Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Consumed Crustacean

User:Quill E. Coyote's oppose
I have moved the discussion for User:Quill E. Coyote's oppose to this talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-16 07:21Z 


 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, but policies like the 3RR revert rule are just too important to be subverted.  Quill E. Coyote 03:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, exactly? To the best of my knowledge, I've never violated the 3RR. Are you reading someone else's contributions? I notice that you warned a different user about 3RR violations; have you confused this user with myself? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never warned anyone about violating the 3RR revert rule, only about coming close to violating it, and the fact that you can't tell this is yet another reason to wikioppose your nomination. However, 'what I was talking about, exactly,' is that in the case you mentioned, which you were apparently well aware of, you didn't speak up against the user's cowardly, unwiki-like reversions of valid edits that came very close to violating the 3RR three revert rule.  There's no need for this type of 'subversion' on Wikipedia.  Quill E. Coyote 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide diffs? -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can see, you had an argument with User:Isopropyl about the Slashdot article. How did this involve me? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You weren't involved, I agree, and that's just the problem. We expect our administrators to proactively seek out violations of policy and nip them in the bud.  Quill E. Coyote 04:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quill, you seem to be trolling, stop or you will be blocked for disruption. JoshuaZ 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you somehow expect me to be on top of everything that's happening on the Wikipedia all at the same time? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but since you apparently knew about it, you should have spoken up. Quill E. Coyote 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what makes you think I knew about it? Secondly, I don't even think there is a 3RR violation there. I see two reverts in a row by User:Isopropyl. 2 !> 3. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said Isopropyl violated the 3RR three revert rule, and the fact that you've misinterpreted my comments like that make it even more clear that you do not meet or exceed my criteria. Quill E. Coyote 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * <3, not war. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)