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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

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

final (117/36/20) ending 02:30 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) – CSCWEM has been editing only since November 23rd of last year, but wow, what a fantastic nearly-two months it has been! He's somehow managed to make more than 6200 edits in that time! He's a tireless contributor to WP:AIAV (I've seen him add many a vandal there), and I suspect being able to block those vandals himself would be a great boon for him, and would mean less work for me. :-P I've also seen him around here (RfA) and doing RC patrol. He's a fine editor, and the only strike against him is the length of time he's been here—a minor quibble, considering all the good he's done (and all the bad he hasn't done). —BorgHunter alt (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - great vandal fighter. Let's make him work harder. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - I constantly see him fighting vandalism, often beats me to the punch on reverts. Would make a good admin. VegaDark 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support hysterical username, great vandal fighter. I would like to see more article creation however. But since admin tools are mostly for vandal fighting... I'd give him the mop.  ALKIVAR™ 02:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support very good vandal fighter, but a tad too soon but who cares. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A very good editor and vandal fighter, I'm surprised he isn't already an admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support on the count that I would have nominated him if BorgHunter didnt already get to it! A brilliant vandalwhacker. NSLE (T+C) 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support not even two months here and is one of the better vandal fighters I've come across. I almost never support an admin nominee with less than 3 months of experience, but this will be an exception.--MONGO 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support; almost exactly mirror what MONGO said. I rarely support someone this new, but this one's exceptional. Give him the rollback and delete buttons. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support; I fully support User:Can't eat clown will sleep me..........wait... — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Don't sleep, vandals will eat us. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support for now--Piedras grandes 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Can't sleep, Cant' sleep, clown will eat me will eat me --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Late nominator support —BorgHunter alt (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. This pushes the edge of "too new" for me, and I would usually not chime in for a candidate with such little experience. That being said, this user will be the kind of admin that will make life easier for editors, so I have to vote to give this user a mop. Youngamerican 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. SupportI vacillated between support and neutral (based on time served), but the editor seems to be a Grade "A" fancy. Good egg that is. Hamster Sandwich 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. I doubt he'll become nefarious in another month, or abuse the shiny buttons until then. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Great work. Rx StrangeLove 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Surprised he's not an admin already, I see his vandalism reverts everywhere I go. :) Mrtea (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support if for no other reason than to cancel out some of those ridiculous oppose votes. --TantalumTelluride 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support without prejudice, this editor appears to be everywhere at once. Silensor 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support I've seen some of the great work this editor has done in fighting vandalism. Let's give him the tools he should have to help fight this plauge on our great project. --A 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Seen him around a fair bit and he often beats me to the punch! James James 06:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Any Wikipediaholic has got to be good on the team. This clown doesn't even sleep to stop wikking.Brusselsshrek 06:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, if for no other reason than User:Dark Lord Farley opposes. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Tireless vandal fighter, would make a great admin. No Guru 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Any issues with him being green or less than tactful will be ironed out as the other admins mentor him. Shows great promise. Calwatch 08:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Only barely meets my minimum time on Wikipedia requirement, but in the case of Can't sleep, clown will eat me, I'll make an exception, as he's a really good editor and overall nice bloke. JIP | Talk 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. A great vandalism finder. I had slight pause about the lack of article-writing but not about the short tenure as he has learnt a lot in the time he has been here. David | Talk 09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, excellent fighter of vandalism. I'm sure he will be a great addition to the list of sysops. --Terence Ong 10:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support exceptional vandal fighter. Also see my comment about account time. Quaque (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Not a lot of interaction with this user, but noted some great AfD contributions a while back. Yes is new but had outstanding newcomer award etc, probably ready to help the big club, does not need another season in AAA, rising fastball breaks in on the hitters and explodes in on their fists, can work on curve and slider with the big club. Herostratus 10:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, as good as many people who've been here twice as long. Can't oppose, clown will eat me! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support- I would normally oppose a user with less two months worth of edits, however I think quality so far outweighs this. Astrotrain 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. KHM03 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Quality greaty outweighs time concerns. -Colin Kimbrell 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. I oppose the opponents, plus I tried to nominate him once...Also, I like his user name. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. May have only two months of experience, and apparently little experience with anything except vandal fighting, but he/she has proven him/herself an extremely capable and talented vandal fighter, which is a large part of holding the admin mop. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 15:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. A regular at AIV. I realize that his edit count may be inflated by vandal fighting, but thats a lot of vandal fighting in 2 months. Lets give him some additional tools to fight them. --Syrthiss 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Please note that I am currently being voted on for adminship so this vote may be inappropriate. This user has not been around for very long and I'd normally vote to hold up for a while; six months or so seems more reasonable. But I've run across this user on several articles that I watch and have already stopped checking Clown's edits. They are always good edits and they are often incredibly fast. Additionally, the user makes a lot of edits. As a result, I support. If Clown's nomination fails, I strongly advise that we look at this user again in the medium-term future once he or she has had more time to demonstrate capabilities. --Yamla 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. A quality user. While around for a relatively short time, in administator reckoning, I feel this user can handle administrative chores and tools. — TheKMantalk 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Uses standard templates well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. King of All the Franks 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support without reservations, for the same reasons I supported Pgk's early nomination, plus this is one more nomination I won't have to draft myself.  ;-) Hall Monitor 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. I see this user reverting vandalaism doggedly... should do well with the extra privileges. PJM 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Seriously, I considered subst'ing {{rfa cliche1}} for this candidate. He'll be a fine admin.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. --Signed by Chazz - Responses to (responses). @ 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - Sure. I see him everywhere. Krashlandon (e) 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support, or the clown will eat me. I wanted to nominate you. :(--Shanel 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ha ha, I beat you to it! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support absolutely--Doc ask? 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. All experiences have been positive and adminship will definately help his vandal fighting capabilities. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Huge Support - I don't think there could be any reason to bar his promotion to our higher ranks! He always seems to be helping and making Wikipedia a better place--M W Johnson 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Has beaten me to numerous reverts. Adminship will help him with his mission. And definetely won me over with vandal fighting question. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Have seen this user around and like his style. My concerns are as voiced by others, a shooting star can burn out quickly. If this nomination fails, barring any change, CSCWEM can count on my support again on renomination. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support There is no better way to learn than by doing. CSCWEM has demonstrated a high level of credibility, maturity, and common sense, so I see no reason to think the clown will abuse admin tools. --Bachrach44 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Has done great work batting back vandals to protect 50 Cent's article. Whta could be more honourable :p ? Harro. 5 05:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support good editor --rogerd 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support a great vandal fighter, despite a short stay, you have my confidence. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Worthy of early nom. -- JamesTeterenko 06:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Dun't sleep after you get opped or clown will still eat you.Stay awake and edit happily as an op! Tan DX 09:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Excellent vandal hunter, and a fair amount of good work with "normal" article creation. Experience is measured not just in number of months spent and edit count. Just be careful not to burn your self out to quickly! Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support, are you sure you've only been here since November?!?! Thryduulf 14:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. "He's a tireless contributor"—I get it. *Peace Inside 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    User has been blocked as sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark. Carbonite | Talk 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. No question about that.--ViolinGirl♪ 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Who is under the clown's makeup? jscott 18 January 2006
  67. Support. I've admired this user for a while now. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Wholehearted Support with a Side of Bananas. I'd been back from my wikibreak for less time than Clown's entire tenure here, and I was voted into the position with no mention made of my age after a break long enough to need to start over. I see no reason to oppose whatsoever. He constantly beats me at rollbacks, and I have the actual button! Mo0[talk] 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Totally support. I would support him anyway just for the name, but this guy RULES! --Trevdna 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support or clown will eat me. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support -- From my experience he has proven himself to be a responsible vandal fighter and editor. Good Luck! Avi 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support excellent vandal fighter. - Akamad 09:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Not usually in favour of such relative newcomers becoming admins, but I definitely trust this candidate with a mop and bucket. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support Has shown his worth. Adminship is no big deal, I don't understand the fuss about his tenure here or 'potential burnout'. --kingboyk 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support I always see his name popping up in the RC feed, and always beats me to reverts when he is vandal fighting! I think his actions in the past few months outweigh the fact that it only has been 2-3 months, and I'm sure he'd do great things for WP with adminship. --Lightdarkness 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support, seemed to have a positive impact on articles. // Gargaj 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, have ran into him on several occasions, relentless vandal fighter and general all-round good guy. haz (user talk) 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. 'Support Every time I see his name, hes doing something good for the wiki, seems like a model wikipedian...well except that damn picture on his userpage, its cost me hundreds in counceling. Mike (T C) 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. Very dedicated, and I see no reason to believe that there will be any bad effect to giving him admin powers. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Have seen this user revert vandalism on a consistant basis, he is very dedicated at what he does. --Winter 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support I've seem him around Wikipedia, and I'm confident in his ability to be an admin. --M@thwiz2020 02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support good contributor who I've noticed pop up all over the place Robdurbar 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support, contributions and obvious dedication. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, though a weak one due to agecountitis. —Nightstallion (?) 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support. Adminship should be no big deal. If he fucks up, take the mop and bucket away from him and make him sit in the corner. At least, that's what supposed to happen. In reality, deadmining is nigh on impossible. Doesn't change the fact that he's a brilliant vandal fighter, though, and we definitely need more people with those handy rollback tools around. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. I like his style, but hopefully the power of being an admin does not corrupt him. And who cares if he has a short history, his edits are brilliant and he does not revert everything he sees just to get more edits. Lapinmies 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. One of the fastest vandal fighters I've seen. Not been around for long, but the experience in his actions overrules the age of his account. NorseOdin 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support. Flailing Breegull 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Seems to me, a person's familiarity with policies is a function of how much they read and interact here, not just how much time they spend here. Just as it's possible to exist here for a long time and not learn much, it's also possible to learn a lot in a short time. So it should be considered on a case by case basis. I tend to think that a person who's been as active as CSCWEM has without any real problems that I know of has learned enough not to abuse the tools. delldot | talk 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support — FireFox • T • 21:05, 20 January 2006
  93. Weak Support agree with delldot and previous comments. 3 month is a good rule of thumb but commited editors with no problems should not be discouraged. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. In a case like this I'd normally oppose (due to the lack of experience), but it's my strong belief that this user will learn very quickly. Just don't rush into using more sensitive of the admin tools before you learn all the policies, OK?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support - excellent vandal fighter, edittimeitis is just as bad as editcountitis in this case... (ESkog)(Talk) 06:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support - good vandal fighter.--Fallout boy 07:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. The length of time one has been a wikipedian should not be more important than the good work one does in that time period.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support per time-based oppose votes. --Celestianpower háblame 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support, great vandal fighter. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support I thought he already WAS one... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. very strong support' excellent vandal fighter, offten beats me to a revert, i wanna know there secret!Benon 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support - It's haunting to watch CSCWEM reverting so quickly on IRC, will do even better with admin tools. --james °o 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. There can be exceptions to the time of service standard and Can't sleep... is the exception. It is not too early for him to get the admin tools, he's doing a great job. Once we get WP:RFR going, we can be more restrictive, but that hasn't happened yet. NoSeptember talk 14:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support, damn the timecountitis. Ral315 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support, I saw only good work from him. --Avatar-en 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support. Two months is just fine :) We need more admins. - Haukur 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support although only with us briefly, has made a large positive impact. --TimPope 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support A tireless vandal-fighter; I frequently cross paths with him on vandalism patrol. I don't see the short tenure as a big issue. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support based on this user's actual behavior' I have no doubt that he won't abuse tools and that he will be a good admin....too many oppose votes are jsut plain nasty, unnecessary and using weak shallow criterion. Knock it off.Gator (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support and I totally agree with Gator. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 23:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. I don't need another two months. Some people take less time to prove that they'd be a good admin. —Cleared as filed. 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. I highly endorse this candidate. --Hurricane111 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support Can't sleep, vandals will eat me--unless CSCWEM becomes an admin, that is. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support - change of vote because I have been watching this user's edits and am willing to make an exception over thier newness. -- Francs2000 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support. In current situation Wikipedia cannot be too picky and needs every hand in dealing with vandals. The clown does enough of work to give him mop. Pavel Vozenilek 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support I've seen him do a lot of good work.--Bkwillwm 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Less than two months is far too new. Try again in another month and a half. You'll learn a lot and be surprised by much of it. Some decent level of experience is essential in an admin, and under two months is just not enough for me. -Splashtalk 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Incredibly Reluctant Oppose per Splash. More time is needed; the 'pedia is just too big to learn all one needs in less than two months. Editor has, however, the coolest username yet. Xoloz 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    ;) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Requires better vocabulary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pammyfiend --Masssiveego 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Normally I wouldn't question someones vote but I'm not sure what you mean by better vocabulary. He used a standard {{subst:spam}}, what's wrong with that? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Standard yes, the user understands no. He was not very helpful. --Masssiveego 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    OK, Thanks. I keep using the same tag and I never really thought of that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry if this was not the most helpful template to use in this situation. Please note, however, that User:Pammyfiend was identified to be yet another sockpuppet of Superfan, who has been blocked for persistently spamming certain celebrity articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, I have been editing (with the exception of an edit back in August) for the same amount of time, and am a good contributor, and I am not getting an RFA, so why should this person. Two months is NOT ENOUGH TIME! Dark Lord Farley 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Putting your oppose vote smack in the middle of someone else's is a good reason. Also, do you have 4500 edits? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why, yes I do.Dark Lord Farley 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Kate's Tool shows you only have 80 edits Farley, that is far from enough for RfA. (Sorry for being off-topic here)- Ichiro 05:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    That is a very, very poor oppose reason, and I expect the bureaucrats will take the poor reasoning into consideration when closing this RFA. NSLE (T+C) 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Reluctant Oppose per Splash. This is one great user and one of the best vandal fighters around, but two months is not enough time. I would easily support in another month or two.--Alhutch 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose. I bet he would make a good admin (an unually polite one too), but he would lack too much process experiece. In 2-3 months, he should re-apply and I will then support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose as per above, after only two months would need to be exceptional, assuming continues as is would support in a month changing to Neutral --pgk(talk) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Reluctant oppose, per above. If you fail this time, I'd be very happy to support in a couple of months if you're still working at the same level. Moving from non-editor to editor to admin in only two months can be risking burn-out, and I'd have concerns that you'd be up to speed with everything about Wikipedia in two months. But very good potential. Grutness...wha? 11:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose good user, but not enough experience.  Grue  18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Can't support, clown will need more experience. Sorry. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I want to support but I agree have to agree with splash on this one. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Sorry, I can't in good conscience add my vote to support until you have been here for 3-4 months. I feel he's a great editor but needs for time under his belt. SWD316 talk to me 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose. Needs more experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiFanatic (talk • contribs) .
  12. Oppose. Will definitely support with more experience. Carbonite | Talk 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Agree with above. I most likely will support in three months. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose as per Splash. Sarah Ewart 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Far too early. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose: I've seen him around and he's a good editor, but I have to agree with others who are waiting for more experience. If this doesn't pass, please let me know when nominated again: I will likely support. Jonathunder 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Per above - needs more time DaGizzaChat (c)<;/b> 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. NO just, no. everyone, quit nominating people who have been here 2-3 months for god's sake. no matter how many edits they make. it's just not enough time to really get to know the place. nothing personal at all. would support in a couple months. i'm feeling pissy about this. Derex 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Too early still. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose -- you're my first oppose vote, solely on the grounds of I feel it takes a little longer than two months to fully inhale Wikipedia as a whole. I've been here a while and I'm still learning daily. You're definately admin worthy, but my only gripe is your two month tenure. Another month, and I don't see a problem. Let me know if you nominate again and I'll be more than happy to support. -- Longhair 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Weak Oppose. Decent user, but account length made me uneasy. The last straw was an email I sent to CSCWEM, which he didn't respond to within 24 hours (where he was editing a greater part of). An Admin should be more aware of his email account. I am sorry, and will support in the future. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note... was explained. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Weak Oppose. He's been here longer than I, seems like a cool guy and he's great at vandal fighting, I've just seen too many others get turned down on length of time as a registered user who were just as good with more time in to learn the ins and outs. In a few months, it'll be a very strong support. - Dharmabum420 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Weak Oppose Exceptional vandal fighter, but as others have expressed, a little too new to the project for me to support adminship. Nothing personal - try again in a couple of months --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Too new, I have been since October 2005, and dont think I am any where near qualified, I dont think someone this new is either, Nothing personal just a general belief I have and enforce. Mike 12:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Too new. Would support in a few months if all goes well.--Alabamaboy 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose. User has not even been here for two months. No matter how good an editor he/she is, there is no way that he/she can actually know Wikipedia in such a short time. Does he/she have extensive and intimate knowledge of the policies and procedures. Would he be able to explain them if a totally ignorant editor came to him? Also, I really don't mean to be insensitive, but you said that your best contribution was Mark Zupan. That's a stub at best. This is an encyclopedia — an administrator should be able to write a complete article. Orane (t) (c) (e) 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    You have no idea how long the editor in question has been reading Wikipedia. How do you know he hasn't been putzing around as an anon for two years? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, has he? Derex 01:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Mild but firm oppose as per Splash, et al. Will support any not-indecently-soon renom (no names, no pack drill), assuming the editor hasn't had any major personality meltdowns in the meantime. (Or falls asleep, and is eaten by the clown, obviously.) Alai 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Primary concern is I do not like crusaders. I'd rather we had more people contributing to the article space than looking for things to revert. Secondary to that is the (extreme) lack of experience. Avriette 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Just want to make a small comment here. Have you ever done any vandal fighting? It's not a matter of "looking for things to revert". it's a matter of stopping vandalism, which is a massive problem on the site. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - too new. He's obviously a good vandal fighter, but I don't care. Two months is not enough, at all. BorgHunter should have thought about this nomination a little more. 4,500 edits is not that much if all you ever do is revert vandalism. Proto t c 12:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    I thought about it, and I decided that the fact that he would help Wikipedia as an admin outweighs anything else. I further think that the experience factor is absolutely irrelevant. "This should be no big deal." —Jimbo —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry to cut in, Splash, but I need to address something. Why does everyone think that all an administrator does is fight vandalism. I found it quite surprising that so many people believe that if you can fight vandalism, then automatically that elevates you as a model Wikipedian, who can represent the face of Wikipedia. One of the most important line in Wikipedia:Administrator is "Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information." If a user has only been here for two months, and all they have done is rack up edit count by rving vandalism, how extensive is his knowlegde of Wikipolicies? CSCWEM seems to be doing a marvelous job without the admin tools, and making him wait for the 3 months (that everyone seems so adamant in practising elsewhere —but quick to ignore here) will not hurt anyone.Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    How is spending some good amount of time learning how the 'pedia works irrelevant to having the powers around to thusly work it? I found a new admin just the other day thinking all sorts of crazy things about what was speediable (it amounted to just about anything that looked dubious) and that indicates a lack of experience which, when coupled with admin powers yields the possibility and even the probability of the new admin doing wrong things. When an admin gets something wrong thorugh inexperience, it can take quite a bit of work to fix it, and it can only be fixed by another admin which leads to non-admins and newbies feeling very put-upon. Asking for experience is asking for a reasonable demonstration that the mistakes that an editor inevitably makes are infrequent and that they have gotten good at knowing when it is right to press "save" and are good at living with (and dealing with) the consequences. That only comes with practise. -Splashtalk 13:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    I utterly agree with Journalist. There is more to being an administrator than reverting vandalism and warning users of the vandalism. I have been here since July and I have over 10,000 edits but I'm still not an admin. If all his edits are reverting vandalism than that still doesn't cover RFA's, AFD/TFD/CFD's and helping out with the community in general. I presume he uses one of the two vandal fighting tools? If everyone used those tools and did the same amount of vandalism reverts than we would all be admins. I think the tools, in addition to helping Wikipedia vandalism, is also hurting himself because all it did was inflate his edit count reverting all that vandalism. I think it doesn't hurt him in regards to this RFA though. In a nutshell, vandalism reverting only is hardly enough to qualify him for adminship. Wikipedia keeps on lowering it's standards for users to become admins. I will be greatly disappointed if this RFA passes. SWD316 talk to me 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Too new. Great work, but keep it up for a while. Pschemp | Talk 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    I also think the standards have been lowered far too much to be a admin on wikipedia, they are given out so loosely. Mike 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Can not support nominations brought by users like BorgHunter (talk • contribs) who attack other users for no reason, see. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    Wait a second, so you're opposing because he was nominated by BorgHunter? Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA yourself. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's also a very hypocritical vote considering that he's one of the biggest violators of WP:NPA in the history of Wikipedia and just the other day had to be blocked for violating it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose as too new to WP. I'd personally prefer at least a 6 month minimum. Also, there is far more to adminship than vandalism fighting, as important as that is. But I've seen the user around a bit, and have not seen any other concerns, so a future support is certainly possible. Turnstep 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose- I feel horrible, really. But, despite CDCWEM's excellent, excellent work, he simply does not have enough experince needed. I would strongly support in month or two more, but not now. Sorry.--Sean|Black 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose – two months on Wikipedia is far too short an exposure to adequately assess the candidate. However, I'd happily support further down the track so long as his good work continues. All the best,--cj | talk 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose - regrettably I don't think two months is long enough to gain the experience needed. I frequently see his username fighting vandalism, but I just don't think he's been here long enough. If there is a renomination in a few months, I will gladly approve and vote in favour of adminship. Sorry, I wish I didn't have to vote against it. Deskana (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Sorry, I would prefer more experience. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Too new to support, too good to oppose... another month and I'd have nominated you myself. BD2412 T 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oh? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I admit, it's a fine line, but still a line - see [[Grutness' comment above. BD2412 T 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Completely agree with User:BD2412 here, up to and including the "nominated" bit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Just what User:BD2412 said. Great user. But too new. Strong support next time. utcursch | talk 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per BDAbramsom. Give it another month or two and my vote would be different. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. This user has been an incredible vandal hunter, and in normal circumstances, I would not hesititate to vote support, but he just hasn't been here long enough. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Great potential. Come back in a couple of months, and will surely support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Per BDA. Marskell 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Awesome editor/vandal fighter, but <2 mo is a little short. At least you have the rollback button already :) Obviously I'll support the next RFA if this one doesn't succeed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 13:55Z
  9. Neutral changed from oppose on further consideration, I would still rather another month, however I don't think there is any "danger' in this user being an admin --pgk(talk) 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. I'd support but again, only here for two months like Me. -- Eddie 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. On the edge Neutral. Edits look good, unlikely to abuse admin tools, would like to see a little more work before getting a support vote though, if you don't pass, try again in a month. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. A great vandal fighter! Please spend another month or so editing, and try to spread your editing around a little more so you visit all the nooks and cranies of the Wikipedia and you will have my wholehearted support for your next RFA. BlankVerse 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral nearly a support, reasoning same as BD2412. You're a damn fine editor and will make a good admin, I just think you need more than two months to be fully familiarised with a full range of Wikipedia processes. -- Francs2000 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC) PS user wins the award for one of the best user names I've ever seen! Change of vote to support above -- Francs2000 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral, bordering on support. You deserve to be an admin, but the only thing I was afraid of was a nomination that was too early. I see you all around the wiki, but it's just a tad too soon (and there are some issues about article writing, as Journalist pointed out above. Come back in a month and you'll get strong support from me. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral. He's a very good vandal fighter but it's too early and I am not sure that he has edited enough articles yet. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Neutral. Greatest user name ever. Tempted to support just based on that. But can't support someone with so little experience. I like to see some time to demonstrate ability to work consistently through ups and downs. In some months I would support hands down. Answer to question about length of time does indicate impressive maturity though. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Neutral. Seems like a great editor, but I don't think he's been here long enough. I'll probably support in a couple of months. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Neutral. Was inclined to oppose on grounds of newness, but fact is, whenever I see that username against an edit I know it'll be reliable stuff which improves the standard of WP. If this nom. fails, give it a month or two and you'll get in by a landslide. Vilcxjo 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Neutral. Hard to decide, but leaning towards supporting his nomination at some later date. jni 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Neutral, but I'd be very likely to support in another month's time. BD2412 pretty well sums it up; I'd just add that there are some rough edges to be rubbed off by more experience. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. I almost went oppose per Grutness, but neutral seems kinder. This user is a textbook case for making a distinction between the 'tools' and the 'powers' of adminship. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Growing pains! Wikipedia needs vandal fighters. Wikipedia needs people willing to evaluate new articles and work on AfDs. Wikipedia needs experienced article editors to help improve article content. Wikipedia needs a way to move beyond the monochrome administrator and have more than one type of hat to put on different types of "trusted users". --JWSchmidt 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Can't sleep, clown will eat me's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • Izehar had a similiar account age when he was up for adminship, but I didn't see any oppose votes related to account age. His result was 55/1. So why are we unfairly picking on this user? Quaque (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
i didn't vote on that one, but i might have opposed had i seen it. Nobody's trying to pick on CSCWEM, in fact if you check the oppose section, you'll see that nearly all of the oppose votes talk about what a great user CSCWEM is.--Alhutch 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I see this becoming a non-consensus Mike 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am in the support camp but I think those voicing opposition have an incredibly valid point here, being an admin is more than just vandal fighting. Now in this case I just have a good feeling about the candidate, that the experience needed to know what to do has been accumulated and that the candidate will turn for advice before doing boo-boos... but in the general case how does one judge that? It's not about just time. More time suggests more likely, yes, but it is no guarantee. As seen at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll and User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform this is a hot topic and CSCWEM just happened to come up at a time when a lot of people are thinking about it. Where am I going? I think some sort of mechanism to objectively gauge experience (a test, a quiz, an interview, something... I don't know what, but something that can't easily be gamed to give false answers) would be a good mechanism to deal with borderline cases where different metrics like edit counts and time on site point to different possible worthiness levels, like this one. That said, CSCWEM, I really hope that no matter how this comes out you'll be of good cheer. You'll certainly have earned the respect of a number of people no matter what. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Primarily, I would continue to keep tabs on my 3,600+ page watchlist (and 480+ anonymous IP list). I believe that having access to the native rollback tool versus substitutes like Godmode-light would be a boon to my efforts in helping revert vandalism around here. As far as administrative tasks go, I intend to assist with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which meet WP:CSD criteria, clear out some of the low hanging fruit on Category:Articles to be merged, and respond to requests on WP:AIV and WP:ANI.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. It is always a surprise to me when I want to research an interesting subject on Wikipedia and discover that an article doesn't already exist for it, so in that respect I am proud of all my original contributions. My personal favorite though would have to be Mark Zupan, hero of the documentary film Murderball.
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. Yes, the first conflict that comes to the front of my mind would be with User:Superfan who had been spamming the Jessica Simpson article under several different pseudonyms for a fair length of time. Superfan had been reinserting links to his/her own website under fake edit summaries and employed the use of sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR policy. After this person was blocked, my own userpage was vandalized as some sort of retaliatory measure; since nothing is really permanent on Wikipedia, this minor attack to my page didn't stress me out or cause me any grief, instead I decided to research things a bit more, and discovered that the same person was also hitting up a number of other celebrity articles as well, and reported my findings to the Administrators' noticeboard. We have not had that same problem since.
4. What do you have to say to the objections about your short tenure here? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A. It is a fair objection to make. While I do believe that there would be a benefit to having access to the administrative tools, there is no rush on my part to receive them. If things don't work out this time, I'll still be around to help as best as I can.
5. You do a lot of vandal fighting. If given the mop you will also have the power to block users for vandalism. Please describe your philosophy when it comes to the usage of warning messages, the decision to block, how long to block, and whether you would treat different kinds of vandalism differently.
A. My philosophy is that not all vandalism is created equal, so it should be handled on a case by case basis. Depending on the seriousness of the offense, I would likely enforce something within the range of 15 minutes to 31 hours for a first time block. For example, if [PERSON_A] wipes out a paragraph of text from an article, there is a good possibility that it was an accident, and should be dealt with as such. If the same person continues to remove text and exceeds the warning threshold, then they would unfortunately need to be blocked for a short duration of time to cool off. If the circumstances were different though, say [PERSON_B] was blocked for lacing a series of articles with profanities or falsehoods and minutes after being unblocked immediately picks up right where they left off, then I think it would be best only to provide that person with a single courtesy warning, and then explore other options and possibly bring the problem to the attention of another administrator depending on the severity of the situation.
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me_512a.html"