Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dgies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Dgies

Final (75/1/1); Ended Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:19:53 (UTC)

Dgies (talk · contribs) - I am honored to submit user Dgies for your consideration, whom for quite some time now has steadily been growing as a dedicated, experienced, trustworthy, remarkable user. Dgies underwent close scrutiny by me and Terence Ong through the admin coaching program. It is my firm belief that Dgies fulfils all the requirements to become an administrator, he undoubtedly possesses the knowledge and character to be entrusted with the admin tools. His contributions reveal a polyvalent user interacting with the most diverse areas of Wikipedia. Dgies is an outstanding vandalfighter, with countless adequate reports to WP:AIV and WP:RPP. He also often participates in WP:XFD, WP:RT, WP:RFCN, WP:ANI, WP:HD, etc. Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user. He will definitely make a fine administrator and I expect my fellow Wikipedians to provide him with all the support he genuinely deserves. Húsönd 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Terence

Dgies is a good user with lots of experience in both the writing and the administrative side of things. He can be trusted and will become a good administrator. His all-rounded contributions balances both the writing and the administrative side of things on Wikipedia. Civility has never been a problem for him and is a friendly and helpful editor. He is dedicated to his work on Wikipedia, and has the knowledge on what is expected of an administrator and the tasks to do. Under the admin coaching programme with Husond, Dgies is now ready for adminship. Terence 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —dgiestc 15:51, 4 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I enjoy vandal fighting so I would start out with WP:AIV. I'm familiar with the blocking policy so I know when to block and when not to; I've occasionally cleared invalid reports and left the reporter a message such as {{uw-aiv}}. I would also help with WP:RPP and its neglected cousin Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I've done quite a bit of CSD tagging previously and know the criteria well so I feel I could help clear CAT:CSD. I might occasionally help with TfD, RfD, and MfD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: On the more metapedian side, after stumbling upon Wikipedia:Requested templates I did a lot of work clearing out old requests and answering more recent ones, and I like to think I helped bring this project back to life. I'm also proud of the templates I made for requests there. More recently, I found a request I liked at WP:SPATRA and took it upon myself to translate the original es:Hernandarias into Hernando Arias de Saavedra, which I then expanded and added references; it was later featured on "Did you know?". I am also pleased with the work I did on Mother insult in which I took what was formerly a nonsense page converted to a redirect, and managed to make a well-referenced stub in an encyclopedic tone. I also like finding references and was pleased when I managed to add this fairly obscure old one.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: One time I had a feud over table formatting where we both (almost) broke 3RR. I posted a message on the talk page to request a straw poll. It went against me but I could understand others' reasoning and accepted the outcome. I've also dealt with an editor who kept reverting an article to their preferred version. I made many attempts to get them to discuss it, even opening an RfC, but they never responded. The article got fully protected and it seems the other person gave up. I've had miscellaneous times where other editors made remarks to or about me that were either uncivil or failed to assume good faith. In these cases, I take a deep breath, count to ten, and as calmly as possible, explain the motivation for my actions, citing relevant policies/guidelines. I've found a dispassionate response works best to avoid escalating the dispute. Lastly for obvious trolling, I fall back on some variant of Revert, block, ignore (where for block, substitute WP:AIV).
4. What is your opinion of the Wikimedia policy on unlicensed images?
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat-the-nom support. Heimstern Läufer 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support seen this user around AIV, and his reports are always very good, would do great work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I've seen this user around, and he's doing good as an editor. No reason to oppose. Wooyi 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support This user looks very promising, and has gained experience in the needed areas. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Comes highly recommended and is even polyvalent! Uses automation quite a bit on RC patrol, but actually leaves real human messages when interacting with established editors. A big win for the project if Dgies gets the mop. A Traintalk 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Although I had a disagreement with this user over his MfD on User:Cremepuff222's subpages, he was helpful and civil at all times. Also has impressive experience. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Finally. Can't wait for you to start helping out. John Reaves (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support user has proved himself to be an excellent vandal fighter, will benefit the project with the acquisition of the tools. —Anas talk? 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - I have seen this editor around and have seen nothing to be concerned about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I've seen Dgies around Wikipedia a lot - I've noticed he often acts like admin, removing invalid AIV reports (as in his answer to question 1) and I'd intended to nominate him had he not been having admin coaching. He seems to be a well-rounded editor, experienced and will put the admin tools to good use. Best of luck. Majorly (o rly?) 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Excellent anti-vandal fighter with quality and with good judgement.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support as nom.--Húsönd 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Obligatory "You mean he isn't one?" Support. He'll do good things. Shimeru 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Khoikhoi 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Of course. alphachimp 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Appears to be an active vandal-fighter and editor; no reason to oppose. Coemgenus 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Moderate Support Like Xiner, I didn't have a good initial contact with this user either, but I'm willing to overlook that for the benefits of Dgies being an admin, as it (the initial problem) was technically my fault. Acalamari 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Great vandal-fighter, does excellent work, especially in the Template space. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support like Acalamari's. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks good and has good potential for admin tasks. (aeropagitica) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. No concerns here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, a great user with experience in even the most discreet ares of Wikipedia. Two thumbs up! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, Lakers 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, he's always around the RFAs. I honestly thought he was one a long time ago. The Evil Clown my contributions 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Suport - per above. Addhoc 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support-Your not an admin yet? Great user. He's at AIV all the time. We need someone to clear those backlogs. Who better? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Qualified support: I've encountered Dgies enough times to know that this is a very good-faith and quite civil editor. I don't have any horror stories for you, sorry. :-) My main concerns are (in no particular order): The user is less than 1 year wikiold. However, I find the spread of edits to be both sufficient and very consistent with genuine vandal fighting, and proper vandal fighting; the high level of User talk:-space edits (and discussion at User:Dgies/Admin coaching) demonstrates that Dgies knows how to use, and does use, the user warning templates. But Dgies may not have enough intuitive understanding yet of consensus, notability, conflicts of interest, etc. Dgies's questions for the coaches at User:Dgies/Admin coaching even from less than a month ago, to me indicate a lack of deep understanding of the nature of such wikibeasts. I think that admins need to "feel" these things, not simply have a stock of well-memorized answers to various situations. I'm also concerned that Dgies may be too "nice". The answer to the first question at User:Dgies/Admin coaching#Terence strikes me as far too forgiving (in the scenario laid out, the "well-known and liked in the community" sockpuppetteer is dreadfully, cynically exploiting and manipulating the community, in one of the worst ways possible, and should be dealt with on those terms.) Some of the other answers to questions there seemed a bit similarly wishy-washy to me. On the other hand, I feel that Dgies has a very good handle on various admin processes, on own NPOV and mediation/behavior, is very clearly not an editwarrior, is quite vigilant for vandalism and POV nonsense, and seems to understand the interplay of things like V, NPOV, NOR, RS and N pretty well. I think that Dgies would become a great admin over time, if cautious in the early days, but is unlikely to be a "great" admin right out of the gate due to still having so many questions and uncertainties. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support, I think I actually scribbled his name down on a sticky pad somewhere as a good reporter at AIV. Would be fine with the tools, especially after the rather extensive involvement with his nominators. Truly, an odd set of opposes so far. Kuru talk 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. SupportHas been a good contributor and great editor. I'm sure he'll find good use for the tools.Ganfon 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Absolutely support. I have noticed this user around Wikipedia a lot in recent months and have been very impressed. Great contributions to project space, particularly WP:AIV too. As a side issue, never have I been more confused about oppose votes than I was when reading the ones below. Will (aka Wimt) 01:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Just the guy that should get the tools. Captain panda 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support seen him around, will make a good admin. James086Talk | Email 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Anything to stop him from clogging up AIV ;) – Riana ऋ 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per nom. If I remember correctly, I offered to nominate him in the past. These oppose !votes are beyond bogus. Grandmasterka 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. All my interactions with this editor have been positive.--ragesoss 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. I have had good experiences of interacting with this user in a number of areas. Trustworthy AIV reporter. Has the relevant experience and is definitely trustworthy. Opposes seem rather weak, especially given that blocking vandal only accounts is not only sensible but standard practice. WjBscribe 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Clichéd support - good luck! The Rambling Man 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - per the opposers, the "opinions" of whom the closing bureaucrat must surely disregard as not creditable. Come on, really. One theoretically guess, VoA's almost always get indefed, one oppose where I can't work out the actual reason for opposing, and one non-oppose per the actions of others - bureaucrat, have balls, ignore, please! Consensus that is not. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Often I see Dgies' AIV reports as I am posting my own. He has done good work and I can only see good coming from his adminship. --Valley2city₪‽ 08:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support per nom (and per the well thought-out and civilly formulated arguments by SMcCandlish below). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. S extremely good anti vandal worker. --KZ Talk • Contribs 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - NL-Ninane 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - Per nominator, and especially the point: "Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user." We need more polite, civil and communicative users to become admins. Smee 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  44. Support as co-nominator. Terence 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support From Dgies's entire record, Dgies comes across as a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support A good user, excellent with AIV reports, however I think the opposers are unfairly criticising Xiner (talk · contribs) for having his own opinion! Tellyaddict 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support The name certainly rings a bell. Seems to me like he'd make a good, well-rounded admin. -- Seed 2.0 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support excellent user.-- danntm T C 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. Michael 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Good editor. --Carioca 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support General activity suggests will be a valuable adddition to the team.--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I have had encountered Dgies on a few occasions and think him to be possessed of the good judgment and generally even temperament the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious. One can, it seems plain, conclude with some significant measure of confidence that the net effect on the project of Dgies' being sysopped should be positive. Joe 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support per Husond, nice edit count in several areas, and a quick review of his answers in User:Dgies/Admin coaching. Has good answers to tricky policy questions. His two efforts to perform non-admin closure of AfDs looked all right. EdJohnston 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support, no reason not to. SorryGuy 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I've seen you around often, and you've always left a good impression. · AO Talk 11:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strong support A serious wikipedian. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support: Per alphachimp. Seems to be a very active vandal-fighter.  ~Steptrip 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Yes :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Looks good! -Mschel 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Rounded candidate, obviously versed in policy and reasoned of action. Pigman 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Yes - Edit count is particularly rounded in terms of mainspace and wikipedia numbers - Dgies is obviously keen on pursuing both user and admin duties.--VS talk 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support per nom and comments already given by other editors above. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Active in areas of the community I watch, so personal experience leads me to believe you'll be a fine admin. Email is enabled. Not aware of any reason to think they'll abuse the buttons. Maybe be a little careful with username blocks, at first (unless I have you mixed up with somebody else, on that), but overall I think you'll be a good asset for the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Excellent choice for the community. --alidoostzadeh 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. I've found this user to be a very able editor from personal experience. --Hemlock Martinis 06:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support, sure why not?--Wizardman 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. Seems to be a solid editor. IrishGuy talk 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Wholehearted support - dgies will apparently become a better admin than I do. --Deryck C. 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Very Strong Support - A very Good Editor and one of the best I know...Good Luck mate..--Cometstyles 11:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. support --dario vet (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. support--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. support, join in. Looks well-prepared. MURGH disc. 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I sense a trigger-happy admin. HP 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Disallowing vote per voting guidelines. --KZ Talk • Contribs 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide specific examples where he is shown to be "trigger-happy"? Wooyi 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, if you provide examples it will help others make their decisions, and lend credibility to you opposition. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's theoretic. For example, you see a one liner stub tagged for deletion, do you delete or do you check good or the page history to make sure its a legit deletion request.
Checking AIV, it's where you report bad users. do you make sure its the final warning and if it is do you indefblock or give a 24 hour block. I am judging based on his tolerance. HP 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your concerns, obviously a CSD must be checked for previous valid revisions. I don't believe I've ever tagged a page as WP:CSD#A1 when it was previously substantive. For AIV, I know someone must have a recent warning mentioning a block before they can be blocked, and an initial block should be short. There are exceptions though, such as cases of obvious sockpuppetry by a banned user. —dgiestc 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Theoretic? So there is no actual action this user has taken that you object to? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I fear he might act unilaterally. HP 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
But are you basing this on anything? Or is it just a hunch? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Before getting into a tizzy about this user's oppose, I suggest having a look at his talk page. No offense intended, but I would suggest that he's a bit too new to have a good handle on RfA. A Traintalk 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No tizzy, just trying to figure out his reasoning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Honda Pilot (talk · contribs) ("HP" above) is almost certainly a sockpuppet. The account has existed for less than one day, yet headed straight for: a) RfA, b) AN/I (with edit summaries like 'don't condone initial indefblocks' - this is no newbie!), and c) various articles in which he/she has caused trouble (see the blowback on his talk page, cited just above). I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of Uninsured Driver (talk · contribs) (or rather, that both are socks controlled by the same party; see more information below about Jeff Defender being another related puppet); I would say why I believe this in more detail, but doing so would tip off the puppetmaster on his "tell", and I don't want to do that before investigating more likely puppets of this person and taking the matter to WP:SSP. Any well-established user (i.e. obvious non-sock) user is welcome to e-mail me for the details. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppet reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose, per his answer to question #7. Blocking "VOA" accounts could provoke SockPuppetry. A 24 hour block cools him down, an indefblock make it only worse. Jeff Defender 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    First, there is not question 7 (there are only 3 questions) so I think you made a typo; second, what is VOA account, do you mean vandal account? Wooyi 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps the message went to the wrong RfA? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I read his User:Dgies/Admin coaching page. Many more questions and answers. Jeff Defender 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Well if it is any consolation that answer is in line with both the blocking policy and current practice. Vandal only accounts are indef blocked all the time, I think to the benefit of the community. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    He's willing to have a zero-tolerance attitude. Is he here to block wayward newbies or will he AGF and indefblock only as a last resort? Jeff Defender 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is strong evidence that Jeff Defender (talk · contribs) (along with at least one other, Uninsured Driver (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Uninsureddriver a.k.a. NoInsurance) is a sockpuppet of a wikispammer (GoldenRoad.net sound familiar to anyone?); files WP:POINT bad-faith AfDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo DeOro), attacks RfAs of editors who have thwarted or are likely to thwart his disruptive activities (such as identifying one of his sockpuppets or opposing one of his spamvertising "articles"). Masquerades as a newbie, but knows all about various WP policies, guidelines, the RfA process, how to file AfDs, and even really obscure WP essays, which he cites in WP:LAWYER fashion to try to game the system. There are probably various others, as both of these accounts are rarely used to do anything but !vote in RfA or AfD; other likely ones include 68.237.229.68 (talk · contribs), Karim Prince1 (talk · contribs), Honda Pilot (talk · contribs) and Jbl1975 (talk · contribs), which may be the puppetmaster. See paragraph of well-linked documentation at the Alfredo de Oro AfD. This set of users have not been run through WP:SSP yet, but will be soon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sock puppet reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    OpposeUmpired by Jreferee Dgies edited my RfA, unsuccessfully MfD'd my adoptee without consulting me or him first, and then supported my RfA at the last moment. Xiner (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps Dgies should have consulted Cremepuff222 when nominating his various user subpages, but what is concerning about him supporting your RfA? Majorly (o rly?) 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've never come across the user before or since, so my only chance of obtaining an impression of Dgies is from what I stated above. It is more about the aggregation of the three actions that makes me wonder about his motives. Perhaps I wanted to hide my edits. Xiner (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    His editing of your RFA is procedural, and regarding to his last minute support to your RFA I can't find any misconduct pertaining to that. Also the MFD is not serious enough to oppose a candidate. Wooyi 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    It's not a serious enough reason to oppose in your estimation. Xiner is entitled to his opinion. A Traintalk 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with A train, thre is no need to snap at a user because of his comments which were not inappropriate, everyone has the right to the own opinion.Tellyaddict 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Xiner - I know you through being on the same side on several issues. However, your reasoning for opposing is not coming through. RfA is about determining whether the nominee is a trusted user who understand policy. Dgies corrected your edit stats for your RfA, which is something I would have done had I known they were wrong (as any good editor would have). Dgies corrections to your RfA made you look better as they increased your stats and Dgies supported your RfA. From either of these, can you say that Dgies is untrustworthy and/or does not understand policy? ***** If you look at Dgies' contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship between March 10 and March 15, you will see that Dgies tries to participate in just about all RfAs. Dgies's last minute support of your RfA was his last edit on March 13th and after which he took a break. Supporting your RfA with "better late than never" shows that Dgies knew that he was late in supporting you, probably because it was something he meant to do earlier but got busy elsewhere. If you look at Dgies' contributions around that time, it is easy to see why he was distracted from supporting your RfA earlier - he was busy doing Admin-type work. It also seems likely that his March 7th edit to your RfA caused him to think that he already participated in your RfA and only came to realize that he hadn't at the last minute before your RfA closed. ***** Dgies did add more stats to you RfA edit summary, which was done after Dgies discussed the matter at WT:RFA[1] Similar stats were added to Dgies's RfA edit summary, so it probably reflected an RfA procedure change. ***** In nominating Cremepuff222's 45 sub user pages for deletion, Dgies may have wielded a heavy hand in nominating Cremepuff222 for deletion as well, even if Cremepuff222 made only 83 main space edits but over 1200 edits to Cremepuff222's own user space. Something went wrong in Cremepuff222's use of Wikipedia as a Myspace and that MfD seemed to put Cremepuff222 back on track so I do not think you can fault Dgies's judgment on this one. Dgies probably could have notified Cremepuff222 and I am not clear on whether Dgies knew about the adoption relationship, but that MfD was on incident and was a month ago, so it probably is not representative of Dgies. Dgies probably could have handled that situation differently, but it certainly is not something to draw a conclusion that Dgies is untrustworthy and/or does not understand policy. ***** Dgies' revising your RfA edit summary on March 7th and then MfD'd your adoptee on March 8th appear to have been by happenstance and not directed at you. If Dgies opposed your RfA with something silly like 'Xiner is not trustworthy because he has an adoptee that had user space issues,' then I would be here questioning Dgies's judgment. However, Dgies correctly supported your RfA as being from a trustworthy user who knows policy by looking at your contributions to Wikipedia in the whole. Take a look at W.marsh recent support position in another RfA. To me, this said a lot about W.marsh's character. Your oppose position has the weight of three to four support positions. From Dgies's entire record, Dgies comes across as a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    (changing to support) Oppose per harassment of oppose voters. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Lol...it was us that "harassed" the oppose votes (and i wouldn't term is harassment), not the user dgies himself. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    There's been no harrassment anywhere, especially by the candidate. This is a discussion, you're allowed to respond to comments. Majorly (o rly?) 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed; the closing bureaucrat will utterly ignore that oppose !vote as frivolous. And "harassment" doesn't apply to sockpuppets anyway. If anything it is Dgies who is being harassed. (Cf. my own RfA for User:Uninsured Driver - same person as User:Honda Pilot - actually successfully sabotaging my RfA because I outed his other User:Jeff Defender sockpuppet. Don't let that happen to Dgies.) If someone adds another ranty oppose vote here (or in any RfA for that matter) actually investigate to see if the allegations are valid and the user (like Xiner) is a real one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    All three sock puppets reported. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    The question is not whether the closing bureaucrat will ignore it as an oppose vote, the question is if he recognizes the wp:point (please read WP:CITINGPOLICYINLOWERCASE) I'm trying to make. Dgies, I am already supporting you in spirit and I will catch up with my vote later. I just don't understand the amount of attention sockpuppet opposes can gain. It's so totally not worth it. Why not just support Dgies and not feed the troll? And Xiner: Your oppose totally rocks</irony>. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have no interest in your vain attempt to change years of WP shortcut tradition (and which is a redlink, by the way). Anyway, yes it is the point that that the closer will ignore the (non-sockpuppet) comment by KNcyu38, who should re-examine his/her reading of this page and either change the vote to neutral or support, or give a rational reason for the oppose. Has nothing to do with the sockpuppets. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I am somewhat concerned at this candidate's strong focus on vandalwhacking; as always I am generally concerned with candidates most of whose experience is in vandalism management that the candidate has a proper appreciation that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than some sort of odd MMORPG. This particular candidate, however, appears to at least show evidence of such an appreciation. I am also bothered that there is no answer to question 4, above. I would likely support if that question were satisfactorily answered and the candidate were endorsed by a WikiProject. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
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.