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

I've changed the ending date from March 23 to SEVEN DAYS from Candidate's Acceptance of Nomination and Posting on RfA. If CSCWEM doesn't accept until April 1 as he has said in the past, then this nom will technically fail and we'd have to start over. So the clock starts when CSCWEM accepts, and not before. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 09:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to move this page to "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me too". bd2412 T 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

fait accompli
This is a freaking fait accompli and a blatant abuse of the spirit of policy. I would have supported, but I can't support such a dishonest RfA. I have nothing against the candidate -- I like him and wish him well as an admin -- but I think this was terribly terribly terribly bad form. What excuse can there be for answering the call of RfA so late? Or did the clarion issue at the last minute so as to provide the supporters an opportunity to effectively votestack? Johnleemk | Talk 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, a similar thing happened with Karmafist 2. However, at least Karmafist had a reason to answer so late -- he was on the campaign trail. Here there appears to have been an either very organised or very serendipitous campaign to rack up the support votes before the nomination ostensibly starts. Karmafist 2's delay was a few hours to a day, which seemed quite odd to me, but still acceptable. Here, the delays's been nearly two weeks. Totally disgraceful and unacceptable. If the candidate was anyone but CSCWEM, I'd probably have opposed just on this basis. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What excuse can there be for answering the call of RfA so late?
 * CSCWEM wanted to wait until April for his second nomination: ,
 * but then finally accepted due to the numerous requests on his talk page:
 * ~ PseudoSudo 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a manipulation of the process, whatever the reasons may be. People should have used common sense and realised how terribly dishonest it would appear. There must not only be adminship, but an appearance of honesty in granting it. Johnleemk | Talk 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hang on. I don't believe you are being fair.
 * CSCWEM stated after his first RfA that he would reapply in April. Now the fact that he was nominated early is not his fault. I and many others petitioned on his talk page for him to accept the nom but he stood by his decision I believe out of respect of the process not abusive of it. He came close last time and wanted to be sure that he did it properly this time. Personally I respect that. Above you mention Karmafist 2 and his "campaign trail"... well there was absolutely no similarities between his RfA and this one. There was no campaign from CSCWEM, if anything he completely abstained from the process and maintained his earlier position of waiting for April.
 * As I said before there was no cabal, and no conspiracy. Users (like myself) simply saw the initial post from Hall Monitor on CSCWEM's talk page re. his nomination and rushed along here to support it. CSCWEM made it clear on his talk page that he was waiting for April, but regardless we came here to show our support. There was no solitation from him nor anyone else.
 * Now in hindsight I am sure CSCWEM has learnt (like the rest of us) that if he could do it again he would decline the nom, however this cannot have been a clear path to take or surely the nominator(s) would have the pulled the nom themselves when they learnt his position. All I am saying Johnleemk (and Splash) is that if anything this speaks volumes for the level of support CSCWEM has and I personally find it upsetting that you could see this shining negative light on him in any way shape or form. Thanks for your time, Glen. (§τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč'' 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I invoke Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. bd2412  T 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not his fault that he was nominated early. But does it make sense to accept an RfA that has been gathering tonnes of votes for 10 days? A 17-day RfA is hardly fair (as has been discussed extensively on the main RfA talk). And of course, is it not the fault of his overzealous nominators, nominating him well before he would agree to accept? If they could not gain acceptance within a few hours, then they should have withdrawn the RfA. You are attacking a strawman WRT Karmafist 2 -- I was referring to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the RfA (which was accepted rather late) were not anywhere nearly as bad as here. It took Karmafist 14 hours to accept (during which he garned a few dozen supports and only a couple of opposes). Already things didn't look quite above board there, but it was acceptable. It is not acceptable for an RfA to gather dust until the nominee accepts. Permitting this opens the way to gaming the process. And if you are upset that this sham of an RfA made CSCWEM look bad -- hey, it's his name on it. What the hell were all of you chaps thinking, voting on an RfA where the nominee didn't even accept it for nearly two weeks? Johnleemk | Talk 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen a lot of "17-day RfA? Unfair! Blasphemy!" talk recently. I going to try to throw this out there: couldn't it be "more fair"? After all, it shouldn't be about the size of the total numbers, but rather the increased amount of legitimate input (and, of course, percentages =P). I wasn't around when RfA policy was formulated, but from what I can tell, 7 days was an arbitrary number set so the RfA page wouldn't get too clogged up.


 * In the end, should everyone out there have known better? Yes, perhaps. Was there an explicit precendent or policy out there that said this was wrong? None that I know of. Was this against the "spirit of the rules"? Apparently 60 other users thought otherwise. And what about Assume good faith? Clearly it wasn't CSCWEM's or anyone else's intent to "game the system", rather, it was their intent to give this exemplary user administrator tools so he can finally "get down to business".


 * Just speaking my mind, guys.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact it lasted 17 days is not the unfair part. The unfair part is that it was put on the RFA main page with 60 support votes already in place. This has a chilling effect on the discussion and debate which is supposed to take part through the RFA process. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reasons for why this was plainly a bad thing have been sufficiently elaborated on at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I don't doubt that everyone involved had the best of intentions here, but as anyone who deals with arbitration cases often enough can tell you, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and good faith. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with John here. I voted support but in retrospect this was a Bad thing a future precedent. This could allow highly partisan or otherwise controversial candidates to rack up a large number of votes and present it in the same fashion. JoshuaZ 14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Controversial candidate? Lol. Sorry, I'm guess I'm just too accustomed to hearing that phrase applied to candidate who have actually done something wrong. This would probably have remained nearly unanimous if left open. — Mar. 27, '06 [15:48] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * You are completely correct. I would be surprised if he got more than a few opposes from trolls, but the concern is the precedent it sets for future cases. (removed per comment below). JoshuaZ 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can we please not bring up the names of editors who are not party to this discussion? Especially those who, despite their rough edges and penchant for controversy, have made massive and significant contributions to the encyclopedia... Cheers! bd2412  T 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bd2412  T 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, CSCWEM, for withdrawing. Johnleemk | Talk 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Advertised somewhere?
I'm curious; how did so many voters learn about the RfA before it was linked from the top page? ×Meegs 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't even realise that this RfA had not been announced publicly - everyone who voted simply saw the post on CSCWEM's talk page and bowled along to support! I think Splash may feel there was some sort of cabal or conspiracy of some kind but I would say almost all who participated did not know this hadn't been announced and most certainly CSCWEM was not involved. Hope this answers your question :) §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč'' 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also in that boat as well. JoshuaZ 20:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Found it in someones contribution list I think .... Agathoclea 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also saw it on someone's user contributions. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it the first day, but refrained from casting a vote (and said so). It was all innocent, but it just went on too long to be considered kosher. NoSeptember   talk  20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is on my watchlist. ~ PseudoSudo 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Watchlist. bd2412  T 22:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. The Clown is on my watchlist because through him I learned about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Unencyclopedia, and generally get a laugh. This flap over the nomination is a little funny, a little sad, but does add to the drama here. I can almost see the theory of the fait accompli problem, but honestly don't see any abuse of process by allowing a longer time to vote. Just have the patience of the Clown. Castellanet 22:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it while doing recent changes patrol. Anyway, I think there will be a competition among editors at 00:01, 1 April 2006 to be the first to put forward CSCWEM for adminship. David | Talk 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it on his talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it appear on in the #vandalism-en-wp channel as a "large page creation", then clicked on it to support. — Mar. 27, '06 [03:10] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Alright. Thank you for all of the replies. I never would have believed that anyone — even CSCWEM — could attract 50+ voters that way, but I guess I do now. ×Meegs 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA reboot
If there are no objections, and with respect to the nominators and all other parties involved (myself included), I intend to refile this RFA early next week, as I had originally promised, with a completely blank slate. By doing this, it should eliminate any possibility of someone voting in advance of my acceptance and hopefully clear up any concerns of vote stacking. If anyone disagrees with this idea, please just let me know before April, and if not, I will see you all again soon. 8-) Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be a good idea if you self-nommed, in a new nom, there's no need to touch this page any more. NSL E (T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-03-27)


 * The only objections I heard were to the early votes. You could literally start a new RfA at 0/0/0 this very minute and I doubt there would be any objections. I propose the name Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me three times till Sunday NoSeptember   talk  01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, sounds good. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem here either, but I also concur with NSLE, a new page may be the best option. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me threehouse of horror... bd2412  T 02:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I tend to like Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 33⅓. ;-)  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)