Oppose. I am sorry, but I can't support this yet. I don't have any concerns about Ric's content editing, but the decorum is really an issue. Saying someone has "a huge amount of butthurt" in a disagreement is completely unacceptable, and is the sort of language I would only have expected a troll to use and utterly juvenile. That's fine, if it was only a single mistake, but I am having trouble believing that when his response here at the nomination is to go at Connel again ("you seem to need reminding, Mr. Connel"). A response that "Yeah, I just got worked up, I won't do it again" would probably have satisfied me, but "The other guy was rude, too!" is even less encouraging. Dmcdevit·t17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken in light of the entire discussion, I don't think that's so serious. Much harsher words were thrown around by existing admins. Those I do not care to repeat, but consider Connel's own characterization above of the on-topic comment, whether rude or not, as "non-Wiktionary". Either that is wrong or the entire discussion was non-Wiktionary. What is more "positively unhelpful" than that these debates have continued persistently? Ric opiaterein simply walked into a heated discussion to which he was incredulous. They may be disrespectful, but it would be wrong to characterize his words as bitter, and it would be entirely unfair to make him take the blame for that bitter argument. DAVilla13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is "incredulous" he should take a moment or two to learn what the Wiktionary method of dealing with that situation is and why, before he flies off the handle. That particular discussion was sedate prior to his comments but inevitably steamrolled into a gigantic fuck-Connel-fest because of his ignorance about Wiktionary's treatment of alternative spellings. Yes, that is pretty "non-Wiktionary" - not that he said it in a heated manner, but that what he said was simply wrong for Wiktionary (presumably fine for Wikipedia?) This is a multi-lingual dictionary where spelling is of utmost importance (especially for lookups) yet he didn't (still doesn't?) get that basic premise? Not sysop material, IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to say anything about that discussion, because many of the participants did get ugly, but you seem to need reminding, Mr. Connel, that some of your comments were later edited (for the sake of wikilove) aswell. So even implying that your behavior was any better than mine, or that mine was any worse than anyone else's is more or less bogus. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) OK, I must be interpreting his internet slang differently (and it would help if he wrote it in English), but to me it just seems like he's saying that having huge flamewars over ("making a big deal out of") color vs colour or facade vs façade or whatever is a bad thing. Are you saying that it's the Wiktionary way to have big flamefests over little things like this, that we should have them more? Cynewulf18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think making a big deal about it is ridiculous. But if I remember right, no one was making a bigger deal out of it than he was. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your vote if you believe he threw the first punch, but if anyone flew off the handle he would not be any of my top candidates, nor do I feel that the flames ignited on either side were in any way his fault. DAVilla21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you obviously didn't follow what happened. Yes, he started (successfully) trolling there, on the opposite position of Wiktionary consensus. The comment editing (decidedly one-sided) was a new twist - removing offensive comments moments after they generated responses. But the main factor again, wasn't his obvious lack of civility, it was that his position was (and is) simply wrong. Appropriate for a monolingual dictionary perhaps; appropriate for Wikipedia (do they like flamewars?) perhaps; but not appropriate for this multilingual arrangement. What does he say here about his behavior? Indeed, using a revisionist-history view, he claims that my incredulous responses were "a bigger deal." So, not only stupidly wrong, but stubbornly so, while still missing the point (which has been beaten to death numerous times before.) Not one to help build consensus, not one to go with the Wiktionary way and definitely not sysop material. --Connel MacKenzie14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But keep in mind, Connel, that once in a while you do come out of the gate rather harshly - not all misspellings (or defenses thereof) are trolling; and not all spellings that at first appear wrong are in fact wrong. Defending what one believes to be correct is not trolling, and who are we to decide that someone does not believe what they claim to believe? bd2412T04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said he should take a moment to learn about Wiktionary before flying off the handle. I never said all are trolling. And I'm not sure why you bring up "spellings that at first appear wrong" - I was talking about separate entries having separate entries (distinguished by spelling, because this is a multilingual dictionary.) My concern isn't his lack of civility, it is his lack of understanding Wiktionary's goal - "all words in all languages" and how that applies to these situations he finds himself embroiled in. --Connel MacKenzie17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support EncycloPetey 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC) For positively unhelpful non-Wiktionary stuff like [1]. --Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Abstain bd2412 T 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) - overall a great editor, but the diff to which Connel points shows an instance of unnecessary rudeness - even when directed at Connel MacKenzie! bd2412 T 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
