Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Getcrunk

Add links
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.

Getcrunk

[edit]

Final (45/16/2) ended 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Getcrunk (talk · contribs) – Getcrunk is a well-rounded user and active contributor who's been here since August of last year. In addition to heavy contributions to articles about U.S. pop music (including a couple featured articles) this user has become an increasing presence on AfD of late (despite the low Wikipedia namespace count.) Getcrunk has also been awarded a tireless contributor barnstar and a vandal-fighting barnstar. Please consider handing Gc the mop. Grandmasterka 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Grandmasterka 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Strong work within a narrow focus but, then again, I'm still working on my own (grin). RadioKirk talk to me 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support Looks good :) Benon 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support some excellent work in music articles, should be WP:100 easily Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Looks promising. --Tone 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cleared for Adminship User seems to know what he is doing. --Pilot|guy 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - no problems seen, though the yellow highliter might be nicer if toned down a tad :o -- Tawker 20:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Rama's Arrow 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Looks alright. Nephron  T|C 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Not sure he (she?) needs the admin tools, but I certainly think he's got more than enough experience, has demonstrated civility and competence, and will not abuse his sysop privileges. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Great user. DarthVader 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I-trust-the-nominator Support Kimchi.sg 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, I like what I see here: good contribs, respectable levels of involvement in WP space, high editcount... now get your hands dirty and start mopping the floor! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. An experienced and committed wikipedian who will be of more use to the community with admin-tools. Bucketsofg✐ 00:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - no concerns here. Metamagician3000 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, I just looked at his last 50 contributions and I'm seeing good things. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support!, Intelligent contributions, smart and calm. Would make a fine admin. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I'll pass on the crunk ;), apart from that, no concerns here. --Jay(Reply) 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. --Primate#101 03:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Would make good use of tools.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, ofcourse. Very deserving. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support,User_talk:Dlohcierekim 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Terence Ong 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support It is about time as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Computerjoe's talk 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support--Jusjih 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support will make a great admin OSU80 20:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support seems well-rounded and prolific. Ted 03:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support from a fellow Sens fan! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good mix of contibutions & vandal fighting. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support per above Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Good user Canderous 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]
  35. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportBrisvegas 09:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support fair and trustworthy ed. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Helpful and an intelligent contributor. -- Underneath-it-All 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. We, the wikipedians, always assume good faith, and some of us always use this term to confront other editors/ administrators as a weapan. I am supporting this nomination assuming not only good faith but utmost good faith, as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, should get recognition, and our system may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. --Bhadani 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per Underneath-it-All. Gwernol 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Joe I 13:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I've seen this user's work, and we have edited some of the same pages recently (new Janet Jackson stuff), and I beleieve getcrunk has what it takes to be an admin.... --Thankyoubaby 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I'd also like to note that I think his userbox about pacifists is meant as a joke, and in any case, there is no evidence that it has in at all influenced how the getcrunk has edited. JoshuaZ 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - slightly concerned that some recent AfD contributions have been "Delete" and nothing else, but balanced with record more generally I'll support. —Whouk (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that; I must have been too anxious (my Ottawa Senators lost in overtime). -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per nom and AmiDaniel; I certainly concur in JoshuaZ's assessment that the template is facetious in nature and, in any case, neither has proven disruptive nor has influenced Getcrunk's writing. Doc glasgow is altogether correct; we must ask whether Getcrunk's user name and user page are likely to have any disruptive (or, more generally, any deleterious) effect. IMHO, neither will; I cannot imagine that any user who would leave the project (or even be unable to come to Getcrunk for help) in view of GC's user page is a user whom we'd find particularly productive. I cannot abide the suggestion that we should make inferences apropos of GC's judgment from his recalcitrance with respect to one userbox; even as he might have been well served to remove it, it should be said that the userbox does not appear to have caused a disruption outside of the discursive one here (and tangential disruption of an RfA is, on the whole, not nearly the problem that actual disruption of mainspace is). Joe 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice." Another candidate with exceptionally poor judgement. I cannot support this person. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Query How can a Userbox be a litmus test on Adminship? How does it indicate bad judgment?  :) Dlohcierekim 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty simple, we need to get along, divisive userboxes are pointless and dangerous. Now, if he'd removed it on the first objection, much of the opposition wold have evaporated, but he has chosen not to. --Doc ask? 14:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose not to remove the 'box because I do not want to seem like I am desperate for the admin status by being some sort or doormat for oppose voters — or to seem like I'm trying to cover up my actions. I don't regret anything; the pacifist box is a joke, however, I will remove it now as I can tell that people don't like it and that the RfA will close in an hour. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose don't need more admins. Ardenn 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This user has been voting oppose don't need more admins on everyone, I advise a 'crat to take this into consideation when closing RfA -- Tawker 06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Jkelly 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose this pacifist user thinks agressive editors make good candidates to oppose. (Remove the box, and I'll remove this). --Doc ask? 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: I don't like the hostility toward pacifists or the drug reference in the user name. Thumbelina 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Thumbelina. Userpage shows far too much hostility and colour range. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Jonathunder 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Not a good tutor. --Masssiveego 05:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - The userboxes and account name really tell me all I need to know. And per Tony Sidaway and Doc. --Cyde Weys 13:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose In answer to question 1. nom described users needing to be blocked as troublemakers. "blocking troublemakers at WP:ANI & WP:AN3" This shows a lack of understanding for the reason for blocks. FloNight talk 14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Tony. HenryFlower 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose This pacifist votes against all Fascist would-be admins. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per TS - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Threats are absolutely unacceptable. Cynical 12:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No threats, just a(n apparently unfunny) joke. See my above comment. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose User boxes (especially the one on Quebec) are very divisive, and in my opinion, offensive. Myciconia 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Comment: this vote was added after RfA closing date -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. TO THE WINDOW!!! TO THE WALL!!! SKEET SKEET SKEET!!! --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per SPUI. — May. 13, '06 [05:57] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Could you elucidate? :) Dlohcierekim 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Total edits	4029
Distinct pages edited	1709
Average edits/page	2.358
First edit	21:34, 6 August 2005
	
(main)	2714
Talk	217
User	168
User talk	604
Image	20
Template	29
Template talk	5
Category	22
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	237
Wikipedia talk	12

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 can see myself helping out with reverting vandalism & helping out new users (which I already do), blocking troublemakers at WP:ANI & WP:AN3 and keeping/deleting pages listed at CAT:CSD & WP:AFD. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can also help out with RC patrol, which I sometimes do but is hard without admin tools. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully admin tools will ease the stress of repeated tedious tasks (check out my recent contribs to see what I mean). :S -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of my edits to Kylie Minogue and Kylie Minogue-related articles, although many other very talented editors have also contributed to those pages. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sort-of off-topic, but I hope to become further involved with WP:1.0 and WP:MUSICIAN. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: I have been in minor edit conflicts; mostly with people who disagree about facts in infoboxes, chart positions, sales info and POV (although I followed Wikipedia's MoS policies).
I hope that the editors and anon users involved in past disagreements with myself will continue to improve pop-culture-related articles, and I will attempt to resolve any future conflicts with discussion. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Getcrunk&oldid=1089731866"