![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Oppose reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
no evidence of working collaboratively | you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA |
not enough mainspace edits | you're 12 |
too many userboxes | you're 12 |
I can't read your signature | you're 12 |
you're 12 | I'm 12, but don't want to get opposed at my rfa later |
you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support | I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time |
per WP:NOTNOW | per WP:NOTEVER |
you use poor rationales in XfDs | you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep |
I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here> | I don't like you (also: I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him) |
per lack of maturity | you opposed my RfA earlier |
I don't trust you with the block button | I don't trust you with the block button |
too many concerns | one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs, but hell, they gave diffs |
per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c, above. | whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly |
per civility issues | You opposed my RfA earlier (also: you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion) (also: You called me a dick when I was being a dick) |
Weak oppose | I oppose, but I don't want to hurt your feelings/don't want to seem uncivil and hurt my RfA chances |
Moral support (in the oppose section) | for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that snowed you under |
low edit summary usage | I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing. |
concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed | you have addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes |
too quick to be involved in drama | four possibilities:
|
hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools | too slow to be involved in drama. |
I want the crats to decide on this one | I don't understand how RFA works |
many editors I respect have opposed | my friends have spoken, and they don't like you. |
per lack of answer to my optional question | by not answering my question, you make me feel less important. |
per above | lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later |
per above (may also mean:) | you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this |
sorry, but... | I'm not actually sorry, and allow me (you don't have a choice) to go into excruciating detail as to why I feel you are incompetent |
Support reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
Great editor! | You are 12 and so am I |
Meets my criteria | You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism |
blah blah blah prima facie blah blah blah | I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you |
per nom | I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next |
per all those above | The cabal has spoken |
zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!! | I have a few " favors" to ask of you once this RfA is over |
per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/ | I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs/, my friends are already supporting |
Weak Support (Any text here) | I support, but I'll change if my friends vote oppose. |
A very kind, friendly and helpful editor | I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of ( allegedly) yourself on your userpage looks hot |
Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application | Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me |
many editors I respect have supported | my friends have spoken, and they like you |
per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy | I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions |
Neutral reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a non-admin) | Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week |
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an admin) | Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week. Also added by an admin when the candidate supported their RfA previously, but there are already a lot of opposers |
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Oppose reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
no evidence of working collaboratively | you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA |
not enough mainspace edits | you're 12 |
too many userboxes | you're 12 |
I can't read your signature | you're 12 |
you're 12 | I'm 12, but don't want to get opposed at my rfa later |
you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support | I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time |
per WP:NOTNOW | per WP:NOTEVER |
you use poor rationales in XfDs | you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep |
I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here> | I don't like you (also: I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him) |
per lack of maturity | you opposed my RfA earlier |
I don't trust you with the block button | I don't trust you with the block button |
too many concerns | one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs, but hell, they gave diffs |
per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c, above. | whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly |
per civility issues | You opposed my RfA earlier (also: you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion) (also: You called me a dick when I was being a dick) |
Weak oppose | I oppose, but I don't want to hurt your feelings/don't want to seem uncivil and hurt my RfA chances |
Moral support (in the oppose section) | for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that snowed you under |
low edit summary usage | I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing. |
concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed | you have addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes |
too quick to be involved in drama | four possibilities:
|
hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools | too slow to be involved in drama. |
I want the crats to decide on this one | I don't understand how RFA works |
many editors I respect have opposed | my friends have spoken, and they don't like you. |
per lack of answer to my optional question | by not answering my question, you make me feel less important. |
per above | lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later |
per above (may also mean:) | you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this |
sorry, but... | I'm not actually sorry, and allow me (you don't have a choice) to go into excruciating detail as to why I feel you are incompetent |
Support reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
Great editor! | You are 12 and so am I |
Meets my criteria | You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism |
blah blah blah prima facie blah blah blah | I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you |
per nom | I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next |
per all those above | The cabal has spoken |
zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!! | I have a few " favors" to ask of you once this RfA is over |
per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/ | I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs/, my friends are already supporting |
Weak Support (Any text here) | I support, but I'll change if my friends vote oppose. |
A very kind, friendly and helpful editor | I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of ( allegedly) yourself on your userpage looks hot |
Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application | Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me |
many editors I respect have supported | my friends have spoken, and they like you |
per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy | I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions |
Neutral reason given: | What it really means: |
---|---|
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a non-admin) | Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week |
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an admin) | Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week. Also added by an admin when the candidate supported their RfA previously, but there are already a lot of opposers |