User:Sean William/RfB

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Sean William

All bribes have been processed Second round of Wikipedia Idol Finals: (7/4/3/2/‰/§/Œ/‡); by Anthøny at 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)'

Sean William (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats, and no candidate is as (un)qualified as me. I'd immediately promote Kmweber to administrator for great justice. I have said in the past that I have both the capacity and patience to perform the duties of a bureaucrat [1] and I only hope that the citizens of Wikipedia are clueful enough to promote me.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Sean William @ 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish must to answer the following mandatory questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. 1) No. 2) 75% exactly. I have already written myself a script to assist the decision making process.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. Ignore the "Why" for a minute. Short answer: no. Long answer: nnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooo!

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. See question 3.

Mandatory Question from User:Pedro

5. Upon the succesful passing of the RFB, which is guaranteed, will you also then grant me and anyone else who asks 'crat tools? Hint: To garner my support you have to answer yes in the space neatly provided below. Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A. this is where you type the word yes Ahem, yes. Did I do it right? Sean William @ 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Should all users be bureaucrats? If not, why not? Majorly (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A. When everyone's a bureaucrat, then nobody's a bureaucrat. Sean William @ 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory Question from Avi

7. Do you have at least 17,000 edits in RfA space? If not, why have you not glued your eyeballs directly to the computer screen to more accurately monitor these discussions? Would you use ethyl cyanoacrylate or polyvinyl acetate to achieve this bond? Do you believe that people who breathe are wasting time that they could be working on the project?

A. I do believe that duct tape would perform the required bonding more efficiently. And yes, if you're not helping the project at every moment of your existence, then you are wasting our time and that of the project. After all, we have to make sure we meet the deadline.

Mandatory Question from Mtmelendez

8. Adminship requires patient and wise decision makers. Sadly, this project has too many of them. Given this, would you promote Leeroy Jenkins without even looking at his RFA? If not, would you consider withdrawing your candidacy?

A. No, I would run my aforementioned script on his RfA. If he doesn't get promoted, well... so be it. At least I have chicken. Sean William @ 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Sean William's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• I think it's time to close this. Sorry Sean, but it's clear we're not going to get a consensus to promote. Maybe try again in a bunch of months.  ;) Enigma ^msg 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, outstanding. Neıl ☎ 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Let's prove it to him that we are clueful, if that's what he's asking for, he can have that! Dorftrottel (harass) 13:24, April 1, 2008
3. Support - I have a clue. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support He is my profit. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Anthøny 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per Kurt and Neil. Essjay (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Elmer's Support Stockings At its heart, RFA's and B's are requests for the community to opine on the judgment of the requester, and whether or not the community trusts the user to exercise that judgment in the most flagrantly annoying method possible, disregarding every guideline and policy the project has hammered out, in a overt and overarching attempt to dig a new Chunnel wearing nothing but cargo shorts and SCUBA gear and armed with 4 boxes of toothpicks and a backscratcher. The community requires its 'crats to have egos the size of baleen whales, attention spans measured in femtoseconds, and the tolerance of a four-week old baby with third-degree diaper rash. By this user's blatant disregard for the types of adhesives listed in my question, and his demonstration of a level of idiocy so awesome and overwhelming as to conflate duct tape with crazy glue, I am certain that this user has done nothing but sniff said glue for the past three years, rendering him the finest candidate for 'cratship the project has seen since Raul and Taxman kidnapped the third-string clown from the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus, dressed him in a pink tutu, and installed him as the crat we know and love as WJBscribe! Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   Bravo, bravo. Sean William @ 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

8. w00t 'nuff said. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This user is a sockpuppet of 127.0.0.1. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Candidate deleted the talk page. I'm beginning to suspect a hoax of some sort. Betacommand (Talk)
3. STRONG OPPOSE Wikipedia doesn't NEED more crats. This sounds like a hoax RFB and I recommend it be closed. The opening just doesn't fit with an actual RFB and why would you delete the talk page? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, more than likely a joke, heh :) SQL^{Query me!} 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm almost positive of it. Can we get this removed? :) Dusti^{talk to me} 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   That depends. How much do you got? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Dammit, my last RfB was opposed because there were too many existing bureaucrats. No more new 'crats until I'm one, then I won't care anymore. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Waste of time placeholder neutral pending positive answer to my question. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   User answered yes. I demand you immediately change to support. 68.237.239.228 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2. New-troll pending answers to questions. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Changed to Support -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Unknown This page is too similar to an RfA I saw. HagermanBot (talk)

Close

1. Recommend this be closed per WP:SNOW. Who's with me? 68.237.239.228 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request RfC against User:Avraham

1. How dare you close a legitimate RfB! This is not the place to practice bureaucrat actions! Someone ought to provide this diff at your next RfB. ;) I demand nay insist that Sean Williams get a neutral 'crat to close this. Enigma ^msg 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.