Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Musachachado

Musachachado
[ Vote here] (1/9/0) ending 00:00 28 July 2005 (UTC) The nominee is a very scholarly elderly man I studied under at the Sorbonne. He has, in the last several months, made an invaluable contribution to Wikipedia. I am pleased to nominate my friend and mentor for this position. Brandonfarb 05:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is clearly a joke nomination, and based on consensus in the comments section, I am de-listing this nomination early. Rhobite 20:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support
 * 1) Strong Support. See above.

Oppose
 * 1) No user page, less than 50 edits. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Nominator has only ten edits. This nomination doesn't make much sense. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Pfffffffffft. See comments below. Redwolf24 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Agree with above. Sango  123  14:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) This nomination is hot...like Antarctica. Mike H (Talking is hot) 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Agree with above. Gblaz 17:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - nomination is presumably a joke, but I'll vote oppose anyway... edit summaries including "Why dont you get some brains and write your own article, dumbass????" (see this edit prove this user is not mature enough for adminship (despite being "elderly" according to the nominator). Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 17:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I am sorry, but this candidate has not filled in the questions below, and so I am unable to determine what the candidate intends to do with administrative privileges - or, indeed, whether he is a suitable individual to receive them. Edit summaries do not demonstrate a knowledge of common civility, and I cannot see any evidence of substantial contribution from him. --NicholasTurnbull 19:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. No user page. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Not nearly enough edits, has insulting edit summaries, and he doesn't have his own userpage!  This nomination was probably a joke. --Idont Havaname 20:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * Obviously a joke nomination. It should be taken down early. Rhobite 06:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire. --Golbez 06:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Lovely comment Golbez. I agree though Redwolf24 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to make a bad-faith suggestion, but after looking at the edit histories of the nominator and the candidate, I would like to suggest that a sock puppet check may be in order. (Also note that the candidate has not even been here for "the last several months", his account was started 4-July.) func (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A joke perhaps, but sadly there is no fun in it. --Bhadani 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove this candidacy from voting: it becomes more and more popular joke to create bogus candidacies. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A distinct lack of civility is present the edit summaries of this user's edits. This is clearly not acceptable behaviour for one who is aiming to be an admin. --NicholasTurnbull 19:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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.