Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

(67/3/2) ended 18:58, 26 March 2006

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) – Recently surpassing the 13,000 14,000 15,000 edit mark, [1] User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (CSCWEM) has proven to be an remarkable contributor since joining us November 2005. CSCWEM has made a significant effort toward the removal of vandalism on Wikipedia, and can be regularly found logging reports with the WP:AIV helpdesk. In addition to tackling vandalism issues, CSCWEM is also a familiar face here on WP:RFA, WP:AFD, and is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and the fledgling Wikipedia:WikiProject Running. Our bozophobic insomniac can also frequently be seen welcoming new users, tagging copyvios, and ensuring that content is properly sourced. He makes a thorough use of edit summaries, and approximately 8% of his edits are distributed across the project and project talk namespace. That said, I believe CSCWEM to be an exemplary candidate for adminship, and give him my warmest possible support. Hall Monitor 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of many co-nominators I'd like to emphasize what was said before and add a bit on my own. CSCWEM is one of the best contributors I've seen on Wikipedia. We got started at around the same time and he's far surpassed me in terms of edits, so it's a shame that his first nomination was just a bit too early, and I ended up making admin before him. I've run into CSCWEM on many random parts of Wikipedia and we've always had great interactions. I should point out that on his previous RFA he got an astounding number of support votes; unfortunately, too many people just thought it was "too soon". I'm pretty confident it is no longer "too soon" and this is high time for CSCWEM to get the mop. As long as we keep him away from clown-related articles I don't think he will abuse his admin tools. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another co-nom and the original nom for the original RfA, I'd like te emphasize that CSCWEM has grown mightily as a Wikipedia user, and is quite possibly the best damn vandal fighter ever. If Wikipedia had a Hall of Fame, he'd be in it. The man is simply amazing. It may have been too soon before; it sure as hell isn't anymore. Can't oppose, clown will be an admin. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. extreme beat the nominator support!, also whens more moremarmot tarte coming in?Benon 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as per nominator(s).  ;-) Hall Monitor 22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Everybody who I thought was an admin isn't, this is really weird... --Rory096 22:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support - but not enough edits, too many frigg'n boxes, needs more sleep etc. --Doc ask? 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great user, won't abuse tools. Easy call! Rx StrangeLove 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Duh.--Shanel 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, this time for sure. — Mar. 15, '06 [23:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  8. Support Yay --Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Of course I support but I think CSCWEM said he would not be inclined to accept until April. David | Talk 23:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, we'll just keep this thing around for eight more days. --Cyde Weys 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. {{rfa_cliche1}} Silensor 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support this badass without reservations. --Myles Long 00:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sonuva bitch! How did eleven people beat me to it?! Anyway, Super masochistic extra lesbionic support. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support - eh, almost April. bd2412 T 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I opposed the first time not because I could not trust him, but because he was too new, and admins unfamilair to process can get in trouble. He has been on long enough and is a solid admin candidate and vandal sqaushing machine.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support. CSCWEM will put administrator tools to great use — TheKMantalk 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hugest of all possible supports – Can't oppose, clown will hate me. – ClockworkSoul 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bam. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support – Invididual is a top-notch Wikipedian, and would make a terrific admin. Daniel Davis 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Flailing Breegull 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 20th support-before-candidate-acceptance - that shows you how people think of you - yo're very worthy of adminship. NSLE (T+C) at 03:14 UTC (2006-03-16)
  21. Extremely Strong Support. April is near :) Mushroom (Talk) 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support, good vandal fighter, definitely. --Terence Ong 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I voted to support in January, and I'm voting to support now. Great user, will be an even better admin. —A 04:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Can't Oppose or the Grue will eat me and other random cliche support.  ALKIVAR™ 08:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Feh, why not. <--Understatement --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Of course. — TKD::Talk 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per my own earlier offer to re-nominate him (me and how many other people?), and contra my purely precautionary-on-time oppose on his last RFA. Alai 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support of course. And so many nominators. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support This is a very trusted user. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I uphold my opinion. And I also hate clowns. // Gargaj 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support based on the deep and meaningful answers to questions 1 - 4 below. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. It's go time. No Guru 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Heheh. —Encephalon 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Another before acceptance. Prodego talk 21:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Same reasons as two months ago. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Would have voted in suppport the first time, and will again. Wikipedia is not the Rotary Club, and adminship should be based on individual merits, not how long a user has been here. TheJabberwock 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: I hope he will accept nomination though ... Agathoclea 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Certainly would be an admin that you can take in good faith. TKE 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: I see his name come up on recent edits for reverting vandalism far more than any admin. He still hasn't accepted yet, I see, but hopefully he will. Wikipedia needs an admin like him... I totally trust his judgement. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Ahh crap.. i wanted to nominate him Werdna648T/C\@ 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support fast vandal zapper. I wish he was faster with talk page responses but oh well :) He will be one of the best administrators in history. — Deckiller 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support should already be an admin MLA 17:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support like last time, or clown will eat me. Yamaguchi先生 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support fantastic editor, no reason to be denied adminship again.NorseOdin 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support he isn't an admin? how did that happen? Gwernol 06:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that's probably a rhetorical question :), but see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. — TKD::Talk 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - super fast, he manages to beat my bot to vandal reverts sometimes and that's a highly tweaked and optomized peice of code! -- Tawker 09:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support - Aksi great 14:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per all above. JoshuaZ 04:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, obviously. Natural admin. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Excellent vandal fighter. Have seen him many times at WP:AIV and thought "he would be a good admin". Good contributions all around and believe he can be trusted with admin tools.--Dakota ~ ° 11:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support assuming he accepts nom. mmeinhart 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. support agree with all of the above: great guy. Zanaq 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support Always running across his good deeds and until I saw the first RfA presumed he was an admin. Please accept nomination CSCWEM! File:Glenstollery.gifPOW! 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support Have run into him a lot, and very often am beaten to reverting an article by CSCWEM; please accept! —This unsigned comment was added by Master of Puppets (talk • contribs) .
    ... who, with only a slight re-arrangement, would be the Pastor of Muppets... bd2412 T 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :p —Encephalon 01:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm serious - can't you see the clear conspiratorial connection between "Pastor of Muppets" and the Wikipedia Cabal? bd2412 T 16:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support AnnH ♫ 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Sceptre (Talk) 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support. Will make a great admin, without any doubt. There are so many positive things I could say here, but none of them would do CSCWEM any justice. So I'll just say, "Give him the mop." EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support AdamJacobMuller 08:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Ditto. — FireFox • T [09:41, 26 March 2006]
  59. Support. An excellent, indefatigable editor who easily qualifies for adminship. dbtfztalk 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Extreme "Ohnoes! More cliched voting patterns!" support - go him! --Celestianpower háblame 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Huge Strong Support - I'm so glad you finally accepted this RFA. Great things will come to Wikipedia with you with the sysop mop! --lightdarkness (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support despite problems with listing the RfA and the unnecessary "pebbles" quote in comments, which had me very close to opposing on principle. --Alan Au 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support has my full trust. ~ PseudoSudo 18:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support great user, and his user page often makes me hungry.--Alhutch 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. OK... 65 support votes by half an hour after he accepted the nomination... and still one week to go... I think this will be the most supported RfA ever. I certainly couldn't have waited any longer to add my support vote. JIP | Talk 18:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been gathering votes for nearly two weeks. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support deserves the mop, the bucket and the janitorial cap. I was only waiting for him to accept this nomination. Way to go, clownie... --Andy123(talk) 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose anyone who present the community with such a fait accompli. How dare the nominators and nominee be so presumptuous as present those of us not watching the relevant talk pages or living in IRC with an RfA such as this: 10 days old and academic before we've had a chance to comment on it. CSCWEM should operate his RfA more repsectfully. Summed up, I think, by the demeaning comment below: I am not a pebble because I I did not know this was current before it was posted here. Poor form unbecoming an admin. The candidate should withdraw and resubmit and do this properly. -Splashtalk 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why blame CSCWEM for the actions of others? bd2412 T 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's his fault that he accepted a nomination of this nature. -Splashtalk 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is effectively a co-nomination RfA that has been 10 days in the works, and posted once CSCWEM accepted. I see absolutely nothing wrong. — TheKMantalk 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't wiklawyer your way out of it. An admin promoted on the basis of wiklawyering supporters in an RfA that he never presented to the community until they could do little or nothing to stop it had they so wished cannot claim to have properly consulted on his promotion. That's the purpose of an RfA, and an editor who would not use it that way (and then, on his talk page, refuse to explain himself) should not be promoted on the back of it. -Splashtalk 18:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does this have to do with how fit CSCWEM is to be an admin? He's obviously an incredibly qualified candidate. I would advise commenting on the candidate, and nothing else.--Alhutch 18:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the lecture. It has to do with whether CSCWEM has any respect for community process at all. If he will happily become an admin on the back of an RfA that is, really very plainly wrong, then I don't think he is fit to be an admin. That's harsh, but tough. -Splashtalk 18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Splash. By preventing a proper discussion and debate on the issue by only informing known supporters about the RFA, it is absolutely a fait accompli. This, at best, shows a deep lack of respect for the RFA process. Please withdraw this RFA and go through the process in the same way every other admin nominee has. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It sets a dangerous precedent if a nomination can be kept under wraps for an arbitrary ammount of time, and people find out about it only through coincidence (they happen to read a random talkpage) or campaigning. While this situation seems largely accidental, it's not hard to imagine how this kind of thing could be gamed to get a highly controversial candidate on RfA with 70/0 support by the time anyone known to oppose them ever finds out about it. --W.marsh 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Would have supported, but I agree -- this is a fait accompli. I cannot support an RfA of this nature, no matter how qualified the candidate may be. I'm glad that he will become an admin, but I'm not glad at all that it is through such a despicable manner. Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can be reasonably sure that it was gonna pass anyways, can't we? I mean, he got 117 support votes last time out....--Alhutch 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship may be no big deal, but it's not this small a deal. We must be transparent in how we select admins. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Changing vote per complaints that this is too extreme a violation of procedure and that it sets a very dangerous precedent. JoshuaZ 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why has this RfA been allowed to run for 10 days before actually deciding to post it on RfA? -Splashtalk 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this night different from all others? Because, for the special case of CSCWEM, we observe WP:IAR. bd2412 T 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You advocate ignoring the rules by which we decide on the key issue of trust? That's a lousy excuse and IAR always is. -Splashtalk 18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Can't sleep, clown will eat me's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • "The avalanche has started - it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh, Babylon 5.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Thank you again for presenting me with this opportunity to become an administrator. First and foremost, I believe that becoming a sysop will aid me in my efforts to help reduce vandalism. Additional tasks I envision myself assisting with include knocking down the backlog at Category:Articles to be merged and identifying articles placed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which meet the WP:CSD criteria.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As mentioned in my earlier nomination, I am pleasantly surprised whenever I discover the opportunity to create an article for a subject which does no yet exist on Wikipedia. Other contributions which spring to mind are helping out with categorization and making an effort to keep already existing subjects as verifiable and well referenced as possible.
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. In the course of reverting vandalism and such, I've managed to encounter few minor conflicts, but all of them have been rather par for the course from what I've seen. Generally speaking though, whenever in the midst of a dispute, I always do my best to weight out the concerns of all parties involved in order to bring an amicable and sensible resolution to everyone. If the discussions appear to be reaching an impasse, then I would ask for a third or fourth opinion.
4. Should you become an admin what sort of food do you intend to provide?
A. Food and beverages from only the finest Olive Garden restaurants within the tri-county area, in addition to preparing you home-cooked meals using unusual gourmet mushrooms. After dinner, we will drink the most exquisite sparkling wine from the regions of Champagne. Or, if that wine does not meet your exacting standards, I will provide backup wines from the finest wine-producing regions of Chile, France, California, and Germany. There will also be warm hors d'œuvres. For breakfast, there will be French toast. If French toast is not what you desire, I will find another nationality of toast that suits you. I will not rest until I find this perfect nationality of toast, even if I have to swim all the way to Austria for it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Can%27t_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me_2&oldid=1089732424"