The following appeared on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship on April Fool's Day, 2004, starting with this RfA nomination as a joke (obviously; that's why it's here!). It is considered humorous because Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and therefore much, much, higher than any administrator. He doesn't need to get an RfA!

Jimbo Wales; (x²/B≤π/∞ + { S_ω | } - þ); ends 1 April 2004[edit]

His contributions to Wikipedia have been incalculable. - Fennec 13:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This user has not yet accepted the nomination.

Information only: this user has made 412 edits since 27 Mar 2001. fabiform | talk 13:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. I thought he already was one! --Really not Michael or any other banned user or a blue fish 13:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Frequent contributuions to mail list seem to make sense, give the poor guy a chance. Lou I the blue fish
3. Support a 24-hour ban. (Dang, where am I again?) - Tεxτurε 14:, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Keep. He is my Prophet. He will save the world. 152.17.75.235 14:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) BLUE FISH TUESDAY
5. Is not a donkey. moink 16:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Donkeys, fish, birds, whatever. --Michael Snow 16:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. There is no donkey. - Lee (talk) 17:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. For, of course, given that he's my sockpuppet - Robbot 19:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. Operates a large pornography site.—Eloquence
10. Support. Has never engaged in an edit war; has a mark of the chosen engraved on his user page. +sj+ 20:53, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
11. Support (unless the allegations that he runs a pornography site are false.) Perl 00:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aardvarks support this nomination.

Oppose:

1. Angela. Has a tendency to act unilaterally. Also suspected of editing with undisclosed sockpuppets. And I think he smells funny.
2. Brisby. Too new. Therefore as an age-discriminating hack, I vote against.
3. Not enough edits for me - yes, the account is old, but it could very well be a sock puppet. Make some more edits and then re-nominate later. DOWN WITH ORIGINAL THOUGHT! SUBMIT YOUR WILL! →Raul654 14:05, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
4. No scientific proof that he actually exists [1]. -Mkweise 14:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. fabiform | talk. Shows little interest in the project - this edit summary sums up his attitude: (unwikifying because i'm too lazy to make a disambiguation page right now!)
6. Seth Ilys 14:, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Edits only sporadically, and then only to talk pages. There's absolutely no evidence he'd be an asset to the project. Goo goo g'joob.
7. BCorr|Брайен 14:26, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) Keeps promoting the belief that he "created Wikipedia" -- some sort of weird reference to Al Gore creating the Internet. And isn't there some sort of play on words here? Jimbo Wales vs. Jumbo Whales?
8. ChrisO 15:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Blatantly made-up name. Everyone knows he's really called James X. Aardvark.
9. Operator of a large porno sight, abuseing wikpedia only to enhance the traffik to his empire of naked-boobie orianted filth. EntmootOfSilesianNaturalIrisTrolls
10. Username blatantly obvious anagram for "I jab em slow" -- such sadistic cruelty is unworthy of an administrator, unless in my bed. Jwrosenzweig 16:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
11. Is not a fish. moink 16:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. I don't think we should trust more Welsh people with admin powers. Stewart Adcock 17:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point Stewart! I change my vote to necromancy. Or blue fish.
13. Very few contribs, using a false first name, wishy-washy. Pakaran. 17:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. I can't believe he's not better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
15. No to pornoking. FoxNewsIsShit 17:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
16. Vote early, vote often. --Too lazy to actually create a sockpuppet 18:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
17. Delete, or redirect to User:127.0.0.1. As it stands, it's self-referential, and more than a little POV. Tillie 18:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
18. Strongly oppose. He looks like that guy who sells pot too college kids in the movie Blow and he has not sold me anything. Also I think Jimbo may be a male version of the term BIMBO. hmmm GrazingshipIV 19:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
19. There is no reason to believe that this individual would be useful to the project. — Timwi 19:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
20. Lirath Q. Pynnor
21. Not enough edits. ComputerJoe 22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantumly In-Between:

1. Merovingian ↕ Talk 16:51, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. I join this super position. — Sverdrup 17:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • But aren't you inferring supersymmetry? (Someone write that down - Geekiest joke ever)→Raul654 17:16, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
     • No, this is the geekiest joke ever: Hamlet via De Morgan's laws: Not ( (not to be) and (to be) ). moink 18:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Salmon:

1. Obviously. RADICALBENDER★ 18:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • Please disambiguate. The colour or the fish?
     • The prophet, of course. Didn't you ever see King Salmon's Mines? - εruτxεT 19:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Who is this user? Never seen in edit histories. — Jor (Talk) 13:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   1. Yeet 60.229.34.240 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]