Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Andypandy.UK

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Exchange between Blue Tie and A. B. on 21 July 2006

I have move my 21 July 2006 comments from the project page to this talk page to avoid cluttering up the main page with stuff less and less relevant to the RfA. I have also copied, but not deleted, Blue Tie's remarks to which I was responding.--A. B. 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to selectively present any bad information. I presented it as well as I know how. I am a new user here. I do not know about a broad pattern of behavior. I opposed. I was asked to go into detail. I did. That is what happened. Now, my honesty or integrity are being questioned -- when I have done nothing wrong. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when I have done my very best to be a good wikipedian. Even if I have not achieved it, I have tried and done my best. I certainly have not lied or misled anyone. I do believe that AB has misrepresented a bit. For example the quote about Calvinism and God hating you was a joke.. but he has expressed it as though I was being unpleasant. He surely knew it was a joke though if he read and researched all of the edits. --Blue Tie 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: After Blue Tie's criticisms, 3 concerned editors (1, 2, 3) asked Blue Tie for links to the problems cited.
I agree that this happpened. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: Blue Tie made 4 susequent edits (1, 2, 3, 4) totalling 750+ words elaborating his first criticism but did not provide links.
I did not check, but I accept this as true. I am too wordy. --17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Fact: 30 hours later, I also asked for the links.Seeing none forthcoming, I started digging for links and posting them.
This may be true, but I did not see your requests until later. I do not mind that you did the research. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: "new user" has made 874 edits to date using 3 accounts: (72.13.168.149, Anon 64, Blue Tie)
Actually more than that. The Anon 64 comes from an anon ip account. The edits under 72.13.168.149, were generally errors when I failed to log in. Actually I thought I was logged in but I had somehow been logged out, perhaps over time. The cases when they were not errors is when someone replied specifically to an entry with that ip address and I responded with that ip address. I tried to keep this minimal.--Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: I never opined on the suitability of Blue Tie comment about Calvinism and God
That is a fact. However, it is the ONLY thing you quoted. And you made other comments that suggest that you believe my edits are generally and as a pattern, hostile to others. I believe you quoted it for a reason. However, it was a joke. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: I agree re: Calvinism and God -- joke.
Thank you. Perhaps it was not a very good joke to most people, but I think the person I was addressing it to understood the humor. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance to RfA: The Calvin-God joke -- potential red flag to editors not in on the joke (such as Andypandy.UK ), looking at diffs almost in real time and seeing changing signatures.
Absolutely totally agree with that view. Thanks for clarifying. --17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Concern: 90+ editors are making good faith decisions both for and against this RfA ; transparently and neutrally presenting Andypandy.UK's record is critical, especially in such a close RfA --A. B. 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I felt that I was contributing to that discussion honestly. I believe you have maligned my honesty. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

You have have misrepresented me in at least two areas: first, in your history you did not include the other comments I made to andeh. You presented it as though I did not make any and that is not true. Second you claim that "no one knew that Blue Tie, Anon 64 and 72.13.168.149 (who were all working the same article that day) were the same user. This is false. Only two of those IDs were working the article and I had already made it clear that the 72.name and my Anon 64 name were the same. I did not hide that. I used 72 by accident when I failed to log in. That is all. It was not an effort to misrepresent. And Blue Tie was NOT working the article. Only one edit as Blue Tie, which was an accident and I tried to put the Anon 64 name on it. You have misrepresented me. --05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) .[reply]

Fact: Blue Tie's account linkages not noted on user pages ( 1, 2, 3 ) or talk pages ( 4, 5, 6).
That is true and it was intentional, as I have mentioned before. However, 72.13.168.149 was in error.
Query: Blue Tie, can you show where you've clarified the linkage? If you made it transparent to the world that you were using both 72.13.168.149 and Anon 64 and I missed it, then I definitely screwed up here.
I will try to do so. I will return on that when I have researched it. It never was an issue before, so I have not retained things, but there are, of course histories. I think generally my thinking on this is that when I replied as 72, I did so, either directly or indirectly claiming the Anon 64 posts as my own. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...First, you have to understand, I move around. My IP address will change from week to week and day to day. It may also change between evening and morning. This is related to my job. It has nothing to do with being dishonest.
Second, you should understand that I had two anon ip addresses when I first started. One was 72.13.168.149. The other was 64.178.145.150. I used them before I registered. I was new. I started posting on May 17 on the 64 address. I think I created the Anon 64 and Blue Tie names about June 11. Let's look at the posting history of both anon IP addresses with respect to that date:
anon ip 64 anon ip 72 Anon 64 Blue Tie
First Edit 15 May 31-May 11-Jun 11-Jun
Last Edit June 15 28-Jun Current Current
Total Edits to June 11 171 27 0 0
Total Edits After June 11 4 6* (35) 278 544
Edits to June 11 on Homosexual Agenda 42 9 0 0
Edits after June 11 on Homosexual Agenda 0 2* (4) 145 0* (1)
  • * Signifies the number that are not clearly errors - so they could be intentional. The total including errors are in parentheses.

The issue that you brought up was that I was editing the same page with different names and no one knew it. I hope it is pretty clear that the Anon 64 name was an effort to reproduce my anon ip address in the name. This is not hiding. But just in case, look here at [the VERY first edit I made with my Anon 64 name]. Several users who were posting on the Homosexual Agenda board had asked me register so I finally did and that was my message to them. Does that seem like I am being the dishonest person you painted me to be?

The star by the zero for Blue tie is to recognize the one single entry in Homosexual Agenda. That ONE Blue Tie edit was simply an error. I tried to attribute it to Anon 64. One edit that I tried to correct hardly amounts to editing the same page under a different name at the same time. I was amazed to see you make that contention. It is clearly false.

So the ONLY issues are the anon ip 72 edits on the homosexual agenda page. These are 13 edits out of a total of 200 edits to that page. Was I trying to deceive or misrepresent? Well first of all, find one of those posts that suggest I was adding the weight of a second name to something. It never happened. And of those 13 edits, nine were before I had registered. So, I could only post with the ip address that I logged on with. That is hardly dishonest or manipulative, its just the way it is. And, in those nine edits I made no attempt to hide that I was the same as the anon ip 64. It is important to note that this talk page was being edited by about the same 10 people for 2 months. We sort of knew each other. (You probably did not realize that). So, when I commented [here] on that page, under the 72 ip, I used the pronoun "I" and referred to a previous comment that I had made as the 64 ip [here]. Probably a better diff showing the dynamic and how I used both ip addresses in discourse is [here].

But why did I use that 72 anon ip after I had registered? Simple. It was an error. Nothing intentional about it. See that star by the 6? That actually means I did more like 35 edits in that time but the vast majority are clear errors. How is that clear? Two of them are to my Blue Tie User page! 23 or more are to an article that ONLY Blue Tie had created and was editing. I have already made it clear I was trying to SEPARATE my accounts from each other and here, by error, I actually connected them. That is an error. I would never have done it on purpose. The screen said that I was logged on but somehow I was not logged on. I do not understand how this happened, but it did. Two are to Homosexual Agenda -- the first where I made an entry and the second where my 72anon ip address corrects the previous entry to Anon 64. My last two edits under that ip address (not on the Homosexual Agenda article) also show an error where I changed the signature to Anon 64. So, here is the point -- the entries after June 11 were mistakes. I was not maliciously editing under an anon ip address. I preferred to use my registered name. (the numbers in the table above demonstrate this -- look at the increase and the relative change over time). It was just an error. That is all. It had something to do with the way I connected at that location.

And again, changing IP addresses may seem suspicious. The reason for the two different anon ip addresses is that I move around a great deal. My IP address will change from day to day and week to week. It's just part of my job. I will almost certainly never use the 64 or 72 address ever again....but who knows? I travel. --Blue Tie 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I changed my own user name, I had a banner on my talk page for several weeks and have been flagging old edits since, explicitly noting the change in edit summaries. I never used 2 or 3 parallel accounts.
That is fine. That is your choice. Is it ok with you if I make different choices as long as I am polite and reasonable? (By ok, I meant that does it meet with your approval for me to have a different choice than you? I understand that you must accept it as part of wikipedia, but I was really asking whether you are pre-disposed to be negative toward me because I am not the same on this issue as you are?) --Blue Tie 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

Query: Blue Tie, can you provide links to exchanges with Andeh I've missed? If I've missed something important, it should definitely be shown here and I will readily eat crow.
--A. B. 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate the offer. I will tell you with frankness in my heart I am not interested in having you eat crow, nor in an apology, (though if I were in error, I would certainly do so). But -- and I mean this with sincere intent -- I am more interested in the idea that in the future you might not be quite so easily vindictive. Prevention of such things in the future is much more important than regretting spilled milk and words that show a desire to avoid such things would be more important to me.
However, I will find find what things are there and explain. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have found the history and I see how you misrepresented me. I have redone the links because sometimes you got them wrong. Here is the history:

Your Step My Step Link Your comment My Comment
1 1 [[1]] Blue Tie wrote and signed (joke snipped for brevity). That is true.
2 2 [[2]] Then he changed his signature to Anon 64. Technically Anon 64 changed it. So if it were a mean statement that would red flag as you said above, why would Anon 64 want to take credit for it -- unless it was the same person? Andy never thought about this.
3 3 [[3]] A little while late, Andy reverted the edit, commenting "(don't edit signatures please (replaced correct sig))". That is also true. I figured it was just random vandalism correction.
4 4 [[4]] Blue Tie changed his signature again (without any edit summary). Technically it was Anon 64 that changed it. And though I did not use an edit summary I left the next note on Andy's page.
9 5 [[5]] This was my note to Andy asking him to stop reverting and saying it was my name. You did not identify this edit properly. You give it later. This timing error is critical to your misunderstanding of what happened.
5 Once again, Andy reverted the change, writing "(don't edit signatures please (replaced correct sig))". This actually did not happen. You have that twice. It was only once
6 Blue Tie again reverts with no edit summary. It did not happen. You have duplicated this from before.
7 6 [[6]] Andy reverted again, saying "(the comment was left by Blue Tie, please stop claiming you made it)". This edit was key. See my comments below.
8 7 [[7]] Blue Tie reverts again, with no edit summary. Technically Anon 64 changed it. But Blue Tie left a comment on his user talk page next
9 Anon64 then left a message on Andy's talk page saying:"It was my signature that I edited. Please do not revert". You got this out of order. It happened back at step 5. This misplacement of the timeline led to a bad error on your part.
10 8 [[8]] With this request from Blue Tie, Andy stopped the edit war
11 9 [[9]] Andy left a message for Blue Tie telling him to just use one account and referring him to WP:SOCK. He mistated the Policy. He did not understand it.
12 10 [[10]] Blue Tie removed the warning, saying "(You are wrong. Read the Policy)". That’s the end.


Here are the key points: When Andy changed it the second time, I went to his talk page to discuss it with him. I could understand his edits, but I wanted to explain it to him so he would stop or at least ask a question or two. It was a timely request to Andy. YOU PUT IT IN A WRONG ORDER and made it seem like only after a long edit war, -- like I finally said something after many reverts. That is NOT what happened. And his next revert was really troubling. That was the edit that really upset me. I had posted on his user talk page. He REJECTED my request without talking about it with me. He just ran roughshod over me. Totally wrong. And Why shouldn't I have have said I made it? I did! Andy did wrong by refusing to at least stop and ask me about it. He just assumed things were a certain way. He was ridged, dogmatic and difficult to deal with. Then he made it worse in Step 9. He completely got the policy wrong.

So I opposed him in his nomination for adminstrator. I just did not think he had the right approach to be an administrator and he did not know policy.

You got the history wrong. You missed the right order of the edits and did not understand the right history. You did not properly represent my communciation with Andy. Thus you misrepresented me. --Blue Tie 05:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4

Let me help clarify - I have tried NOT to edit the same articles under different names. The only instances where I have done so are either -- by mistake, or when I have decided to abandon the old name for the new name -- and after waiting a few weeks on pages that are not frequently edited. There is no requirement to make it transparent that you are using SockPuppets. There is no need to do so if you are not doing anything wrong. And I am not. There is nothing about my behavior that I am ashamed of or anything that I did wrong. I just wanted to separate the accounts. There are legitimate reasons for doing so.--Blue Tie 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts: the "new name" (Blue Tie) vs the "old name" (Anon 64) - created 4 hours apart; both used extensively since: Anon64, Blue Tie. Rarely used on same articles, but 72.13.168.149 frequently worked same articles: edit history. --A. B. 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem that you are not following here is that I had posted for a while as an anon ip address that started with 64. I was posting that way all over wikipedia, until I settled on a name that I wanted to use. Once I did, I decided I wanted to have two names. I would continue OLD discussions that I had originally initiated as the anon IP under the Anon 64 name and then I create new articles and do minor editing under the new name. I believe that if you review the history for Blue Tie vs Anon 64 you will see that this is the true state of the matter. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now I have presented the evidence. I accidentally used the anon ip 64 name for a total of 4 edits later. Other than very clear and obvious errors, I only used the 72 name 6 times. And though it is not obvious, those are errors as well. As for using Anon 64 extensively... yes. I have. MAINLY on pages where I started as the anon ip address that started as 64. So it is hardly evidence of any sort of lying or evil on my part as you have insinuated or accused. --Blue Tie 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to selectively present any bad information. I presented it as well as I know how. I am a new user here. I do not know about a broad pattern of behavior. I opposed. I was asked to go into detail. I did. That is what happened. Now, my honesty or integrity are being questioned -- when I have done nothing wrong. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when I have done my very best to be a good wikipedian. Even if I have not achieved it, I have tried and done my best. I certainly have not lied or misled anyone. I do believe that AB has misrepresented a bit. For example the quote about Calvinism and God hating you was a joke.. but he has expressed it as though I was being unpleasant. He surely knew it was a joke though if he read and researched all of the edits. --Blue Tie 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: After Blue Tie's criticisms, 3 concerned editors (1, 2, 3) asked Blue Tie for links to the problems cited.
That is true as I have previously said. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fact: Blue Tie made 4 susequent edits (1, 2, 3, 4) totalling 750+ words elaborating his first criticism but did not provide links.
That is also true. Not sure how it applies. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fact: 30 hours later, I also asked for the links.Seeing none forthcoming, I started digging for links and posting them.
Fact: "new user" has made 874 edits to date using 3 accounts: (72.13.168.149, Anon 64, Blue Tie)
Yes, you mentioned that previously. I did not see your request. I had left the discussion. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: I never opined on the suitability of Blue Tie comment about Calvinism and God
Opinion: I agree re: Calvinism and God -- joke.
Relevance to RfA: The Calvin-God joke -- potential red flag to editors not in on the joke (such as Andypandy.UK ), looking at diffs almost in real time and seeing changing signatures.
Concern: 90+ editors are making good faith decisions both for and against this RfA ; transparently and neutrally presenting Andypandy.UK's record is critical, especially in such a close RfA --A. B. 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have said all of the above previously.
In your "fact" presentation, you left off the "facts" that show how you misrepresented me. I believe it was in error, but you let your anger and judgement rule rather than being reasonable. --Blue Tie 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie's Summary

1. You accused me of not operating in good faith. In general, you're absolutely right, but I disagree re: good faith in this case -- the record (see the links below) seems to indicate something less than good faith in the case of Blue Tie and his two other personnas.--A. B. 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any bad faith on my part. If you can make it clear, I would be pleased to correct the problem. On the other hand, if there is no bad faith, you made a false accusation and that would have been wrong of you.

2. You misrepresented WP:SOCK as it pertains to me saying: I look up the Wikipedia policy on multiple accounts, WP:SOCK, and it talks about making it transparent when you edit with two accounts, going so far as to provide a template to advise other editors. But I don't see any of that stuff. In fact I really have to dig around to even find Blue Tie's other account.

WP:SOCK does not require any notification about Sockpuppets even though you may think that it should. The policy specifically says “multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny. The policy lists those things that are bad: Multiple Voting, Deception and Impersonation, and Policy Circumvention. I have done NONE of those things. Yet you see it as suspicious despite the fact that the policy actually provides for good reasons to have Sockpuppets.

The policy states that “it is uncool unless you have a good reason”. I DO HAVE A GOOD REASON even if you do not know what it is. It also WP:SOCK anticipates some of the good reasons for Sockpuppets and anticipates keeping them secret:

  • A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.
  • Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.
  • A person editing an article which is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume their information edits are statements of personal belief.
  • Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

Finally, you make it seem very suspicious that someone does not put a tag on their accounts. But the policy does not say it SHOULD be done. It only says that “Editors who wish to publicly display a link on an alternate account to their primary account may do so by tagging the "secondary" ones with. Notice… it is only something to be done if you WISH to do it. I did not wish to do it. That is perfectly in accordance with policy.

You misrepresented by insinuating that my actions were somehow sinister, even though they were entirely in accordance with the policy itself. That was wrong of you.


3. You accused me of editing the same article with different account names: Then I see a few cases where this person is editing the same article but with two accounts (well, actually three, when you include 72.13.168.149. And you said that all three were editing the article in the same day and that no one knew it.

This is clearly false. The one day you were referring to, included ONE case of Blue Tie, which was changed to Anon 64 and ONE case of the 72 ip that was also changed to Anon 64. In other words, BOTH of those instances where “all three were editing it the same day” were cases I tried to correct. Indeed it was one of these corrections that started the hubbub. You remember how I told you that I had a problem logging in and out? Well that problem was in existence that day but I tried to correct it.

You never acknowledge my efforts to make those corrections but only ascribed evil to my deeds. That was wrong of you.

4. You accused me of unspecified bad behavior: I'm inclined to discount Blue Tie's criticisms based on the doctrine of clean hands".--A. B. 07:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet there was no unclean hand here. But it is worse. An editor, trying to do his best should not be attacked and dragged through the mud as you have done to me. It is just wrong.


5. You accused me of selectively providing information. I'm also unimpressed that User:Blue Tie - User:Anon 64 - User:72.13.168.149 has selectively presented information to give a bad impression of Andy Well, I did not do so intentionally if I did it at all. But it turns out that you did at least as bad as I have done because you also provided selective (or wrong) information to make me look bad and make Andy look good. I presented that history above.

I have reread my original charge. I found that I was in error in one important way, but it was not so important that it changes the overall direction, intent or feeling of the thing. Here is my original account with my current comments in Italics.

I started on Wikipedia with one name. (I meant the Anon 64 name which was a continuation of my anon ip 64 name – as well as the anon ip 72 name though that one was not “real” to me because it was rare). I decided to change names. When I edited using my new name (Blue Tie) on a page that only recognized my old name I re-edited and replace my new name signature with the old one that was recognized there. Andeh repeatedly reverted this even after several explanations. (I was wrong.. it was not several, it was just one. I got overworked I guess). The first time was only annoying - but I understand fighting vandalism. However, after I explained it to him twice, (should have been once. I was wrong) he continued to revert, without any effort to understand or cooperate. He could have taken several different approaches but he chose to be utterly rigid and thoughtless. He was completely uncooperative and would not even listen to reason. Finally, I suppose he became convinced, but then he dogmatically insisted that I block one of the names as a sock puppet which he believed was the proper implementation of policy. In short, he was uncooperative, resistant, unhelpful and he misinterpreted wikipedia policy which does not reject multiple names but only the abuse of them, which if anything, I was seeking to avoid. It bothers me a great deal to bring this up again and I would have preferred to ignore it but I do not think it is fair to raise the objection without giving a history once it is requested. So, even though I find it personally undesirable to recount this history and am unhappy to do so, I nevertheless feel strongly enough about this to provide this support. I wanted to keep this quiet because I intend to abandon the other old name eventually and do not necessarily want any of the mistakes in my approach on that name (whatever they may be) to follow me to the new name (where I will have more experience), though I do not think I have behaved badly under either name. Nevertheless, I prefer to separate them. --Blue Tie 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After actually reviewing the edits, I would now say that “When I tried to explain that it was my name I was editing he refused to dialog and continued to revert in an antagonistic manner. I found him difficult, inflexible, and dogmatic”. I am not sure that the change in my edit would have resulted in a difference to the RfA but I do feel badly for misrepresenting. I relied on memory and the edits would have been better. But I have only just really learned how to do that sort of thing. On the other hand, you made at least as bad a review of the edits, with your presentation also wrong and the errors making Andy look good and me look bad. Is this because you are evil? If not, then can you accept that I am also not evil when I err?

6. You accused me of having a broad pattern of negative behavior… which accusation you never backed up. You said: it's also part of a broader pattern of behavior, both with regards to this RfA in particular and his dealings with other editors in general.

I certainly make mistakes like most people do, but I often apologize and I believe that my history of edits are more full of thanks and praise than most people give. What bad pattern of behavior are you referring to? And note, it should be a broad one, because that is how you defined it. Broad should be something that happens fairly often and is something well represented in my posts in all areas. I do not think you can find any evil or bad thing in my behavior. But if you can, I would like to know so that I can change it. I have asked others and been told that my behavior is ok. But you may have a more sensitive eye.

You are certainly different from me. Perhaps you are dogmatic like andy and thus you value such things. I do not know. But one thing about me is true: I was deeply distressed to have to say those things about Andy. I did not like it. It is contrary to my wishes or desire. But I felt it was necessary. On the other hand, if I had done what you did… and made such bad accusations falsely, without a good cause or an effort to at least discuss it with the other person first... I say If I had done that to someone doing their best, as you have done to me, I would be ashamed of myself. But you may be different than me. Everyone is different!.

2007 postscript

See User talk:Blue Tie#Eating crow. In a nutshell, while I had many "facts" on my side, my interpretation of them was profoundly misguided and I owe Blue Tie a major apology. I believe Blue Tie was acting in good faith all along.

I still think Andypandy would make a good admin and his actions as described by Blue Tie were an honest mistake. --A. B. (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hard feelings toward A.B. and I agree that Andypandy should be an admin. --Blue Tie 16:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Andypandy.UK"