Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Can't sleep, clown will eat me[edit]

Final (246/12/5) ended 00:00, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. Entering my sixth month with Wikipedia, and around 10,000 edits since the close of my first nomination, I now feel confident in asking the community to grant me the opportunity to better serve the project as an administrator. According to Interiot's edit counter, my editcountitus addiction has launched me somewhere into the neighborhood of the 16,000s 17,000s 18,000s.

As my username might imply, I tend to keep odd hours, allowing me to mix and mingle with Wikipedians from all over. Aside from vandalism patrol, I also try to maintain a good balance of editing, categorization, tagging articles for deletion, and new article creation (a reforestation effort of sorts). Some of my interests include pop-culture, unusual snacks and drinks, distance running, and food and sports in general.

With the added privileges and responsibilities that come along with being a sysop, additional tasks I intend to help out with include merges requiring administrator intervention, watching the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, responding to the WP:AIV queue, and whatever else may come my way.

Thank you for your consideration. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 3rd times the charm?  ALKIVAR™ 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my vote on CSCWEM1 -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Extreme First Second Third Shazaam Support!!! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ohhhh yeeeees--Doc ask? 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support like crazy – Can I vote twice? – ClockworkSoul 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Last post before my wikibreak. Time for my record to fall! bd2412 T 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He lied, he has edited twice since this message! Let's de-sysop him! ;-) Prodego talk 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On this point, I defer to BorgHunter's characterization below. bd2412 T 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-D —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one record of yours that this RfA will certainly not beat ;-). NoSeptember talk 14:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, of course! Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support absolutely, give the clown the mop - I've been waiting to vote on this one --Krich (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as well --He:ah? 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Very good user. Needs the tools. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- Can't sleep, Wikipedia is too addictive 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Can't sleep or leave, Wikipedia is too addictive Support --Jarandawat's sup 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Looks like a fine editor, and you gotta love the name. Weatherman90 00:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support for the third and hopefully final time. Great editor; nothing more to say. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I finally get to support support! SoLando (Talk) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose we can't let BDA's record fall Oh well, Support Prodego talk 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Based on his handling of his second RfA, and of course his contributions to wikipedia, I think clown has proved himself to be worthy of the mop and flamethrower. :)--Shanel 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Edit Conflict Support. Great editor, and I like his answers to the questions. Also, I said I would "probably support him in a couple of months" in his previous RfA; it's been more than 2 months now, and he hasn't done anything that would make me want to oppose him, as far as I can tell. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. NSLE (T+C) at 00:22 UTC (2006-04-01)
  22. Support - It's about time! ProhibitOnions 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Some asshat edit conflicted with me support! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your lucky my RFA isn't over yet, or I'd block you for 39.86433214 billion seconds! Prodego talk 00:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Has my full trust. ~ PseudoSudo 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Assumed he was one already. Sarge Baldy 00:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. —A 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support (after edit conflict) with reservations to the finest restauarant in the tri-county area that you last mentioned. Silensor 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. w00t for yu0 :) — Rickyrab | Talk 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strongest support possible per above and the other 33 and 1/3 times :) — Deckiller 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has, presumably, only been nominated 32⅓ times prior to this. You appear, therefore, to have somewhat over-voted. (Not that you have voted in the least, of course, but it's klutzy to suggest that you may have over-discussed something...) -Splashtalk 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Give the clown the mop so he can clean up after those elephants.--Adam (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Extremely strong support. Mushroom (Talk) 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support on the condition he orders mamrot tarte more often! Benon 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support As per previous: Always running across his good deeds and until I saw the first RfA presumed he was an admin. ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Can't oppose, clown will eat me. Kusma (討論) 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. You go clown. No Guru 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I had my alarm set to midnight UTC so I could vote on this... and then I slept through it. And then a clown ate me. --Elkman - (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Although, given the strong focus on vandal-whacking, I would encourage taking some invisible driving lessons in some other parts of adminning before leaping into them. The orange bar has teeth. -Splashtalk 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Was wondering why all the stupidity was happening, and realized it was April 1st Wikipedia time. Still the 31st here. VegaDark 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, he... er... support. - BanyanTree 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC) I just read through the 2nd RFA and feel uncomfortable supporting. - BanyanTree 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support everything has been executed with the best of clown. The date (April 1st (fools)) the precise time (00:00) etc. The most smashing RfA I've ever endured. Now, to the business: Solid work in the cleanup effort, and a good member of the community. Use the mop well. --Jay(Reply) 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. For my time zone, April Fool's day has been over for 90 minutes, and yet I still support CSCWEM.-gadfium 01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I thought he already WAS one... --Cyde Weys 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support must ... support ... clown ... In all seriousness, great editor --Deville (Talk) 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, One of the best user names out there, always love a good Simpsons reference. Good editor wherever I've seen him. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support! Give 'em those anti-clown tools already! =) — TheKMantalk 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support The Clown will make fools of us all. --Jscott 02:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I'm reluctant to support since I don't like clowns, but I'll do it anyway. :) Support. GfloresTalk 02:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Do we have a WP:200 yet? :-P Can't oppose, vandal will eat me! Great job of vandal fighting by the candidate. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Again. --Myles Long 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. This user constantly beats me to reverting vandalism. Admin tools would only make him faster. Obvious Support! Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Extreme April Fools' Day Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Just make him an admin and end the nonsense of his previous RfAs. - Richardcavell 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. He's not already an admin? support .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support will be a fine admin. this one's pretty obvious.--Alhutch 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, definitely! He will be a great admin and needs the tools by now. --Terence Ong 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support again. In fact, here's a pre-emptive support for next time, you know, just in case! --Alan Au 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. yep Derex 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support good candidate --rogerd 03:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Fight back!! Eat the clowns right back! -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support. It is hard to imagine a better candidate for an adminship. Or a better user name. Bucketsofg 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support' Or a better time. JoshuaZ 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support once again. TheJabberwock 05:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. We need more people who are scared of clowns. Grace Note 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --Constantine Evans 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I can't even be funny on April Fools Day, hell yes :D --lightdarkness (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Let's quit clowning around and make the guy an admin already. dbtfztalk 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, long overdue and all. Kuru talk 05:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I have never seen someone get so many support votes so fast. joturner 06:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Good enough editor --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, honk, honk. Sandstein 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, clearly! Just wished I had seen that rfa before I went to bed Agathoclea 06:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, a great contributor with mainspace. Shyam (T/C) 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I seem to be too late. But I am concerned about the oppose votes he seems to be getting. If people start opposing because of user names, then it is a sad day for wikipedia. - Aksi_great 07:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support of course, long overdue for this one. Yamaguchi先生 07:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. One of the best RC patrollers ever. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - consistently run across this editors changes. Well deserved.--Looper5920 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support - what else can I say? - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support--Urthogie 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose— He's very active in countervandalism, a good user overall, and would be a great administrator. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  84. Strong oppose, this user will most likely abuse his admin powers. He can't be trusted. April fools! Really, I have waited weeks to get to support him. JIP | Talk 11:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Yes indeed, don't see why not. --kingboyk 12:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oh Long Johnson / Oh Don Piano / Why I Eyes Ya? // Gargaj 12:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strongest support - what a great guy. --Celestianpower háblame 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support for the 435th time this morning. David | Talk 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. I came here for an arguement! Oh this is abuse. Arguements are down the hall. --Syrthiss 13:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Ahonc (Talk) 13:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Let's move faster to that WP:100 support! Misza13 T C 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Good overall knowledge of editing. --WikiCats 14:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong Support Finally, another nomination! I have been waiting for your RFA and you will always have my support. It is time you became an admin! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Garion96 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Extreme Scott Baio Support And shame on you for not being an admin already! --InShaneee 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. — FireFox • T [15:50, 1 April 2006]
  97. Support. I may be fairly new around here but you have my vote. The Golux 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. WP:100 Support. Of course. — TKD::Talk 16:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a statistic for the most votes in the shortest amount of time :P 100 support in 16 hours :D --lightdarkness (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could look through each of the listings in WP:100 and look at the timestamps. I'm fairly confident this is the fastest for RfA though. - Taxman Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support  Grue  16:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Ok, look, I am getting aw'fly tired of voting support on this candidate. This BETTER not be a put on job and this admin had better get promoted this time or else... (what? Oh, I dunno... don't spoil the dramatic effect) ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong Support too obvious for words Gwernol 17:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support In light of my neutral vote being discounted, I'm left with no choice but to support. What a great candidate, always giving admins vandals to block at AIAV, its time he could do that chore himself... Banez 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support This user has the sort of user name where everytime I see a comment signed by him, I expect it to be a stupid, inflammatory remark. Strangely, it rarely is. Stevage 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, great editor. --Allen 17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. We'll keep voting till we get it right! Support. Vilĉjo 18:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support savidan(talk) (e@) 19:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Can't Oppose, clown will eat me Moe ε 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. I knew this RfA would be here when I came back from my break. I also knew I would support it. --TantalumTelluride 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Will be a great admin. If he isn't, well..."Can't mess up, clown will eat me, can't mess up, clown will eat me."--Alabamaboy 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. good work. pschemp | talk 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Belated due to April Foolery support. Time to be serious. CSCWEM is a HUGE help to the community and deserves adminship more than (almost) anyone in recent memory. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Super Support Great editor and a Simpsons' reference name... Mmmm... Staxringold 21:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support This dude isn't an admin yet? I've seen him around more times than I can count! --TonySt 21:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. support this person to be administrator Yuckfoo 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, obviously. BryanG 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - 3 times support, lets let a bcrat make this one happen -- Tawker 01:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support 'bout time! — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Hell yeah Grutness...wha? 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, zomg. — Apr. 2, '06 [03:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  121. Support not too shabby. –Joke 03:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. ZOMG support! --Ixfd64 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Very active Wikipedian. Excellent help to the community. Actions speak louder than words. Covington 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - RedWordSmith 04:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Must Support or clown will eat me. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support (after edit conflict, grrrr, twice, grrrrrrr) Excellent vandal fighter. Deserves the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  127. Duh er Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Great user, will be great admin. Maybe we will need a WP:200 list? Mike (T C) 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Very deserving. I have broken my leave to Support.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. I think I've supported in the past, and wasn't aware the previous attempts had failed. Jayjg &lt;small>(talk) 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support just like I did the last time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Seems like a good editor and sysop from my experiences from him.--Toffile 07:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Funny, I thought I already supported you. If I did, feel free to strike this support; if I didn't, I'd like to take the opportunity to commend CSCWEM for his amazing vandal-whacking. Plus, he has a funny name. :) _-M o P-_ 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Leidiot 08:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I thought he already was one! - Tangotango 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support give this guy a block button so he can block all those trolls he finds.MONGO 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support give this dude the mop!--Count Chocula 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support as an inverse case of WP:SNOW. --Ligulem 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. A suberb wiki-editor. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support.--Blue520 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. See if we can't hit 200 for the first time on an RfA. - Taxman Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Much improvement since first RfA. --M@thwiz2020 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Strong support as per attempted, abortive co-nom on RFA 2. I'd go into chapter and verse on the whys and wherefores of the circumstances of said nomination, but as the outcome's pretty foregone anyway... BTW, nice timing on the self-nom! Alai 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support; While I disagree with the way the second nom was handled, I believe that was a genuine mistake, and trust CSCWEM with the tools. Ral315 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Just piling it on. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, seems like a hard worker. I'm appalled he's not yet an admin. Royboycrashfan 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Second time on 100? – WB 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Let's get 200 by shows of faith Ashibaka tock 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Helpful editor and has notable support in the system. Jtmichcock 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. SushiGeek 23:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Strong support Hardworking editor and an excellent vandal-fighter abakharev 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Amazing how he's managing without the mop. JFW | T@lk 00:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I realize this is a pile-on at this point, but this is the third time I've supported this tireless editor, and it needs to stick this time, darnit![reply]
  155. Support. The sysoping of this 'pedian will contribute to a better overall experience to the everyday editor. youngamerican (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. I couldn't bring myself to support this as long as it was at the nonsense April Fool's Day title, but now that it has a reasonable name, support, of course. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. --AySz88^-^ 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support seems to be willing to feed the hoi polloi. Should have more ducks. Always more ducks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support like last time... --Avatar-en 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. I don't like at all anyone removing my comments, because they were more serious than they expected, and now I don't have a segway to say what I wanted to say. I am concerned that you spend too much time RC Patrolling, and that you need to play around with articles more of the time. There's a long list of things to do here, and you could help there. Overall, try to balance more your experience, but I'll gladly support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. jni 07:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. WP:200 or bust! --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support though I'm very dissapointed in all those who nominated him early, voted before it went live, presssured him into accepting a vote that he had clearly stated he didnt want and thus tarring his name. Robdurbar 09:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support --CBDunkerson 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support, Cant sleep clown admin will eat me!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support --Ugur Basak 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support--Jusjih 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support -- Go go gadget vandal fighting! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - Don't really know this guy at all, but, he has gained the respect of some brilliant editors, so he must be doing something right. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. I'm sad, I was 3rd to support last time :-/ --Rory096 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support clearly a good user with a massive vandal fighting resume. feydey 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support As last time. Good luck! -- Avi 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Must support or clown will eat me. Jonathunder 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support this is my first ever RfA vote and I think it's a good start. As a recent convert to vandal fighting, I recognize the need for more vandal fighters, and this guy is a good choice to help in the struggle against vandals. Cool3 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support: Impressive editor. --Ragib 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Hopefully this is the charm! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support per everyone above --L1AM (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - Ditto. Flailing Breegull 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support. Well worthy. But hey, I'm just another face in the crowd... Now get some sleep ;-) Deizio 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-04 01:08Z
  182. Support - Well, vote 183, we have tied the record :-) NoSeptember talk 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not by net supports though, if no further opposes CSCWEM is still eight supports from tieing BDA. NSLE (T+C) at 01:24 UTC (2006-04-04)
    Neither this list nor this list count oppose votes, although this list does. NoSeptember talk 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support - landslide notwithstanding. --Fire Star 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At last, the burden is lifted from my shoulders! (though NoSeptember tells me I'm still #1 for unopposed RfA's)... hmmm, and this one still has five days to go! bd2412 T 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Strong support - not intending to "pile on" here; I would have voted on April 1st if I hadn't been so hesitant about some tomApril-foolery going on at the time. I absolutely trust this user to use the mop well. As for the main objections: he was asked to re-nom after the mix-up with RfA #2, and so here he has. I see no evidence of malicious or secretive intent at any point, and so no reason to object on the grounds mentioned below. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support, Is where a WP:200? :-P --ZsinjTalk 06:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Strong support. He's done some excellent work so far. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. I don't often vote on RFAs, but even in my somewhat limited Wikipedia experience I've seen Can't sleep, clown will eat me doing great stuff for Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support like I did in the previous RfA --Andy123(talk) 07:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Yes to the CLOWN!.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support the clown is a vandal fighter - needs additional tools - and shouldn't be punished for the zealousness of others - and has shown he can react properly to a difficult situation and let full community concensus make the decision Trödel 11:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Long overdue. Waggers 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Clear platypus. (Yes, I know 1 April is over. No, I won't change my vote. =]) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Wasn't going to, but the "oppose because of the past RfA" voters demand someone help cancel out their votes. CSCWEM did the right thing, and it's mainly the fault of his ardent supporters for forcing through what almost turned out to be a 17-day RfA. (And yes, I was one of the biggest whiners about that farce.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Oh no, not you again! Support, and let's be done with it! Seriously, this one will make an excellent admin.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Send in the clown. He's ready to play. Thumbelina 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. I support relief at WP:AIV—let this guy block vandals himself! =) —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support. Seems obvious. --Kbh3rdtalk 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support in the most clown-loving fashion possible. The sheer size of this page is a testament to his true ability. He'll do fine, but I just worry about all the RfA thanks he's gonna have to do. My advice: Use AWB and subst: the pagename template! -Mysekurity [m!] 19:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  199. Support. Okay, I'll sacrifice myself and be number 199 - and now let's watch the edit conflicts as everybody else who's been waiting to be number 200 will jump at the occasion :-) --Lukas (T.|@) 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. Got there first ;-)--Aldux 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Your reputation procedes you, Highway 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support StabiloBoss 21:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support. The 2nd RfA issue was a Catch 22 for the Clown. After the 1st RfA, he stated he would follow advice given and wait until April. As he stuck to his guns, waiting until April, he got complaints from sysops who would prefer he join already. When he accepted, others complained of vote stacking. This 33 1/3 RfA is now a metaphorical mirror back at Wikipedia, showing it is indeed a wacky wiki-world! Castellanet 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. This vote isn't needed, but I'm putting it in anway. In addition to the obvious reasons to support, it will be nice to have an admin that'll be up at the wee hours to notify. T K E 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support - Seems to be good—and have to say, not many people are able to self-nominate themselves. Kudos to you for being brave enough to do what not many people do (without arrogrance, of course). —Mirlen 01:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support - I supported your last rfa, and if anything you've only improved your standing since then. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support Joe I 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support — Scm83x hook 'em 08:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support Completely support him, can do nothing but good with his new powers. J.J.Sagnella 12:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support — Have never see him doing anything wrong. →AzaToth 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support — Reverted vandalism of Thomas Jefferson --Carla Pehlke 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support quality contributor would make an excellent admin. Cannot see a problem with user's RfA record. MLA 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support enough improvement has been made...Voting because this is such a close vote :-)Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support, the 2nd nomination is a red herring. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  215. I-thought-you-were-an-admin-already-I-guess-I-stand-corrected support It looks like you might scrape through this time. haz (user talk) 17:50, 5 April 2006
  216. Talk Page Support. Cognizant of the fact that you're chomping-at-the-bit, your use of the talk page is commendably high. Therefore, I think you'll do fine.—thames 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support great Wikipedian.--File Éireann 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support. Not that it matters, but should have been promoted last time. --tomf688{talk} 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support, seems a nice person. Hiding talk 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support, seen his good work. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support, of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Strong support. I think it's clear that I should support a user who has done a lot to deal with vandalism on Wikipedia. Marcus2 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support Seen his vandal fighting a few times on my watchlist. -Ravedave 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Strong support per excellent vandal fighting. -- King of Hearts talk 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Strong support, per everyone above. Also a true 24-hour editor, like me. Grandmasterka 07:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Strong support, per everyone above. --ManiF 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. Good user, good edits. And I thought he was an admin already. Plus he CLEARLY needs my vote to tip the scales toward adminship. (WP:200, eh, what?) JDoorjam Talk 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support, good user. bbx 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Wait! Hold that bandwagon! Let me leap onboard support. Well, if I didn't vote for him, the chances are this nomination would fail. Such a poor turnout. And my real reasons: good guy, about time someone forced the mop into his hand ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Robert 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support. Count me among those users surprised you weren't already an admin. Vslashg (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  233. support: Of course. Ombudsman 02:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Go go gadget support. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Cleared for adminship --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Uffda! Support EdwinHJ | Talk 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Content. Never seen anything bad, seen several things good. This doesn't seem too much of a rush to me, and when things go wrong the time to fix them and do it right is shortly afterward. I like the precision of the self-nom and its self-prediction. Midgley 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Cant oppose, clown will eat me (that's a support) Sceptre (Talk) 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Guettarda 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support a joy to work with. joshbuddytalk 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support Wow, third time IS the charm, ain't it? The ed17 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
  243. Support. I have noticed CSCWEM positively several times whilst editing. I prefer to look at what someone has done, not what they haven't. I know I am daily doing vandal rv. If that is all he does as an admin, I will not complain. Surely that will help the project immensely? Tyrenius 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Supporting after the deadline, muhuhhuha! -Obli (Talk)? 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'crat may count it anyway, you know as a tiebreaker. hydnjo talk 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support. Dammit, I was planning on voting an hour ago. Guess I forgot. Support anyhow. Pepsidrinka 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support - last time around I said I'd support with a little more time spent here. That time is up and I'm a man of my word. You have my full support. -- Longhair 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Per above, and inactivity with the Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Um, Massive I think you may want to reread the above. JoshuaZ 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez who burned your calendar in the toilet? — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Respect the sacredness of time zone differences and holidays to Siberian caves! SoLando (Talk) 15:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote is serious. The name may be offensive, and/or a copyright infringement on a famous quote. --Masssiveego 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyrights would not apply to a username even if the exact phrase was copyrighted. As for the name being offensive, well, so could anyone's. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 03:15 (UTC)
    Copyrights don't apply to usernames. Your votes are getting a slightly ridiculous now. And how is Can't sleep, clown will eat me an offensive username???? I guess all you clowns out there should be offended, huh? Moe ε 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it is an offensive username then he should be forced to change it. If not, it isn't problematic. Since you don't seem to be claiming that he should be forced to change his user name... JoshuaZ 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For example Let's get ready to rumble! is a copyrighted catchphrase. Can't Sleep, clown will eat me is copyrighted see [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs) 2006-04-02 06:35:50
    But is his username directly affecting the sales of that product in a negative way? --lightdarkness (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, LGRTR is trademarked, and CSCWEM is not. Also, the CSCWEM term is too short and too widespread (it isn't just on an emo t-shirt website) to be considered copyrighted by anyone.[2] — TheKMantalk 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the US Copyright Office: Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. – ClockworkSoul 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That site clearly says "All designs and content copyright 1996-2005 - CIRCLE R - "i hate clowns" is a registered trademark." It does not say that "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is a registered trademark. --Rory096 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose because he is too eager. 3rd times the charm? No, I don't think so. Three times in six months shows this guy is chomping at the bit for some reason more than just to assume more janitor work. He's showing us exactly what we want to see to give him power, and demanding promotion as fast as he can get it. Power hungry people are never good for a project. They only contribute positively until they get their promotion, and then it's ten times harder to get rid of them. If Clown Will Eat Me were making these edits for altruistic reasons, he would have let someone else nominate him. --SR Bryant 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He self-nommed because a) many people wanted him to beome an admin anyways. So in that regard self-nom v. other nom doesn't make a difference b) self-nomming prevents many of the sorts of issues that occured in the 2nd RfA. The Clown-fearing one is not power hungry by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Time will tell. If he continues being the humble janitor after he is made administrator, I will eat my words. --SR Bryant 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think if CSCWEM really was power hungry, he would not have withdrawn his previous nomination at [67/3/2]. — TheKMantalk 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The self-nom was because his provious two nomimations (both by other people) failed, the second very, very recently. The second was a nomination by others that something like 60 people supported before it was placed on the RfA page, and many complained at the fact that it had been sitting there for so long because it was accepted. So, he withdrew that nomination, and then, on April 1st exactly (three days later, I think?), self-nommed himself. I can't fathom faulting him for the self-nom, especially considering that he waited much longer than would have been necessary for this nomination after the first. If anything, his patience should be lauded. Please assume good faith on CSCWEM's part...you have no evidence to back up your assertions that CSCWEM is power-hungry, and I fear they are flirting with the outer boundaries of personal attacks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And to further clarify, after the first nom he had said that he would not participate in an RfA until April 1. It was only after the page was made and that he got multiple (I think at least 4) requests on his talk page for him to accept early that he did. When he withdrew his nom on the second RfA he still had more than enough votes for promotion, he withdrew because it looked bad, not because it was going to fail. That doesn't seem power hungry to me. JoshuaZ 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing all of this information. I'm going to stand by what I said because my gut instinct has never let me down. If it turns out that I am right, please don't claim that Clown Will Eat Me tricked you. The evidence is right in front of your face. By the same token, if I am wrong, I will stand by what I said and admit my mistake as well. Fair enough? --SR Bryant 05:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You may as well oppose all candidates based on such flawed logic. But thank you for commenting and welcome to Wikipedia, as I see you've just registered 48 hours ago. Silensor 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that threats, belittlement, and bullying won't get me to change my vote. It only reinforces what I said in the first place, that something really stinks about this nomination. --SR Bryant 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody is entitled to their opinion, Silensor. If he wants to go with his gut, he is perfectly entitled. Please, don't bite the newcomers. – ClockworkSoul 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    However, people who have only been registered for two days do not have suffrage in RfA's. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh? This is news to me. "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote" (from the main RfA page). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can't vote support, clown will become administrator. Whatever, I know the votes are already in favor for him to get there, but it's just way too soon since that last tricky RFA, and I don't like that sort of secretive shit. Mike H. That's hot 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Which was not at all his fault. He withdrew it, for cripe's sake. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He withdrew it after ten or eleven days of hiding the damn thing. Yeah, no. Mike H. That's hot 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for precisely the reasons Xoloz has voted neutral below. Not that it will make any difference with so many supporters, but bad taste, too soon. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, too few page moves and inadequate communication with the Wikipedia community. --Off! 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    26 moves and 6100+ talkpage comments/edits is "too few" and "inadequate"? By that logic, Wikipedia would have about seven administrators. — Deckiller 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page moves??? I've only got 20. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Perhaps we should be desysopped :) — Deckiller 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got 124. Do I win Last Sysop Standing? (Fridays at 8 on FOX!) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With these standards Willy on Wheels could easily become admin if he used more helpful edit summaries. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially since the franchise has been granted to anybody who wants to take the time to create hundreds of sockpuppet accounts to vote for themselves. Since when does anybody with a login get a right to vote on an RfA? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Really hate to vote this way, but I agree with what Xoloz says below, albeit I feel more strongly hence my vote. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Apart from reverting edits (I won't call it reverting vandalism, because it isn't always) what has this user actually done? The last admin request was unfortunate, to say the least, and I think a longer period of cooling of is required. Sure, the user has been active, but has CSCWEM really been involved in a true community nature? I honestly don't think so - it's more of a case of CSCWEM and his small group of followers - and if this nomination was accepted it would set a very worrying precedent. Gretnagod 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the 169 people supporting at time of writing, I'm surprised you'd say "small", and indeed that you'd say "if". Alai 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that the majority of the supports are only a few words long - it's as though not much thought has gone into their supports. Of course, people are entitled to their views, but I cannot stress how much I disapprove of the self-noming so quickly after the previous RfA debacle Gretnagod 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Oppose. This is perhaps to date, my most painful oppose. I like the user. I feel however, that the people who cocked up the prior are to blame for this. I, too, agree with Xoloz, below (as we are wont to do from time to time). I really think CSCWEM should have waited a while. I know that's what we said last time, but last time we didn't have this complete farce of an RFA just days prior. I applaud his follow-on self-nom, but it is far too close to the previous (which I just found out about). Surely he's got enough stuff to do without dealing with two rfa's and indeed the mop. Cool off, wait a while, and tell your fervent supporters that if they desire the race for the mop so much, to confine it to their own accounts. I have serious doubts about the validity of this rfa, not because of the numbers (a clear consensus) but because of its proximity to the immediately prior rfa which was a travesty of process and consensus. ... aa:talk 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, there are no set regulations on how close RFAs can/cannot be to each other, there's just a community-accepted level of about two months. He's free to apply now, this is certainly not ivalid. Rather than trying to be a wet blanket, why don't you find something constructive to do? NSLE (T+C) at 01:24 UTC (2006-04-04)
    Excuse you, Avriette is perfectly within rights to be a "wet blanket." Do not chastise users for their votes, please. Mike H. That's hot 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mike H. Evaluating RfA's is a constructive activity, vital to the community. Just because one disagrees with Avirette's judgment, one should not demean his use of his volunteer time here. Xoloz 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Reluctant Oppose due to the second RfA stunt.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, not enough time since previous nomination. Dmn € Դմն 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I think I voted no on his RfA last time, too. (Or maybe I've got him mixed up with someone else, as unlikely as that seems considering his username). JaredW! 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I checked your history and there's no trace of you voting on Clown's previous two RfAs. — Deckiller 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose First i was amazed by the level of support. I was thinking the people opposing this must be nuts. However, having read the oppose and neutral positions i find i have to side with those comments. The first oppose vote on CSCWEM 's previous nomination was by splash at 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC). That was only 11 days ago!! I acknowledge that there are an impressive amount of edits but they are almost all anti vandalism in the main space. It's almost robotic since there are not even a few copy edits intersperced in between. The same on the article talk and user talk pages, literally ALL antivandalism. What am I missing here. Why is CSCWEM 's so well supported by the community when he does not seem to be interacting with the community at all? I have an uncomfortable feeling that this is all about getting the 'badge' and being 'IN the club' rather than being about writing, editing and being an administrator on wikipedia. Don't we want administrators who are interacting with other users on a regular basis? Sorry for opposing against the majority but to be fair to others i have opposed for similar reasons I feel i must be consistent. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]...need I continue? I didn't even need to dig for these. He does a LOT of vandalism hunting...his community involvement is probably overwhelmed by all those reverts, user talk page warnings, and posts on AIV. See also his answer to a similar question below. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. CSCWEM + power to block vandals, protect pages, and delete nonsense = good thing. bd2412 T 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss my point. When i look at the talk pages of main space and wikipedia space i see virtually no interaction. <500 and <100 edits respectively and most of those are not dialogue. I'm afraid i would need to see more interactions with editors. You do make a good point that the vandal fight overwhelms the edits so it is hard to see the fruit. As an admin candidate i would like to see more evidence that he is interacting with other users, can act as a mediator and is mature. It's hard to judge (for me at least) from the few edits you cite above as well as his talk page contributions. By the way, which question below address this issue? The "Which tie do you think goes best with a black shirt and a black dress jacket, a red one or a pearly white one?" or the "Got milk?". I did notice the one that addresses the content he has written but that is not my concern. David D. (Talk) 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you miss my point (which I should have stated more clearly). We have 800+ admins. Some of them are very good at mediating disputes or closing discussions. I'm not saying CSCWEM is bad at those things, but we know for sure that he's a damn good vandal-hunter, and we need damn good vandal-hunters. Different admins have different strengths and follow those strengths in pursuit of different activities. If we know CSCWEM will not abuse the tools, and that he will perform a service with them to the benefit of the encyclopedia, he should have the tools even if he never mediates a dispute in his life. bd2412 T 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think it is OK that we vote for administrators that are not proven (at least i have not seen any) with regard to the following sentences at WP:GRFA?
    "Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral."
    In my previous votes here i have always considered this to be the most important role of an administrator. It seems to be the role that predominates the job, on the other hand, that is probably just the administrators I have seen. The flaw in my own logic is of course that the vandal fighter admins are probably in the background most of the time.
    I have to say i have seen similar rfa candidates rejected due to lack of experience in the areas i have indicated. Obviously in those instances there were fewer total edits and i wonder if wikipedia is just easily wowed by huge a numbers of edits and turns a bind eye? Given this huge level of support I hope people reflect on this when other rfa's come up for excellent editors that have low edit counts. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not discarding that consideration, but CSCWEM has interacted with hundreds of people - granted, many of those are test tags and warnings, but there are regular discussions as well - and I've seen no evidence that he suffers any deficiency in his communication. In other words, I see nothing bad, plus lots of good vandal-hunting. bd2412 T 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out i am not objecting to a deficiency in his communication, but rather a lack of evidence. I do understand you points. It is possible that I am being too harsh and should vote more with the "nothing bad" attitude. In this case it makes no difference but i will certainly consider it next time I vote in an rfa. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral Not a strong reflection on the candidate, but I still have a bad taste about RfA number 2 -- perhaps because I just found out about it ten minutes ago. Anyway, I can't support so soon after that very, very bad thing, although I realize CSCWEM isn't wholly responsible for it. I might have weakly opposed if Massive hadn't done me a favor, as I really don't think this should be unanimous in the aftermath of that, either. Xoloz 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per his answer to Q.1. Category:Articles to be merged doesn't require admin privileges - this shows some inexperience with the project in the areas he wants to work in. Also, answers on the shorter side. --Gurubrahma 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, admin privs are required in cases where the edit histories are to be merged (you can move an article to an occupied space, thus deleting whatever is there, and then undelete the previous edits into the edit history). Rarely done but sometimes needed. (Note - still on Wikibreak, just popping in to make this one point). bd2412 T 18:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can attest to the need for this ability when working for Articles to be merged. I've done 1000+ moves and ~50 deletions to make way for the move. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - CSCWEM is awesome, and will make an awesome administrator. Fact. However, accepting the 2nd RFA, with 60 or so ready-made oven-ready supports, was an error of judgement. Creating it was not his fault, but nobody forced him to accept it, and he should have exhibited better sense. The fact he subsequently withdrew is enough to keep this neutral and not a weak oppose. All that being said, I think he learned his lesson, and will rocketh our asseths. Proto||type 11:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, can't oppose, can't support.JohnnyBGood 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I'm not convinced that the vandal whacking alone is enough reason, but I'm not convinced that it isn't either in this case, so I'll just sit on the sideline. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • One pores over articles. When one pours over them, one gets them wet and makes a mess of all the paper they are written on. -Splashtalk 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to also express my support... I think that this user has the potential to be an excellent admin. I'm not logged in, and my account is blocked, but am expressing my support anyway. User:Blu Aardvark at 72.160.83.126 06:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else spot the irony in that the above user was banned for abuse of sockpuppets? Robdurbar 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it ironic, really. I've become increasingly disillusioned with the project in recent months, but CSCWEM is one of the users who make me think that there is hope for the project after all. He's one of the bright points in a culture of abusive editors and admins who think they are above the rules. I've never really interacted with this user, but I've seen enough of his contributions that I can recognize that he will make a fine admin. I don't give my support easily, so that should be taken as the exceptional compliment I intend it to be. User:Blu Aardvark at 72.160.71.85 11:09, 4 April 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 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Can't sleep, clown will eat me's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Only 21 more support votes and this RfA will have the most support votes ever. JIP | Talk 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This RfA now has the most support votes ever. Only 6 more support votes and it will be the most supported RfA ever. JIP | Talk 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of this moment, this RfA is now the most supported ever, surpassing BD2412's RfA by one support vote. JIP | Talk 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a support vote missing among the first 100 which I am trying to track down (another got struck) as the 100th vote is now at 98 Agathoclea 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pegasus1138 accidentally voted twice, and removed the second.[10] — TheKMantalk 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This user's second nomination was withdrawn after a technical, clerical dispute. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I wouldn't call it a "clerical" dispute. Since when is an RFA running for 17 days a technicality? Alphax τεχ 06:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason it lasted for 17 days was that CSCWEM was nominated on 15 March [11] but he did not accept it until 26 March [12]. Under the current RFA rules, the RfA page cannot be added to the main Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page until the person accepts the nomination, and they must add it. Only then does the seven day voting period start. You may disagree that this was not a technicality. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the addition to the rule forbiding to vote before acceptance of nomination was only added after that case [13] Agathoclea 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to add that a small minority (8 now) have gone clinically insane. Too few page moves to become admin?! Jeez! I'm a sysop and a 'crat and I have 19 vs. his 21. Too little community involvement? He's got almost as much User Talk edits as I have total (his 5707 User Talk to my 6048 total). And his 2nd nom was a clerical error. If the votes weren't cast on April 2nd and 3rd I'd think they were for April Fools' — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The April Fools Day joke votes (mostly Oppose and Neutral) that were reverted can be found here.
  • Observation – You know that CSCWEM is a prolific vandal hunter when his RfA is vandalized. – ClockworkSoul 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introspective comment: First let me thank everyone who has commented on this RFA, provided their support, their constructive criticism, or has somehow been a part of this process. The tools which feed into our editcountitus are backlogged right now, so instead I've compiled my own data into a nice little 1,829kb textfile for some personal introspection of my own. At the time of this writing, my total edit count stands at 18,040 (which may change slightly if and when certain proposed articles are deleted). Right now, my combined Main Space plus User talk edits are 15,960, of which 12,747 are vandalism related (7,840 were vandalism reverts, 4,907 were test or other various boilerplate vandalism warnings). By my own deductions, if one were to cast aside all of my efforts in fighting vandalism, which I admittedly spend much of my time doing, you would be left with an edit count of somewhere around 5,293 since November 2005. For example, of those 5,293 non-anti-vandalism related edits, 421 were related to WP:AFD discussions, 61 were image uploads or licensing corrections, 24 were copyvio tags, with the remainder being general day-to-day article improvements. Oh yes, and 26 page moves.  ;-) In the end though, these are just numbers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: I anticipate that as an administrator, I will be better equipped in my efforts to help reduce vandalism, as well assist with requests at Category:Articles to be merged and handling articles listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: That is really difficult to say, I am proud of all my original contributions, but right now I could really go for a bottle of Manzanita Sol. I'm really most pleased with all the unusual things I've learned from Wikipedia through the course of pouring over thousands of different articles.
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: Thankfully, so far, Wikipedia has yet to invade my dreams or cause me any sort of personal stress. When faced with a dispute, I do my best to understand the concerns of each party and attempt to see things from their perspective. Often times a conflict is the result of a simple misunderstanding, easily diffused with the help of a neutral third party. There are of course other times when things are more complicated and the said third party may not be able to help bring about an amicable resolution that everyone can agree to. Wikipedia offers several avenues, both formal and informal, for handling disputes that cannot be resolved one-on-one, and I would make use of them accordingly.
Wikipedia has yet to invade your dreams? Apparently, WP:NOT clowns. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Wikipedia doesn't invade your dreams. You never sleep (because of the danger of being eaten by a clown). --Elkman - (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question: You have done a ton of vandalism reversions, of course. But, if you don't mind, could you give a run-down of some of your major article contributions (not just your favorite)? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When not engaged in countervandalism efforts, most of my work tends to be geared toward copyediting (grammatical corrections, factual verification, adding sources, removing nonsense, misspelling pore, plugging in requested or missing images, et cetera). If you are interested, some articles which I've started include Mark Zupan, Gold teeth, Paperboy (rapper), Duncanville High School, Rod Ferrell, and Joe Soares, amongst others.
Optional Question: Which tie do you think goes best with a black shirt and a black dress jacket, a red one or a pearly white one? JIP | Talk 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, what sort of pants, shoes, belt, etc. go with the emsemble? I have to know so I can ensure the optimal amount of fabulousness!
Optional Question: Got milk? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to answer that question for reasons of national security.
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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_3&oldid=1089277896"