Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2#Thanks

With all of the many supports and only one oppose, I think this RfA should be closed per WP:RIGHTNOW!. What do you all think? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No. These things need to stay open for seven days. MichaelQSchmidt's RFA was in a similar position before itwent feral. I'm sure that won't happen to this RFA, but the seven days ensures that a candidate is properly scrutinised and that it isn't a drive-by coronation. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Aw come on! Have a sense of humour! I'd like to see it closed right now but the likelihood of 'crat doing it are about the same as pigs mastering spaceflight and colonising Mars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• There was also a user named Suntag whose RFA was about 52-3-1 at one point, before he got deservedly clobbered.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think saying somebody got "deservedly clobbered" (partly by yourself, it seems) is very helpful, Wehalt. I agree with the gist of the other points: this RFA should absolutely not be closed early. Aiken ♫ 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's the truth. :) Anyone you want to put up for admin, Aiken?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, that proposal had about as much success as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MuZemike&diff=next&oldid=312572675 last time] :P Jafeluv (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• If this was closed early I would miss out on another 5 days of chewing my nails off waiting for someone to uncover my dark wikipedia secret. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Well, you are lacking in contributions to the Portal Talk namespace... :) --Taelus (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::ZOMG! Let's all switch to oppose, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I know this is a special day, but this is a serious RFA and it would be a shame if it got messed up by people using a joke essay. There are many things that are worth changing about RFA, but the 7 day minimum duration for successful RFAs is not one of them. Not least because it enables people to review their positions and includes any editor who edits at least once a week. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Seriously I wouldn't agree to it being closed early. Polargeo (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Not willing to let this be closed early and go against an important part of the RfA process? I may have to rethink my position on this RfA. I ate man 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I think Oppose based on enjoyment of RfA is possible. Polargeo (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

┌{{#switch:|1|:|{{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(1*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|2|::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(2*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|3|:::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(3*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|4|::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(4*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|5|:::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(5*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|6|::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(6*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|7|:::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(7*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|8|::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(8*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|9|:::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(9*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|10|::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(10*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|11|:::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(11*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|12|::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(12*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|13|:::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(13*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|14|::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(14*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|15|:::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(15*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|16|::::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(16*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|17|:::::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(17*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|18|::::::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(18*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|19|:::::::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(19*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|20|::::::::::::::::::::={{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(20*(3.33)) }}|─}}

|{{padleft:┘|{{#expr: ceil(10*(3.33)) }}|─}}

}}
{{#if:|(outdent) }}

If this is a serious proposal, then of course not. Dlohcierekim 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

10 to go. Dlohcierekim 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for all of the support. I was overwhelmed by some of the endorsements but even more so by the supports of those people with whom I have had arguments and disagreements with, I also enjoyed the jokes. I will try not to let you down. Believe me although this always looked like passing I was asked some very tough questions and I never thought it was certain until the last day. Now I am free to make more open comments I really was thinking about waiting until I was nominated but with the depression of just two successful RfAs in March I thought I should step up to the plate. I am pleased that I did. I think I will ease into the admin role gradually but hopefully I will end up being useful. Polargeo (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Junior admin brings coffee for everyone else. You could be stopping at Dunkin for quite a while ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::I'm glad to see that people who have had conflicts with you have put personal issues aside and looked at what's best for Wikipedia, rather than getting their "own back" and opposing, which happens all too often. Oh, and it's good to see a candidate finally passing an RFA, rendering the "RFA is broken" meme as untrue once more. Aiken ♫ 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Think maybe someone could actually look at what they're doing so this doesn't keep showing up on my watchlist with WP:LAME poorly thought out edits? Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

:What the hell are you talking about? Tan | 39 19:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

::What the hell am I talking about? Tan | 39 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Atmoz made a support vote joking labeled opppose. Now people are edit warring to place in the oppose section against the expressed wishes of the voter. Yet no one will actually look at what they're doing and cluelessly revert it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)