attacks. I don't think I've ever had civility issues, although if anyone has a situation where I have, I'd be happy to admit it. The only conflict that really bothered me at all was with Brandt, and I don't think he really counts (and in any case, I did my best to resolve the conflict with him the same way I would with any other Wikipedians - granting reasonable requests, staying civil, assuming good faith and trying to ignore his civility breaches for the better of our argument.)

Question from Master of Puppets
How did you think that this edit you made to HRE's RFA was recieved? As I was curious to how you justify calling a group of editors racists outright, which is borderline violation of WP:NPA. _-M o P-_ 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I believe this edit to be a big mistake on my part, and at best poorly worded. The edit was intended because, as I stated above, I like to mess around with the wording of "Support" when I vote support on an RfA.. which I've done for a while. This was the first idea that came to mind. The comment was directed at those who invited votes against the candidate for ethnic reasons, but was, unfortunately, received as a comment against all opposers. Obviously, I'm going to endeavour to be a lot more careful with the way I word things like that in future, erring on the side of caution - not least because it's tarnished my otherwise effectively spotless record at Wikipedia.
Ya know what, the guys OK. If he apologised, then he may not make it this RfA round, but give him another 2-3 months and he'll have learned from his mistake! Perhaps if he got a few FAs under his belt that might help :-) Worked for me, and I stuffed up by vandalising Dalek. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above 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.