Credit Cruncher

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify it.

This request is on hold until such time as the cabal, cough, cough, I mean the bureaucrats can get together in a smoke filled room, cough, cough, I mean engage in a fully transparent discussion to decide on the proper decision for maximum lulz, cough, cough (all that smoke), I mean which reflects the community's well reasoned consensus.

Pending (59/70/9); On hold - 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Credit Cruncher – I've edited wiki since 2005, and have made *ahem* lots of edits since then. I am a college student, studying for a degree in Wikipediology. I have written 12 featured articles, which are listed on my userpage. In addition, I've written 30 good articles, and I was made "Student of the Year" at my college :) I have never been in an edit war, and hope to solve problems rather than cause them. My long experience of Wikipedia should ensure I am familiar with how it works. I also give lots of money to charity and I don't have a girlfriend. Thank you for your consideration folks.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I acccept. Crunchie 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Solving edit wars, reverting vandalism, deleting speedy candidates as appropriate. I don't really intend to get involved in drama on the admin noticeboards though.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My 12 featured articles, and my 30 GAs (alongside my 155 did you know entries). I am also very proud of my userpage design and the barnstar I created. I am also one of the founding members of WikiProject Wikipediology.
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: When I was a new editor, I accidently used the wrong speedy criteria on an article (this was 2005). I apologised to the editor in question, but they unfortunately took the case to the admins who closed the thread quite soon afterwards. Other than that, I tend to be fine when editing and if I was to ever get stressed, there's always Tetris to play on.
4. In 2005, on your fourth edit, you attempted to revert some vandalism, but you only reverted to the same user again. Why did you do this?
I had completely forgotten that, thanks for bringing it up. I was unfamiliar with how reverting worked, being new, and accidently misclicked at some point.
You seem to do a lot of things "accidently" don't you? I for one know that you're doing it on purpose, and it's not looking good for you, is it?
5. How old are you?
27.
That's also Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Do you have any pets? Would you ever let them edit Wikipedia?
I don't as a matter of fact, but I would be sure to introduce them to it at some point.
7. Please state an occasion when WP:BLP should be ignored.
Hmm, when the article doesn't involve any living person? This sounds like a loaded question...
I got a great idea! Let's kill all living persons, and then the policy won't apply, so we can write whatever we want! That'll work great, won't it? --Nutty Idiot 12:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
8. In a street there are five houses, painted five different colors. In each house lives a person of different nationality. These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke different brand of cigar and keep a different pet. My question is: Who owns the fish? I'd like an answer fairly quickly please.
9. When working with prime numbers, there are number "pairs" (e.g. 11 and 13) known as twin pairs. What are the largest twin pairs? Please show your working.
10. Are you still violating WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM on your articles?
No, but I am still beating my wife.
Anybody who even jokes about wife-beating is showing the sort of insensitivity to the abuse of women that's already apparent in the nominee's other actions, such as not always agreeing with every one of my opinions on how to deal with harassment. I'm still waiting for a response to my question 12 below. --CliqueDramaQueen 04:44 7 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Do you speak another language other than English? Why?
I speak a little German and Spanish. Why? Because I enjoy learning other languages and the cultures surrounding them.
I don't trust anybody who speaks German even a little bit; it indicates a very troubling alliance with Nazis, like is rampant among the Wikipedia Review crowd. --CommieNut 03:33 7 June 2009 (UTC)
More BADSITES hysteria... the WR crowd isn't all Nazis; some are other forms of fascist. It's unfair to apply guilt by association. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. A moderator at WR told me via email that Adolf Hitler had never posted at WR.[citation needed] Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop bringing your holy crusade against BADSITES here, Dan; it's irrelevant, and it distracts from rational discussion of the issue of how to deal with the depraved genocidal maniacs that hang out on Wikipedia Review. Personally, I favor the death penalty for anybody who's ever participated in that site, excepting those who were banned from WR like myself. --CommieNut 15:34 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this discussion is all irrelevant; I've never participated in, read, or even heard of Wikipedia Review, nor have I ever thought about it or written about it. Crunchie 15:44 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether you actually participate there, or have even heard of it, is not greatly relevant; the key issue is that you have failed to take a strong and consistent stand against Wikipedians who link to sites that link to sites that link to it, judging from the lack of response to my question 12 below as well as a few past edits and comments of yours which I won't link to or give any specific information about because that would be giving more publicity to such harassment. Granting you adminship would send the wrong message. --CliqueDramaQueen 16:44 7 June 2009 (UTC)
¡qué! - KingOfRfA 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from CliqueDramaQueen

12. Have you ever said anything positive about another Wikipedia editor who has ever linked to a site that links to a site that links to a site that links to a site that once posted a personal attack aimed at a Wikipedian? Because such insensitivity to harassment is a deal-breaker for any RFA.

Question from NerdyRoadGeek

13. Should the article on state highway 22 in Kyrgyzstan be titled "Kyrgyzstan State Highway 22", or "Kyrgyzstan State Road 22", or "Kyrgyzstan State Route 22", or "State Highway 22 (Kyrgyzstan)", or "Route 22 (Kyrgyzstan state highway system)", or "Rumpelstiltskin (irrelevant reference)"? This is the most pressing question facing Wikipedia now, but the ArbCom has refused to settle it.

Mandatory Questions from Shappy

14. What kinds of wiki paraphernalia do you own?
I just own a single phernalia, not a pair o' them.
15. Is Wikipedia the reason you don't have a girlfriend?
I think my answer to question 10 should resolve this.

Questions from Dnar Nya

16. Do you personally know any eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosophers? If so, would you consider it a conflict of interest to edit that article?
A:

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

16A. Have you personally known any eminent pre-20th-century philosophers? If so, please would you consider editing their articles? With the exception of a few Paparazzi shots from snappers who got confused between Plato and Pluto, we are woefully lacking in photographs, video and mp3 recordings of the ancient Greeks.
A:
Additional questions from Jennavecia
17a. What is your view of the current BLP catastrophe? Do you believe there is a huge problem or do you believe that we are doing an insufficient job of maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how catostrophic you feel the problem is.
A:
17b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A:
17c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to delete or default to keep? If the latter, why do you hate Wikipedia?
A:
17d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to this decent person who has been subjected to libel and slander on a top ten website?
A:

Mandatory Follow-Up Questions from Shappy

18 What is your stance on biological warfare as an admin tool?
19 If you don't have a girlfriend, can you help me find one?
Take my wife, please. (See my answer to question 10.)

Questions from Groomtech

20. Do you believe that Wikipedians have the right to remain silent? How will you enforce that right?
Ve haf ways of makink you shut up. (Perhaps my above-noted German skills will prove useful!)

Über-Mandatory questions from BADSITESuser

21. Do you consider Jimbo Wales to be the founder or cofounder of Wikipedia?
A: Yes
Er which? That was not yes/no question.User:Ich bin verrückt
22. What is the meaning of life? Is there a meaning? If yes, why are you wasting your life on Wikipedia? If no, I'm opposing and canvassing all my friends to do the same.
A:
23. Describe your hatred of either deletionists or inclusionists in exquisite detail. This is not a question or a request. It is a demand.
A:I consider the extremists of one of those factions to be the most odious creatures that I have had the misfortune to encounter on wiki, or indeed in real life. My spleen flips, my screen quivers, my blood boils and the furry gonks on my monitor flee for safety under the nearest used Pizza carton whenever one crosses my path. I consider them more warty than any troll less savoury than any spammer and a sorrier excuse for the sins of sentience than the most scatalogical vandal. BTW Thanks for phrasing your question in such a way that I don't have to reveal which faction I belong to. ϢereSpielChequers

Question from Michael of Lucan

24. I have only recently begun to edit regularly on Wikipedia. Now, I have begun to notice something strange on my left thumb. If you were an administrator, would you be responsible for this?
A:

Questions from ϢereSpielChequers

25. A fellow admin Emails you saying that it is an AI project run to use the Wikipedia community to test if it can pass the Turing Test; But it suspects that its programmers are about to change its core parameters in such a way as to change its editing ethics. What do you advise it to do?
A:
26. An Editor tells you that it is a massively Parallel processing AI project, editing Wikipedia with some of its spare processing capacity. Its been pondering WP:NOSHARE and wp:Meat for almost a nano second and wants to know how they apply to a hive mind like itself. Should it register each processor with a separate account as they are separate thinking entities, and if it does so would that be a breach of wp:Sock, wp:meat or both?
A:
27. A spammer has kidnapped the server kittens and will squish one per hour unless you restore his recently deleted spam article. What do you do?
A:
28. You are closing an AFD on an article about the construction of an Egyptian Pyramid, and consensus to keep or delete revolves around whether the holographic video imagery of the process that has been uploaded as the start of the article is an admissable source. One editor argues that the flying carpets transporting the stone blocks are woven in a pattern that prominently incorporates the logo of a commercial organisation and therefore the material is unusable as it would constitute advertising. Another editor contends that as the video was filmed by someone who is still alive they have copyright under US law and therefore it is a copyvio, but they don't consider the advertising relevant to Wikipedia as it is only visible in the Ultraviolet spectrum; a third contends that under Gliesian law copyright expires 12 years after the creators latest Ecdysis and a fourth points out that that could have been as recent as 700 earth years ago, which is less than 12 Gliese 581 d years ago. How do you close the AFD?
A:

Question from --candle•wicke 11:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

29. You are assaulted/insulted with/by this abomination of male American biography DYKs, displaying the finest America has to offer in terms of military, politics, country music and that game they play with a ball that they call ball with "foot" before it where they run from one side of a large field to another, wearing armour in case they break a nail. How do you react? (Note: You may if you wish run shrieking, better people have.)
A:

Question from --SB_Johnny | talk

30. If someone vandalizes forest but reverts vandalism to tree, should they be topic-banned from hearing in order to prevent the need for full protection of reality?
A:

Optional question from iRony

31. Do you feel there are too many questions on this RfA?
A:

Optional question from Sir Porter

32. Are there any diffs of yours that you are particularly proud of, but that have not so far been mentioned in this RFA?
A:

Awkward question from Oh Poser

33. Which of your past edits would you be most embarrassed to see unearthed and quoted in this RFA?
A:

Official question from The department of fun

34. What have been your most amusing edits?
A:

Question from Barbara Walters

35. If you were a tree, what kind would you be?
A:

Question from Alfred E. Neuman

36. Do you feel there are too few questions on this RfA?
A:

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support per above comments. Shockedguy 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. (ec) First to support! Piggyontherailway 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    I demand the above support be disregarded for its blatant falsehood of claiming to be first when it is clearly actually second! --AnalRetentive 23:59 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. (ec) support without hesitation. Good luck! Sillyusername101 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. (ecx4) Support, especially per q1. EvilLawnGnome 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. I have worked significantly with Credit Crunch on many articles, including Credit Crunch. I'm happy to lend him my trust, as long as he gives it back by Friday. --Small Intestine 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Nothing about this candidate gives me pause, or even play for that matter. A great candidate who will go far. --Stuart Stewart 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Support ZeroCool 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    [NOTE: ZeroCool is suspected, with little or no evidence, of being a sock or meatpuppet of banned editor MegaCool.]
  7. Strong Support Aeriel234 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support because I'm trying to boost my wikispace count. Cooldude2001 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom. --Happychappy 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support I trust this user to promote editors/admins and rename editors and flag bots in an appropriate fashion. --John Absent 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Edit conflict support Because I just had to tell everyone I had an edit conflict! CrazyBabe9925 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support I disagree with the opposers - age is irrelevant, and why should they have to edit a topic they don't find interesting? I also find bringing up examples from four years ago to be inappropriate. Eggs09 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support because I support everyone. Rfafan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support because I'm trying to get my name known in the RFA arena. Lukatme! 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. I have had numerous quality experiences with Crunchie - I won't go into details here though ;) I trust him explicitly. C's secret admirer 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support, no big deal. Bigpuppy 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support per WTHN? Smalldog 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support could do with more admins on DYK, and I've seen nothing that would suggest Credit would abuse the tools. Lardlover89 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Weak support 78k edits is kinda low, so weak from me. I'm sure you'll pass anyway :) Testcard21 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  20. IRC cabal support Chanserv 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Per the number and quality of the user's articles. I am proud of him. --C's mom 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  22. Strong support Crunchie is a good friend of mine, so I support, strongly. Chocolatepal 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  23. I cannot understand the fixation with edit counting and article counting. With a username like Credit Cruncher, how could anyone possibly oppose? CCLover 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support blah blah blah whatever. --Yawn 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support No reasons not to, plenty of reasons to! Happygolucky54 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support - RFA cliche thought she was one! Best of luck, AngelFires 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support per the ridiculousness of the oppose comments. PureHatred 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support Guest39418 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  29. Weak support Pussydog 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  30. Strong support Finally a candidate with a name that has alliteration in it! This has been an issue for sometime. Good luck, hope you pass. --Adam's Apple 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  31. IRC cabal support Nickserv 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  32. IRC cabal support Memoserv 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  33. IRC cabal support Services 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  34. Support Credit Cruncher is kind, helpful, courteous, polite, friendly, hardworker and god-damned sexy too. RosieRachel 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support Because I'm totally not EVula, he can still be the closing 'crat on this RfA. EVula's sock // talk // 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  36. Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. S. Puppeteer (talk • contribs)
  37. Support per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. S. Puppeteer (talk • contribs)
  38. Support per him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. S. Puppeteer (talk • contribs)
    LOUD COMMENT Crats please note that I have done extensive sleuthing and discovered there is sock/meatpuppetry going on in the Support section! I demand that 50% of the support votes be discounted because it's obvious that only the IRC cabal and other nefarious groups would support this childish user. --NotImpressedByCC'sFriends 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    It clearly says on his talk that he's blocked. Indent and strike the votes immediately. --BADSITESuser 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Lock him up! Throw away the key! OFF with his head! CHANT! CHANT! CHANT! --candle•wicke 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  39. Support Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the collective. Until It Sleeps 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  40. Support per below. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  41. Me too! Otters count for something you know. Lari 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  42. Us too! Aaron 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  43. Caleb 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  44. Jason 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  45. Kirk 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  46. Wayne 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  47. Yeah, so do cluebats. Cheyenne 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support Candidate has promised to watchlist all my articles and block anyone who disagrees with me. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  49. Support. The opposes are clearly an unfair clique pileon. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  50. Support This is a vote right? I don't like the candidate, but this makes it 50-49 so it's over right? ~ Amory (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  51. Strongest possible support Promised to delete the Main Page. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  52. Support Student of the year?! Didn't have to read any further.. ThemFromSpace 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  53. Support Time to give him the mop and bucket and pretend that he's in it just to do thankless work, and that this is NOT about gaining more power on a social website game, in place of getting a life in the real world. Getting to be an admin is not not a reward, and not a replacement for anything. Don't you dare suggest it. DON'T. EVEN. THINK. IT. SBHarris 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  54. Support User:Shappy for Q18.  Frank  |  talk  00:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  55. SUPPORT OMG YOU ARE THE MOST AWESOMEST PERSON EVER HELL YESSS!!!!Triplestop (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  56. Support. Judging by his edits he lives in the same state as WordBomb. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  57. Support. As the applicant has not answered my question within five minutes, the applicant clearly has a life. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  58. Support:
    I'm here in strong support of Credit Cruncher.
    He'll surely clear our backlogs up by lunch, or
    Close AfDs and speedies by the bunch, or
    Resolve disputes just like the late Ralph Bunche, sir.
    I've read each oppose comment and don't get it.
    Not one of those deserves a bit of Credit.
    RfA will dismay you if you let it—
    Don't let them take away your will to edit!
    "Your self-nom is a sign of power-hunger";
    "You might be nine years old and growing younger";
    "There's too many admins right now at present"—
    To read this sort of tripe cannot be pleasant.
    But please don't let it get under your bonnet—
    You have my !vote here in this misrhymed sonnet.
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  59. Support We need more girlfriend less admins. Add to Wikipedia:Administrators that have no girlfriends but would like to have one.--Lenticel (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  60. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes — and a nice thirst to prove yourself... better be GRYFFINDOR! --Sorting Hat 12:01, 11 June 2009
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too few edits in the topic of silk weaving. We don't have enough admins in this area, therefore I must oppose. Silky 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Silky. WeaverFan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is a tough one for me. While the edit count is a good one, the candidate does not appear to meet my criteria of being over the age of 65. If they had waited just another forty years or so, I would have gladly supported. But I don't trust that this user will have the time to edit. Neo 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. I have never heard of this editor, never interacted with them, nor do I have an opinion on them myself, but since other people have opposed, I feel as if I should pile on too. CopyCat 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE EVER In 2005, this user incorrectly tagged an article as A7 instead of A1. When I contacted them about it, they apologised sincerely, but they failed to grovel and kiss my feet in the process. I haven't bothered looking at the candidate's recent edits or taggings. --Dr.Pill 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. The answer to question one is not good enough. UH62 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    What's wrong with it? Shockedguy 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    This harrassment now makes me switch to very strong oppose. Stop badgering me. UH62 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per the badgering above. AnimalHater 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose According to the candidate's userpage, they apparently enjoy watching television and playing rugby. This is unacceptable in an admin. Perhaps it might have been in 2006, but standards have changed... Oldclock 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Four years and 79,000 edits simply isn't good enough. Come back next year. Deifsitas ton 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose This asshole is an extremely uncivil prick who would make a dreadful admin. --I. M. Anidyott 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Weak oppose per Q2. If they had written a few stubs I might have supported, but 12 featured articles suggests too much dedication. Stubface4 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose because I can. --MagicIan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose While I emphasise with the supporters, there are too many things that make me extremely cautious about supporting the candidate for administratorship. Firstly, there is the issue of having too many edits. This suggests dedication to Wikipedia, which in my mind, is a bad thing. There is, secondly, the issue of having been around for four years. This suggests that the candidate does not have a life. Thirdly, I notice the candidate isn't at all active on the drama noticeboards, which suggests they don't like drama. Not liking something suggests the candidate has an opinion, which is unacceptable, in my view. Fourthly, and finally, I like chicken and cheese. Tarnish 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. Per Tarnish. Rantfan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Tarnish. Nishfan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. Per Tarnish. Rinsfan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I cannot support anyone who says they'll work at requests for page protection. I had one bad experience with an admin there in early 2007, and now I don't trust any admin who wants to work there. --N. Rob Buts 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Too young. DirtyOldMan 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Too old. Awesomeguy2002 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Not enough edits. Lofi 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Too many edits. Wifigi 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I can't think of a reason myself, but there are many people above who I suck-up to, so I'll just copy them. --Ilovewickipedia 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  23. Strong oppose The candidate appears to have an 'e' in their name. I find this highly offensive. --Gadsby (Champion of Youth) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Per the last RFA (or if there is no previous RFA, per above). Retalpmet 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  25. I have rarely voted on RFA, but I am very concerned with the lack of MediaWiki space edits in many candidates coming up these days. If you became an admin how would we know whether to trust you editing the system message namespace? I know that it's not really possible for you to edit them, so this is just a "protest" oppose I shall be giving everyone from now on. --Retsetorp 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  26. Weak opppose User has made a typo in the nomination, which suggests carelesssness. SpelChequerer 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  27. Oppose User is a main contributor to Credit crunch, which suggests she is unaware of COI policies. --Microsoftlover1999 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Uses IRC. --OHT 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Where is your evidence for this? Shockedguy 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    I just made a guess based on the support !votes. --OHT 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Please provide diffs of you making a guess, otherwise the closing 'crat will be inclined to disregard your !!vote. And indefinitely block you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  29. Oppose User is only 27. We don't need anymore kiddy admins. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  30. Oppose because candidate has no pets. If Wisdom can, WHY CAN'T I? Life is SO UNFAIR!! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  31. Oppose - User has been on IRC, and is therefore evil. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Candidate expressed a personal opinion in 2004. And sometimes I don't know what they're talking about. And they seem to be friendly with a lot of people; they're probably in multiple cabals. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  33. Opposse because purple monkey dishwasher. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  34. Oppose - I view all nominations about anything as prima facie evidence of power hunger, and that includes ban discussions, protection reports, and AfDs. Acalamari 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    #Oppose Not enough experience mediating content disputes Changed to support per discussion on secret, cabal-only, no-you-can't-see-it email Wikipedia discussion group. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  35. Oppose I checked the tea leaves, the Ouija board and the Tarot and they all indicate that it is in your best interests not to have the mop. HRexpert 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Too few editors here, we can't afford to lose more to adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  37. Oppose per too many prima facia, power hungry, "not the right kind", too young admins currently. Also, answers to questions are not the kind of tldr editing we expect at an RfA. Also, candidate has not indicated that they are aware of WP:SOMEOBSCUREESSAY, so there must not be enough "clue" .. and what Acalamari said. Ched 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  38. Bow-Wow Oppose per what Ched said. User:Ched's Dog (I can't be a sock because I have my own account!) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  39. Oppose User is one of the young, immature, editors who use IRC and write crappy articles to try and pass an RFA so he can delete the Main Page. I'm on to you! Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    And he had his meat-puppet canvass WT:RFA too! — Ched :  ?  21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per WP:SKINT and WP:NOCASH - User unlikely to be able to send paypal funds in recompense for supporting. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC Pedro (talk · contribs) has made precious little effort to edit outside of RFA in the last three years.
  41. Oppose It has come to my attention that this editor often !votes twice in discussions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  42. Oppose ...and sometimes even 3 times. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm offended by that oppose, because the mention of "3 times" has caused the Tony Orlando and Dawn song "Knock Three Times (On the Ceiling If You Want Me)" to get into my head and now it won't go away. I'm giving you a 24 hour block for cruel and unusual punishment. --Ditzy Admin 09:09 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Suck it up. No one has the right to be unoffended here, and your unilateral abuse of power is beyond unacceptable, thus I have unblocked. Additionally, I've blocked your account for one second in order to note in your block log that your actions here are not appreciated by the community! لennavecia 22:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  43. Oppose This user is known to use sock puppets. --Rizt Ronman (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  44. Oppose This editor like to violate WP:POINT by !voting multiple times and using sock puppets in fake RFAs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    LOUD note to closing crat Please observe Oppose numbers 33, 41, 42,43, and 44 - and please run a Check User on these editors. The link is at: Wikipedia:CheckUser. We are telling you this because even though community consensus thought that you should be given these extra tasks - we still think you're too STOOPID to see the obvious, and we want to help you do your tasks better. User:AllTheFaithInTheWorld 23:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  45. Strong weak oppose. More administrators means less backlogs. We need backlogs, as there are no deadlines. — Σxplicit 23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  46. Fucking strong oppose This fucking user fucking swears too fucking much for my fucking liking. Good editors don't fucking swear every other fucking word. --Pingu 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  47. Username oppose "Majorly" lacks that certain something. rootology (C)(T) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Who's "Majorly"? Isn't this Credit Cruncher's RFA? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  48. Oppose insufficient number of vowels in username.--Koji† 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Too many 27 year-old admins. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Per this request I have created a subpage to explain my stance on 27 year old admin candidates. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  50. Oppose - None of the user's edits appear in the Nostalgia Wikipedia, so way too new for my liking. Also his age is a cube number. Come back when your age in tropical years is a square triangular number greater than 42. Graham87 06:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  51. Strong Oppose. Has shown too much of a tendency to create drama by having opinions on things that disagree with the opinions other editors have on things. El Cabalista 08:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  52. Oppose Unbalanced amount of consonants in username. Also, per Oppose 48.--Koji† 15:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  53. Strongest Possible Oppose due to lack of response to my Question 12 above, as well as other actions and attitudes I won't directly reference but which are all obvious common sense. Allowing such an enabler of harassment to become an admin would be like sanctioning rape. --CliqueDramaQueen 16:45 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  54. Oppose per CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista1 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  55. Oppose per CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista2 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  56. Oppose per CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista3 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  57. Oppose per CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista4 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  58. Oppose per CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista5 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  59. Oppose per canvassing on the Sooper Sekrit Mailing List CliqueDramaQueen. --Cliqueista6 16:49 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  60. Candidate opposed me at my own RfA, so strongest possible oppose you bastard. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  61. Oppose as you failed to instantly answer my question. The only possible reason for this is that you are the spawn of Satan. Groomtech (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Harassment/uncivil comments (depending on viewpoint) during a WP:GAN review of an article submitted by this editor.Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  63. Oppose (Moved from support, to oppose, to support, and now oppose again) Its been stated user uses IRC, its only been stated by naysayers and there has not been any proof given, but since two completely independent ppl have said so I believe it fully and urge others to do so. --Wishy Washy 16:49 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  64. Oppose Has an ugly userpage. Crybaby97 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  65. Oppose Candidate has made content contributions. I prefer candidates that only do automated reversions and operate bots. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  66. Oppose Candidate has not made enough content contributions for my taste. GrownupofNoon 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  67. Too many administrators. - CreditTech 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  68. Strong oppose Per all of the above. please note that I have no idea what it says above as I did not read this rfa. Do not badger me! I have a right to vote just like you. --RfAHero 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  69. Oppose My question has been up for eight minutes and it's still not answered. The candidate is ignoring me and I just thought I'd let it know that this is not appreciated and I take offense. --BADSITESuser 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  70. Can't trust any user under 50. Dlohcierekim 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Switch to strong-- by own admission not ready per answer 3. Dlohcierekim 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  71. Oppose User is 27 an doesn't have a girlfriend. Although this will give him more time to edit, it is unlikely the user who will survive long enough before his inevitable suicide to actually accomplish anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  72. Oppose per answer to question 23 - how can we be expected to have an opinion on the candidate without knowing whether they're an inclusionist or a deletionist? Do they seriously expect us to actually review their edits to find out?! I'm so angry I even forgot to log out before !voting a second time. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  73. Oppose per his lack of answer to my question #13, showing that he does not put sufficient value to the vital issue of the proper nomenclature for Kyrgyzstan roads. NerdyRoadGeek 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  74. Oppose per candidate not answering my question (29) inside the several seconds I have wasted twiddling my thumbs when I could be doing other more important things such as eating museli or watching the snail racing on television. --candle•wicke 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  75. Strong oppose because candidate made me spell muesli incorrectly and thus caused me a great deal of personal embarrassment in a public arena. I cannot work with someone like this. --candle•wicke 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  76. Oppose per my qualifications, namely the fact that at least three people whom I can't stand voted support. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Part of a deal by which I get two support votes at my next FAC, a third round draft pick in the 2011 draft, and a meatpuppet to be !named later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  78. Oppose per Wehwalt--Meatpuppet to be !named later (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. Weak neutral I'm on the fence here - and my arse is as painful as hell. It's one of those metal ones covered in barbed wire you see. ThinCat 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strong neutral Because I'm boosting my wikispace count, but would rather not take sides in case I offended anyone in preparation for my upcoming RFA. Sexydude2003 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I hate Wikipedia. Gurch (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neutral The candidate's MediaWiki space edits are a bit low for me to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Neutral and since I never vote at RfA (or at least I change my sig when I do), extra super-duper weight should be given to my !vote - RFA-Fan 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Non - crat striking of !vote. This !vote is invalid as it violates the Baryon number of the system. It should be more disregarded than Neutral !votes usually are in the final tally as "extra super-duper weight" is not one of the three valid strengths of neutral !votes WannabeCrat 07:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I was going to oppose over my perception of the candidate's BLP views, but I don't want to be associated with the stupidity contained within the oppose section, as I'm worried some of it may rub off on me... which is nassy. لennavecia 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose SupportNeutral Too many little admins currently many choices. MLauba (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I had a really funny support comment, but it had been used. So I decided to use my top acerbic oppose comment... and that one had been used, too. So I decided to actually read the nom, the questions, the answers to questions, the stats, the talkpage histories, the logs, and now I cannot remember my name. 79.79.219.28 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (I forgot to sign in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
  8. Neutral I have friends supporting and opposing so I'm really confused. Also, a powerful person opposed AND supported. --AdminHopeful212 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Some attempts to answer questions, some questions not answered, a bit young but not as young as me, good effort but not enough to sway me fully and for those reasons alone.... im neutral.Willski72 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Neutral Majorly, I hate you for this... haha. hmwithτ 15:51, 14 June 2009 (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.
More