Wikipedia:Requests for rogue adminship


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for rogue adminship. Please do modify it .

XxX_Vandalboi_XxX
Final: (2/0/0) - Closed as successful by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) at 02:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination
XxX_Vandalboi_XxX - Checklist for rogue adminship: • ☑ atheist

• ☐ Big Pharma

• ☑ capitalist

• ☑ Christian

• ☑ corrupt

• ☑ corporate

• ☑ dark suited

• ☐ deep state

• ☑ enviromentalist

• ☑ evil

• ☑ fake

• ☑ far-left

• ☐ far-middle

• ☐ far-right

• ☐ fascist

• ☑ feminist

• ☑ gay

• ☐ government

• ☑ humanist

• ☑ Illuminati

• ☐ Islamist

• ☐ Marxist–Leninist

• ☐ Marxist–Lennonist

• ☑ Masonic

• ☐ misandrist

• ☐ misogynist

• ☑ plutocratic

• ☑ reptilian

• ☑ robotic

• ☐ satanist

• ☑ SJW

• ☐ straight

• ☑ whitey

• ☐ Zionist High maintenance check: "The two resignation posts (31 March and 19 September) remind me of the goodbye page at MeatBallWiki: '...the GoodBye message is seen [by] the author as a means to punish the rest of the community for failing him'. The connection seems perfectly apt, since XxX_Vandalboi_XxX has pushed the 'drama button' rather than quietly slipping away. Per 'MeatballWiki', if XxX_Vandalboi_XxX is given enough positive feedback as a result of his 'threats to leave', he will subsequently feel as if he has 'gained privileges as a vested contributor', one who can 'get away with breaking the rules'."
 * High-maintenance behaviors: Have posted 10 requests in WP:ANI, definitely good quality. Although he haven't stay awake for 24 hours straight, so need to go to WP:CHECKUSER for verification. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 * Self-importance: good. Confirmed by CactiStaccingCrane (talk), no verification needed. The handle said it all.
 * Rudeness to "the help":
 * Frequent "threats to leave": Yes, from CactiStaccingCrane (talk). Quote from his message at ANI:
 * Disclaimer: This quote is originated from WP:ANI, which that page is an enemy of our rogueness.


 * Argumentative in petty disputes
 * Citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes
 * Convinced consensus is flawed
 * Long memory for others' faults
 * Persecution complex
 * Hypocrisy and double-standards
 * Chad?: yes


 * The above rogue adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do 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). Further edits should be made to this page if it improve their rogue adminship.