Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crisspy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Armando341 (talk | contribs) |
Armando341 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 13:
2. '''Support''' I'd vote for Crisspy b/c he does 3 strikes instead of 1 strike.[[User:The mann hu new 2 much|The mann hu new 2 much]] 01:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. ''' Strongest Possible Support''' I think Crisspy is incredibly eligible for admin. He did not realize that no campaigning is allowed, so that would explain the links that the opposing parties show. He gave strong answers to all of the questions, using the three-strike method for promising justice. He has dedicated a lot of his effort, work and time to wikipedia, and that's what makes a terrific, respectable admin.
;Oppose
#'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' - not listed properly on the main RFA page, weak answer to question 1, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keithgreer&curid=2101852&diff=65161165&oldid=64118571 spamming user talk pages] with this RFA, general inexperience (only 267 mainspace edits, oldest one at 31 March 2006), odd three-strike proposal which demonstrates lack of basic understanding of existing warning policies and practices. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
| |||