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.
Grandmasterka06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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. --
Bhadani14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per Underneath-it-All.
Gwernol 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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.... --
Thankyoubaby02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
JoshuaZ06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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).
Joe17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
"This user thinks pacifists make good target practice." Another candidate with exceptionally poor judgement. I cannot support this person. --
Tony Sidaway03:16, 10 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. --
Docask?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. --
getcrunkjuicecontribs18:18, 14 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 --
Tawker06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose this pacifist user thinks agressive editors make good candidates to oppose. (Remove the box, and I'll remove this). --
Docask?17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
FloNighttalk14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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. --
getcrunkjuicecontribs18:59, 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.
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.
Grandmasterka06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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. --
Bhadani14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per Underneath-it-All.
Gwernol 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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.... --
Thankyoubaby02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
JoshuaZ06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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).
Joe17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
"This user thinks pacifists make good target practice." Another candidate with exceptionally poor judgement. I cannot support this person. --
Tony Sidaway03:16, 10 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. --
Docask?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. --
getcrunkjuicecontribs18:18, 14 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 --
Tawker06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose this pacifist user thinks agressive editors make good candidates to oppose. (Remove the box, and I'll remove this). --
Docask?17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
FloNighttalk14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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. --
getcrunkjuicecontribs18:59, 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.