Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 Dihydrogen Monoxide

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

FINAL (76/46/18); Closed 00:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) - Hi guys, I'd like you to consider Dihydrogen Monoxide (aka Giggy, G1ggy, DHMO, H₂O, or Alex) for adminship.

Giggy is a very valued member of the community, with many fine article contributions to his name, with an impressive 17GAs, and 4FAs. He is extremely committed to content-building, and one of the biggest supporters of the Aussie WikiProject's 100GA drive. Much of this is due to his commitment and dedication. However, he is no stranger to the sort of routine administrative tasks that he will need to do - like many of us, he cut his Wikiteeth on RCP, NPP and XfDs, and is highly competent in these areas as well.

Giggy has been through 3 RfAs previously. Personally I have opposed 2 of these. He's shown some bad judgement on occasion - a tendency to leap before he looks, perhaps, to make jokes before thinking about the person on the other end, to forget to put the shoe on the other foot. The worst example of this was probably publishing a private chatlog in his userspace. However, as we stand on the edge of the new year, I feel that Giggy is changing also - a marked increase in maturity, a more grown-up sense of humour, and a heightened awareness of the feelings of others, along with his place in the community and as a Wikipedian. I've seen his administrative work at Commons, and it's superb - he's just the kind of sysop we need here, kind, firm and aware of the consequences of his actions.

I feel Alex will make a fine administrator here, due to his commitment to the constant betterment of the project, his kindness and capability, and his sense of humour, which can only be a good thing :) I request now that this community - one built in the spirit of AGF and 'turning over a new leaf' - allow this great user to reach his full potential by granting him the mop here.

PS: Oh, and I promised I'd write "gigging without a gig is not really gigging" somewhere in the nom, so here it is. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom No.31 I now co-nominate Dihydrogen Monoxide, formerly Giggy, for adminship. DHMO is a great editor, an experienced Wikipedian, and, most importantly, a friendly person. He knows policy well, and is experienced in the main forums and areas that he will later use his admin buttons in should he be trusted with them. He is also a great content writer, which I think is important in admin candidates, because it allows a view of the true encyclopedia, and it garners experience that cannot be found by clicking the reverter. In this way, DHMO is a very well balanced editor, who has a wide knowledge of the many varying aspects of life as a Wikipedia editor, and it is because of this, among all the other reasons aforementioned, that I think DHMO will make a reliable, approachable and neutral sysop. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~~I accept.~~ You rock, Riana. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As Riana stated in her nomination, most of my admin-type work revolves around XfD, NPP, and RCP.

XfD: I have participated in many a deletion debate in my time, mostly around AfD. I believe I have a thorough knowledge of the deletion policies, and an equally good knowledge of consensus surrounding deletion - with this in hand I would be well equipped to judge deletion debates, and thus to close them. In my work as a Commons administrator (RfA), I've done a lot of work mostly surrounding deletion, however I wouldn't spend much time at IfD if sysopped here. The fair use policy is way over my head...

NPP: I don't actively patrol newpages these days - I used too, and I still have the knowledge (I hope!). However, I do occassionally tag a newpage or two (or, if appropriate, improve the article, rather than tag for deletion), and I fairly certain in my knowledge and understanding of the CSD criteria. As an admin I would spend time patrolling CAT:CSD, and would do my best to salvage articles wherever possible - I would of course be happy to delete the "Wikipedia teh gayz K THX BAI" articles though :)

RCP: I recently became aware of the #cvn-wp-en IRC channel, and I have been vandalfighting through there a bit. I've also made a few AIV reports of late, all of which have resulted in blocks. It has been noted before that I used to be a bit trigger happy in vandal warning/AIV reporting, I've done my best to slow this down, and will continue to do so. As an admin I wouldn't block without a full set of warning, and continued vandalism after the warning. We need all the constructive editors we can get.

If sysopped, I will be adding myself to CAT:AOR. My recall policy, as I intend it to stand (I'm open to critique of it, obviously) is available at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles summarises this nicely. Of what's listed there, my proudest contributions is a toss-up between my four featured articles (Age of Mythology, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, Powderfinger, Internationalist (album)) and the stuff at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums, much of which I've brought to the status noted there. The content on Portal:Music of Australia (well, the non-Powderfinger content...:) ) also deserves mention here. Rather than try and label one specific contribution, I'll just say that "my best" are those that I've made in approving the quality of Australian music articles around here.

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: A similar (in a sense) question was asked by Orderinchaos at my recent editor review, and I answered him with some recent diffs. Since they're still recent, and as they answer this question quite well, I'll copy paste my answer from there to here.

I reverted the (repeated) addition of first person autobiographical text to an article, and left an explanatory note. The user requested I undo my edit, stating we sometimes allow autobiographical content. I responded suggesting the user write it in their own words, to which he stated that it took him hours to type it up, and again stated that it should be included despite not being the common procedure. At this stage, I pointed the user to WP:AUTO, to which he accused me of not stating the policy correctly. I attempted to clarify my position, at which stage the user told me to read "that section" ("The problem with autobiographies"). I did so, and explained to him that I found nothing justifying his edits - and thus asked if he show me. The user's response was vague and ambiguous. I told them that they were welcome to re-add the material, but that the discussion was going nowhere. And then I saved this page. Throughout the entire discussion, I believe I remained civil, stuck to policy, and didn't attempt to bite or offend the newcomer - simply explain to them why their contribution, in its current form, wasn't helpful.

Questions from Avruch:

4. Can you address the concerns raised over your review of TRE, what you hoped to accomplish by writing it that way and your view of its actual effects?

The Random Editor requested (both on my talk page and via Google Talk) that I give him a review. I asked if he was sure, keeping in mind our recent interactions; he said yes, and he wanted it honest. Perhaps I was overly honest, perhaps not. After I gave the review, he got a rename (it's been said elsewhere to what, but I won't say it here just in case...). We spoke again (via Gtalk) and he said that of all the reasons that forced him to try and hide his TRE identity, that review was not one of them. So from that perspective I can't see any "actual effects", except to make a few uninvolved people think I drove him off. From my perspective, and from his, I didn't.

5. How many editors have you nominated at RfA, and of those how many were successful? How many since your own last RfA?

I used to keep a list, which could (I think) be viewed at User:Giggy/RfA (admin-only now). I haven't logged it for ages, so I really can't remember. My two most recent nominations have been for Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) and E (talk · contribs), both successful. My last RfA closed on 29 September, almost exactly three months ago.

Question from Keepscases:

6. Do you feel that repeated vandalism of Wikipedia should be considered a criminal offense in a court of law? Keepscases (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, except in extreme unforeseeable circumstances.

Questions from User:Krator

7. You have four editor reviews on your name, and your comment on another's is the reason why a dozen people below oppose this RFA. What do you think the value of processes like Editor review and Requests for comment/User conduct is for Wikipedia as a website containing articles on various topics, covering all branches of knowledge (encyclopaedia), in contrast to Wikipedia as a community?

I haven't participated in a Requests for comment/User conduct prior, so I'll keep it to editor review. The fact that I participated in a way that "drove off an editor" is simply not true, and if it had been I would have reconsidered my participation in the editor review process. Put simply I see it as a way of betting feedback on one's editing...unfortunately (perhaps) most ERs these days turn into "you're a good editor, give RfA a shot" which is not what I believe it should be about. The fact that the review I gave was the complete opposite to this was obviously going to upset some people; so be it. I still think that ER is important as an effective review will assist an editor in better improving the encyclopedia aspect of the project - our ultimate goal.

8. What piece of feedback, given to you by a Wikipedia editor, has changed your on-wiki behaviour the most? Consider this question a variant of question two. The answers are not required to be recent.

Since nothing particularly inspirational came to mind when I first read the question, I went back and reflected in what's changed in my behaviour recently. The most notable has been the increase in article writing, including writing BLPs etc. So I guess one statement that could answer your question would be a comment made by DGG (talk · contribs), here. "I would encourage a greater amount of work on real-world articles in article space."

9. If you would ever invoke your right to vanish, would you delete User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles?

Well, I hope not to request an RTV, but if forced too I imagine I would, as the page would look odd by itself with the majority of the userspace gone...

Optional question by Corvus cornix

10. What is your opinion concerning the "this admin is open to recall" controversy? Would you offer yourself up for recall if you are an admin whose actions have been questioned?

A. As stated in my Q1 answer, I would be up to recall per User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall.

Just a note for D. here. Mercury 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well add this, too, Mercury. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Mercury, but as my recall process is so drastically different to the current status quo (which, incidentally, I'm oppose too as well) I don't think that should have much impact here.— Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Nick mallory

11. Did you ever explain this [1]? I can't seem to find your side of this story anywhere and you didn't answer the question about it at your last, failed RfA even though it was a major issue then. If the matter was sorted out satisfactorily then my apologies but it still seems dubious behaviour for someone who wants to be an admin. Nick mallory (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I never specifically "explained" it, but the version by Martintg (talk · contribs) in the neutral section here (diff) has my endorsement as the most correct summary of events to have been published onwiki. Digwuren and myself hadn't interacted prior, and have not interacted since to the best of my knowledge.

If it was just an honest misunderstanding why can't you just say so here? I'd have accepted that, I have nothing against you, but sending me off to a past RfA to read a comment written by someone else and refusing to talk about it yourself just makes the whole thing look shifty. If you'd just been upfront about it I'd have changed my oppose, you haven't been, so I'm not going to. Nick mallory (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've said many times that it was a misunderstanding, but that isn't specifically explaining, which you asked for. Rather than wasting my time and yours, I figured it was easier if I pointed to somewhere where it had been specifically explained. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the problem is that there are at least seven people opposing you below because of it. They are clearly not convinced by the way you've handled this issue. Perhaps if you'd made a bit more of an attempt to deal with it up front those seven would have supported you, I know I would. Only you know what really went on and I'd have thought, on your own RfA, you'd have been keen to set the record straight in your own interest. You could have mentioned it in answer to question 3 perhaps as it was a major factor in your last RfA not passing. To be honest, I don't really care if people make mistakes, we all do that, me more than most, it's how they handle themselves afterwards which matters - at least when they're running for adminship. Nick mallory (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From Mercury

12. From Mercury I want to support you, so I'll ask straight out. Five part question. Thank you in advance.

Q.What is personally identifiable information? How can an email address that can be linked to a real identity? What circumstances should this be oversighted or deleted? Would you ever restore or disclose PII, or deleted contribs that contain PII not released by the subject, that was only deleted? What are your thoughts regarding reposting email on wiki (or information garnered from email not replicated on wiki), in full or in part?

A. Personally identifiable information is information which can be used to specifically identify a person. An email address can be considered PII, especially if it contains one's name (etc.). This information should be deleted if it meets a deletion guideline, and private correspondence without permission (for example) does and should thus be deleted. It should be oversighted if it meets any aspect of the oversight policy. Currently email addresses aren't specifically noted there, and it would be up to the oversight to use their judgement in such a case. I would not restore or disclose PII (in itself or in a deleted edit) that weren't released by the subject. Emails should not be placed on wiki without prior permission, and with the removal of PII.

Thank you, I believe you do grok sensitive issues now. I won't actively oppose you now, I'll consider the issue behind my below oppose a fluke. Thanks, Mercury 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

See Dihydrogen Monoxide's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide

Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2

Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G1ggy

Links for Dihydrogen Monoxide: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dihydrogen Monoxide before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Take a look at this - I haven't formed an opinion on this RfA yet, but I think some people might be interested in reading the editor review here. Avruchtalk 14:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try and be civil. Discussions are starting to get a little heated. Be careful of what you say. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh - mind if I remove this? Are we making mountains out of molehills for the sake of a few people who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A note like this one doesn't harm anything - but, I agree, a large template-looking warning is a little much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked. Lara❤Love 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DM has nominated seven people for adminship. One was successful, four were withdrawn early, and two were unsuccessful (himself and Dfrg.msc, the latter gaining the bit later). I waive my right to the post and will allow anybody to remove it if there was a reason why DM didn't the whole list of his nominations. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So that is 9 total, including the two he mentioned? Or are you counting only sole noms? Out of 9, three successful, four withdrawn and one failed (not counting himself)? Avruchtalk 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be nine total, since the two he mentioned are not logged on his list. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to imply here. The reason why his first two RfAs (G1ggy and Giggy) weren't listed here originally is because all RfAs under the name "Dihydrogen Monoxide" are automatically listed here by the functions in the template, and all other RfAs under other user names have to be manually listed here. Unless I'm missing something here, DHMO didn't intend to hide his previous RfAs at all, from what I've observed, he's realised his mistakes and has acknowledged this, and so I don't really see why he would have any reason to hide them. To assume that he was trying to hide them is assuming bad faith. Please correct me if I'm incorrect in anyway, but is a list of nominations by a user (I'm not talking about self-nominations) really necessary, at all? This is for discussing his past RfAs, not those of who he has nominated. Spebi 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No one suggested he was hiding his own RfAs. We were referring to his noms. I asked the question about his noms because it speaks to his view of adminship and qualified candidates, and the record of success indicates whether his views are supported by the community. Avruchtalk 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Avruch asked a question about his previous noms, so I looked up the information and reported it here. However, seeing that DM had asked privately to delete it ("requested via private message"), I was cautious and said I would allow anybody to delete it if DM didn't want the information coming out for a reason. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I've obviously missed the point. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Spebi 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hdbragon88, that was deleted as part of the User:Giggy namespace at the end of August, shortly after I renamed to this one (see the past RfA for some detail about that) - I have nominated numerous users under this username, none of which were listed on that page. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK, then, you've nominated at least seven people under Giggy, and at least two under DM, then. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I see where Majorly comment is at. I can't find it. Thanks Secret ^account 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone; Mercury moved it from my userspace to his, then requested an oversight. User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly and User:Mercury/Chatlog Majorly are the relevant pages. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the entire thing was osighted, just the PII. An admin can check, but I caution against its restoration. Regards, Mercury 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- AFAIK the whole thing is gone (since there was no personal information there (I assume that's what PII is) other then email addresses), else it's been hidden so well the logs can't find it. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the PII is gone. It has been oversighted. As far as the oversight log, I can't see it, and you can't either. The deletion log is available. Is there any other hidden log I can assist you in finding? Regards, Mercury 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to throw in my two cents re: the Bishonen issue. I'll assume we're all familiar with the basics. Now, no matter which way you slice it, this was bad. But how bad it was, and what exactly was bad about it, I don't think is quite so clear. The most prevalent interpretation seems to be that there was collusion between DHMO and another editor to pass each other's articles to GA status. Obviously, this would be totally unacceptable. However, I'm not so sure that this is what happened. DHMO seemingly promoted the other editor's article to GA status without thoroughly studying it to ensure that it truly deserved to be a GA. If anything, he should be admonished for this poor behavior, and encouraged to familiarize himself with the criteria for GA articles. As for the other editor's review of one of DHMO's articles, I don't see how that is relevant. Unless someone can prove that there was some sort of 'GA conspiracy' going on here, DHMO's worst offense here is not taking the time required while reviewing an GA nominee. Bad? Yes. But reason to oppose an RfA? Comments welcome. :) faithless (^speak) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Such collusion between two editors is indeed possible, but as long as there's nothing but circumstantial evidence, shouldn't we assume good faith? faithless (^speak) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That sums it up quite nicely. There was no collusion, I've said so several times. There are many people who perform much worse GA reviews, or who have once. Since then I've worked hard to improve my reviewing quality - point in case my three recent GA reviewer of the week awards. There is no conspiracy, and there is no cabal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Support, yes I do want Dihydrogen Monoxide to become an administrator. Spebi 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

C'mon Spebi, is that talk really necessary? -JodyB _talk 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Better? Spebi 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. -JodyB _talk 14:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Rt . 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Need I say more? Spebi and Rudget have my thoughts already planned out. — E ^talk 10:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm in the wrong place...? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

~~As per Miranda and Spebi !! ...--Comet styles 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)~~
Support - Effing Yeah! This user has basically been an admin in my eyes for the longest time. I feel he has a way about doing things. Good luck! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 13:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You bastard Giggy:p You deliberately put this RfA online when you know I was going out. Didn't even have enough tact to wait until I finished my well-prepared co-nom... (It's a joke peoples. No offense meant.) In a more serious matter, I believe that Giggy has what it takes to be an administrator. In my opinion, he regularly shows good judgement and clue. He is also a content writer; a firm editor who has driven many articles to FA. I believe he would make a great addition to Wikipedia as an admin. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, from a not-so-proud member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club. Lankiveil (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support It is about time. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty then. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support per noms. Gifted writer & helpful fellow user. PeaceNT (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I was neutral last time, as I felt the timing was wrong, however I believe issues from the past have been addressed and that DHMO will be a net gain to the administrative team - and in the final analysis if something is of benefit to the project we should seek to embrace it. Pedro : Chat 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - H2O is sensible and will make a great addition to the admin team. I have no concerns. Keilana_(recall) 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no concerns whatsoever about this prolific contributor. MichelleG (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

Interesting you'd come out of long inactivity just to comment on two RFAs... what about the very serious concerns outlined below? Did you miss them? Majorly (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this an accusation of a bad-faith vote? My "long inactivity" was all of a week, and I have never met or had any personal interactions with the candidate that I can remember (and sometimes I forget to sign in). MichelleG (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not encountered this user previously, to the best of my knowledge. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you find that interesting Majorly. It's trivial at best. But interesting? No. the_undertow ^talk 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support I have mixed feelings about DHMO. I share the concerns for the Good article debacle from the last RfA. I agree there are maturity issues. Just my opinion, but there are times I find his behaviour-- shall we say other than soothing. (Sir, you need to cool your jets a bit.) However, he is knowledgeable of deletion policy. It heartens my soul to read "would do my best to salvage articles wherever possible." I also take him to not be in haste to block. Dloh cierekim 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion on rationale re IFD I see it as a plus that the nom acknowledges weak areas and expresses a desire to avoid them. To be frank, I avoid IFD too. In the end, adminship is not that big a deal. I would be much less happy if he had promised to have the "mess at IFD cleaned up in a day and a half." The first law applies, "do no harm." Dloh cierekim 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, as the candidate has a high degree of knowledge in areas where the tools may have the most benefit. I don't have any concerns about the candidate as such, but would note that some of our colleagues who oppose this RfA have very valid points that the candidate should address if this request becomes successful. I cannot say that I agree with the comments at the Editor Review linked above, but that's a disagreement on point, not procedure. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Calm, civil, intelligent, understands policy. There's no reason not to Support. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the serious concerns below, of course. Majorly (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on Alex, you're better than that. Don't coerce the opposers, don't coerce the supporters. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that, in the spirit of fairness, you will remind LaraLove below of the same, Riana? What she said to Miranda is much worse than Majorly's reminders. --Iamunknown 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is allowed on both sides. Although this is a vote, and each user's vote should be counted equally, it is also beneficial to discuss and challenge rationales; it helps other users to make a more informed decision on how to vote. Walton^One 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lara had done it once. At the time I wrote this Majorly had done it twice. Please don't accuse me unnecessarily. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything (not sure if you're talking to me or Iamunknown). Walton^One 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You think I am accusing you unnecessarily, I think I am being fair to Majorly, and since neither of us have provided any logical arguments to justify our conclusions, I suppose it is left at that. --Iamunknown 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(u) Anyone may question anyone's comments, wether in the support section, or the oppose. I still don't see anything that serious, to make me feel the need to oppose, in the oppose section. DHMO's made a couple mistakes, yes, but, I feel he's learned from them. Sorry, but, my Support stands. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support' Yeah, oh yeah. Sunder land 06 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, how was I not one of the first to come here? H2O has addressed a major concern from his previous RfA in that he has adapted his editing style to get in some excellent writing. He will make a fine admin, if he is willing to change in such a big way if the community feels he should. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I was a member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club before it even existed. I've seen this user all over the place, always making positive contributions, and I honestly thought he was already an admin without bothering to check. --Qmwne2 3 5 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Same as above! Support, duh! ≈ MindstormsKid 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support for substantially the same reasons as last time, and I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the opposers' concerns. Firstly, I have read the now-deleted IRC chatlog he posted on-wiki some considerable time ago. In that particular chatlog, Majorly did appear to be threatening Giggy (as was) over an oppose on an RfA with which Majorly disagreed. Majorly has since explained that the threats were intended as a joke (and I accept his good faith on this matter), but it doesn't come over that way in the log. It was certainly inappropriate for Giggy to post the chatlog on-wiki; however, given the circumstances, and the fact that it contained no private personal information of any kind, I don't think it was an unforgivable, or even a very serious, lapse of judgment. (As a side point, I personally dislike IRC and have never used it. Almost everything about Wikipedia should be discussed openly on-wiki; stuff that contains private personal information should be discussed by e-mail. Secretive backroom discussions are never a good idea.) I'm not condoning the posting of private discussions on-wiki, but for me it isn't a deal-breaker in this instance. The second incident to which Majorly and AndonicO refer involves DHMO's reference, in another user's Editor Review, to certain off-wiki comments allegedly made by Majorly and AndonicO about that user. Again, this is a lapse of judgment but not a catastrophic one. DHMO should not, in the circumstances, have ascribed those private opinions to individual editors (Chatham House rules should, perhaps, have been applied in this instance), but again, it did not involve the posting of any highly sensitive information in a public forum, and so is a forgivable lapse. With regard to Miranda's oppose, I have examined the diffs she presented. This one appears to be a perfectly civil comment - ironically, it was an apology to Miranda herself - and does not deserve to be characterised as "conspiracy theories about contributors". What he actually said was "You are one of the few people on this project who have this encyclopaedia’s goal at heart…and not Veropedia’s. Keep it up :)" I think the smiley, and the context, make it completely clear that this was substantially a light-hearted comment, not any sort of attack on those contributors who choose to participate in both Veropedia and Wikipedia. To address one further point (made by Majorly): to criticise him for using the terms "raped" and "sexy" in a humorous, light-hearted context is, with all due respect, yet another manifestation of the political correctness which is unfortunately becoming prevalent in Wikipedia culture. In context, these terms have their place in a humorous context; and I do not think we should all be spending our lives carefully considering every word we say, and censoring ourselves, on the off-chance that we might inadvertently give offence to someone. Plus, I've known plenty of admins to use the term "sexy" in a humorous context. It isn't a sign of immaturity. To return, therefore, to the main issue at hand: DHMO is a fantastic editor. There is no need for me to list his countless valuable contributions to the project, as others have done this already. He is one of the most experienced and capable non-admins, and is active both in article work and in projectspace. Will we choose to waste the skills and talents of a willing volunteer due to a few minor lapses of judgment in the past, or will we choose to look beyond them? Remember that perfection is not a pre-requisite for adminship; while we sometimes have candidates who appear to be perfect, they are often hiding things from the community. DHMO doesn't pretend to be perfect, but is honest, trustworthy and experienced, and it is time to make him an administrator. Walton^One 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow - have I beaten Gurch for "longest RfA support rationale ever"? (I can't find the old diff in question, so I'm not sure.) :-) Walton^One 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're over 1000 characters out ... [2] :) Majorly (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had set the record in either Ryulong 3 or Kelly Martin 2, so I suppose I'm disappointed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Per the noms. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
Support - 17 GA's and 4 FA's = Good work. Plus, I have seen this user around quite a bit. The opposes below did "raise an eyebrow" for me. However, I trust Riana's judgment (as nom) and plus this candidate is willing to join administrators open to recall. So here is my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. (audible groan at material revealed below) ...(sigh) ultimately a net positive. Though WP is not a social club, H2O/Giggy/Alex/whatever has a good mix of friendly morale-boosting banter and article writing and collaboration. I am noly supporting on the strength of quite significant article improvement in the face of issues outlined below. Any less and it would have been in net debit but there you go...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support A great contributor, and given the behaviour of certain admins recently you seem mature by comparison. RMHED (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support -- He continues to improve, to do better for WP, and has learned from past mistakes; he's ready now. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Seen this editor around a fair bit, and have always been impressed. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support can't believe I didn't support earlier...in fact, I can't remember if I did, so remove thisif I have...--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support even though all of the below has come out, that doesn't lead me to believe Dihydrogen Monoxide will abuse the tools, and Walton One's support comment above reinforces that. I have seen him around in many places and believe he is an asset to the project. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Like Junglecat, the opposes "raised an eyebrow" for me as well, but I have seen this user around Wikipedia and feel that their contributions will benefit them as an administrator. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support per Walton and my own interactions with the user. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I support this nomination, just like I've supported all of the times DHMO has been nominated for adminship, and again, I have something to say: First off, every single one of my interactions with DHMO has been positive since I first met him back in very-early May of this year. I have found him to be a civil user with great knowledge of policy, and doesn't bully newcomers or revert-war his way across the encyclopedia. Now I won't deny that he's made mistakes and made errors in judgment (we all have, ultimately), but from what I've seen of DHMO, he's someone willing to learn from his mistakes, and due to learning from errors, he is a better editor and person overall. With the last RfAs, I believe that the concerns raised in them have been addressed, and I do not think that they should be continually used again him; however, I will say that the only thing I am worried about is what Majorly's mentioned below about the chatlog issue; I don't know why DHMO felt it was necessary to mention it again, but I think that DHMO realizes that it was wrong to mention it. In the end, I believe that DHMO will be a good administrator: he is an excellent article-writer, he collaborates and works well with people: him being an administrator will be a benefit to the project. The marvelous nomination from Riana (who, I have to say, strongly opposed his last two nominations), only gives me more reason to support, and the co-nomination from Anonymous Dissident is a bonus. Acalamari 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The TRE review is really the only thing going that had me concerned. I think the style of the review was probably inappropriate, regardless of any recent prior interaction between H20 and TRE - but TRE did go on to delete the main page (twice??). Jeffpw's point that we need less, not more drama is well taken - but, I'll hope for the best in this case. Avruchtalk 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support — Will make a good admin. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, seen his contributions.--Astroview120mm 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. I agree with the nominator, noting that she has changed her mind about this candidate. It is time he is given the tools. --Bduke (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Would make a good Admin. Johnfos (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I have given this some thought as I have not always agreed with DHMOs (and previously Giggy's) activities here at Wikipedia, seeing him as more interested in the social aspects of the project. The last few months, however, have seen a great improvement in his focus and a maturity not always evident before, to the point that I see him as an asset to the project. Applying my only real test I use at RfAs, he is unlikely to abuse the tools and therefore deserves my support. Further, opposing based on views held about policy are, to my mind, flawed. As long as he follows existing policy when using the tools, he has every right to work to change policy he disagrees with. Good luck with the nomination. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Of course. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support and on reflection, I should have supported last time as well. — iridescent 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Prodego ^talk 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Acalamari. Daniel 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Giggy's article contribs shows he clearly knows what this project is all about. Even if this ends as no consensus, he'll be an admin in the future. So he might as well get the tools now instead of going through another RfA that will inevitably succeed. Spellcast (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support Experienced in many areas, great article writer. The opposes below do concern me but I trust that you won't do anything like delete the main page. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Jmlk 1 7 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support While I don't always agree with H2O, I generally find him to be a good, trustworthy editor. He has made mistakes in the past (notably the chatlog fiasco), but who hasn't? I believe he has learned from this, and doubt anything of the sort will happen in the future. Basically, he knows what he's doing, and won't abuse the tools. No good reason to oppose. faithless (^speak) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support And I hate giving reasons for support, but I don't want to be reminded of the opposes below, as I have seen them. The opposes are of no concern to me because they are the summation of 'how an admin' should act. A perfect admin has excellent grammar, improves articles, takes no sides, is never terse, is unbiased, and always fair. That's great for a bot. This user is flawed. He has opinions, asserts them, can show bias, and doesn't always bite his tongue. I'm tired of robots. We speak of gaming the system, but being a 1950s American wife incarnate is not my idea of adminship. Having dealt with conflicts, having said shitty things, and getting your hands dirty is the tragic flaw that fails RfAs but gains my support in this case because I support for exactly every reason that is given as an oppose. This user is not the model per se, and we should not aspire to be models, but moreso to be those who are flawed, and carry those flaws over in order to deal with real life situations. Admins should not be held to any higher standard that any other editor, IP or registered. Cops with 4 year degrees are great cops, academically. Those who have been through admin school are great because they have been groomed to follow protocol. This guy's contributions to all areas of Wikipedia have been done with heart,and what's better is that he has made great contributions. Admins can better deal with the 3 extra buttons when they have been on the inverted end of the stick. I'll take experience over grooming any day. the_undertow ^talk 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yah, don't think I could say it better than the undertow up there.^^ — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I opposed this user's RfA on Commons however his behaviour since convinces me I was wrong to do so. Is this user perfect - no - just the same as the rest of us. Will he make mistakes - yes - just the same as the rest of us. However my interaction with this user around wikis makes me quite sure that a dialogue with him is always possible, friendly & worthwhile. That is a very important quality in an admin. Additionally I trust him. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support He is a trustworthy guy. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Without reservation. Fantastic candidate. Maser ^(Talk!) 09:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support A great editor and I think undertow summed up nicely to handle any concerns I had. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 12:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Stop changing your fucking name :) - hahnch e n 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - per all above EJF (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. All this guy does is help and help. I keep bumping into him, and he's a nice, civil editor. Good luck, mate. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - I was torn on this one. Leaning towards neutral, actually. However, upon reading through both the supports and the opposes and taking into consideration his article building and experience as an administrator on Commons, I believe that Alex has gained the necessary maturity to take on the extra buttons. I also believe that he's learned from his mistakes and I hope that he proves his opposers wrong and avoids such mistakes in the future. Lara❤Love 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I wouldn't want to turn a blind eye to the posting of the chatlog, which I am sure we all agree was a bad thing, albeit an isolated incident; but the bottomline is that Giggy is well-intentioned and a great contributor, and that, for me, is a far more mitigating reason why I should support. Chris.B (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not want you to turn a blind eye either, I'll generate some light. D wanted the chatlog to persist. Regards, Mercury 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only becuase it's being cited in this RfA. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's upset certain editors I dared to oppose this user, so despite the fact I don't trust his judgement with sensitive issues one bit, here's my support anyway. What the hell. Majorly (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not impressed by your rationale. Avruchtalk 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by the ugly peer pressure and backstabbing that goes on around here. Especially from so-called friends. Not much anyone can do about it though. Majorly (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck, daring to oppose popular users has made me the outcast I am today. Pedro : Chat 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Pedro. If you're an outcast for your actions, I'm sure there's a seat for me right next to you. the_undertow ^talk 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Honestly already thought this user was a admin. Reason ot belive they would abuse the tools? No. Shows evidence that they understand the core policies to make good administrative decisions? Yes. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Adminship is no big deal and this user has a good head on top of the shoulders. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - I like what I have seen from him, and feel certain the tools are in good hands. docboat (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - definitely. jj137 ^♠ 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Nothing wrong with a little chatlog publishing. Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Would be a great admin. Burner0718 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Would make a great admin. Sting_au Talk 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support User has an admittedly eventful history, and has made, and admitted, mistakes. Most of us make mistakes, but not all of us can admit them, learn from them and move on. I have interacted with this user on a number of occasions, and always positively. And I seriously trust Riana, who opposed previously but now believes in him deeply enough to nominate. I also trust this candidate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Would make a great admin. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 16:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Nothing wrong. Jonathan ^talk \ _contribs 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Well deserved, Giggy.—trey(wiki) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support because he's an outstanding article writer, has familiarity with every significant aspect of the project's operation, and interacts civilly with other editors. (I haven't forgotten that he nominated me for adminship, but that's only a minor factor in my thinking.) I see nothing wrong with the editor review of The Random Editor, and I'm not convinced by the link to the Digwuren arbitration. If these reflect badly at all, the damage was minimal - it's not like he ever vandalized Wikipedia (I'm trying to be ironic here...). Really, look at the big picture, and you'll see what I see. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Appears to be an experienced editor in many areas of Wikipedia and will be able to contribute to reducing backlogs of admin work. Some of the oppose concerns appear to me to be non-issues. Others are not deal-breakers and I'm sure the candidate has learned from having such mistakes pointed out. Note that the candidate's admin recall policy is very generous. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support; H₂O is a valuable editor, trustworthy, and could use the mop. Nothing else needs to be said. — Coren ^(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. I see Dihydrogen Monoxide frequently at the GA pages and his behavior there seems OK to me. Until I read through the opposes below, I would not have realized that the editor has been anything but a great contributor. Considering what adminship is, I do not really see how his past problems would affect his trustworthiness as an admin. Put this way, if his past problems as an editor were serious he should have some blocks but Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), G1ggy (talk · contribs) and DHMO (talk · contribs) all seem to be free of blocks. I am not even certain if I understand the nature of Dihydrogen Monoxide scandalous indiscretions: they do not seem more than silly banter. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I trust the candidate, plain and simple. The undertow's comments are in line with my thinking on this matter. VanTucky ^talk 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
$upport Very well earn't - also as per Riana nom and the_undertow's comments. Dfrg_msc 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

No. Sorry. miranda 11:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel if this user is an administrator, it will be an "us versus them" type of mentality, which drives (and is continuing to drive) this community apart (i.e. new/established/IP editors versus admins) to his friends' own benefits, as seen by this reversal of my edit of a user who I was GA reviewing and this posting on her userpage, without contacting me why he reverted the edit. I really don't understand this user assuming good faith with people who want to legitimately contribute to this project with conspiracy theories about contributors, which is assuming bad faith. miranda 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Miranda... FYI, this is DHMO's RfA. If you want to air your dirty laundry, try your back yard. Lara❤Love 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that was uncalled for... everyone is entitled to their opinion. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, only she's pointing out a situation that has nothing to do with anything. She reverted my edit and he reverted it back citing the message I left on her talk page. Then she claims that in him letting me know of the exchange that he has somehow acted in bad faith. Negative. How this has possibly resulted in an oppose "per Miranda" is beyond me. Lara❤Love 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the reverting nonsense but I do care about the last diff Miranda provided in which the candidate basically impugns most of the editors here. I won't support someone with that attitude. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See, I don't read it that way. I see an apology received with a bad faith assumption. While I agree that there is a jab at the Veropedia crowd in there, I believe it was meant lightheartedly and in a manner that also compliments her. An obvious exaggeration with the "one of few". Lara❤Love 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, I reverted your edit at GAN because Lara had already informed you that she wanted someone else to review the GA. My revert included a link to the diff where she had said that. I don't feel the need to inform you (or anyone) of every revert I make if the edit summary will suffice. The note on Lara's talk page was just as an FYI because she was obviously involved and would probably be interested to know what was happening with her GA review (in her position, I'd be interested too). Finally, I'm shocked that you class an apology for past actions as a bad faith attack on other members of the community. My point was that while Veropedia may serve a great cause, we're on Wikipedia now - we should be working to make the most of it. And for the record, Riana is a Veropedian (last time I checked) and she nominated this RfA. I have nothing against Veropedia or Veropedians. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my concerns. miranda 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC

Also, I guess we are throwing the NPA rule out of the window in 2008? Wikipedia is supposed to be a stress-free activity, but it's starting to become the opposite, which is sad, because this is a volunteer website. As far as Veropedia and involvement, I am not active on that site. What I am trying to say is, admins are supposed to be fair, unbiased, and neutral. We already had an arbcom case about an admin basing her judgment using "empirical evidence" in order to block and "out" a user. Many of the users on this project do not want to go through that again. Thanks, I won't be changing my vote. Well, I will. Make that a strong oppose. miranda 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a stress-free website? Miranda, someone owes you a truckful of white salmon if they sold you on that. Keegan^talk 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Miranda has made her decision and DM has replied. I don't think there's any more need to make comments about salmon, I wish we could talk more about salmon but damn... This is an RfA. Let's just keep it friendly, or if not friendly, at least pleasant. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

~~I abstain from this RFA, due to this remark. This seriously is pathetic. miranda 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)~~

Sorry for this, but due to concerns, I must re-instate my oppose. miranda 04:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: There was a discussion thread here that was removed. Here's a link. I don't mean any disrespect to Majorly in linking to this, but numerous people have referenced the conversation and people shouldn't have to fish through the history to find the comments. Personally I would prefer <s>striking</s> comments, rather than removing them from the page completely. --JayHenry (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose It bothers me that only two months ago, H2O posted these comments. He misquoted myself and Majorly (right after getting opposed in two of his RFAs for similar misconduct), threw WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA out the window, and scared off a recently nominated admin (who he had co-nominated only a week or so before). · AndonicO ^Talk 14:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I paraphrased the two of you exactly. See my response to Majorly, he left for numerous personal reasons none of which had anything to do with the blunt and honest ER he requested. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no, I never said that about Random (nor did Majorly). I did say that he got carried away with his RFA, but then again who doesn't? Your "blunt and honest" review sounds more like it came from a police investigator; I would think that might have been a reason for his leaving (even if not the main one). ^{P.S. Changed my oppose statement slightly, removing an inappropriate phrase that added nothing to the discussion, and replacing it with one that does.} · AndonicO ^Talk 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
HELL NO!Paul 1953 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify why you are opposing, and do so in a more civil manner please? Acalamari 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that User:Paul 1953 has a long history of unprovoked personal attacks, as demonstrated, inter alia, by his userpage history and talk page, I struck the above as an obvious bad-faith vote. I was reverted - I do not understand why, but I have better things to do than edit-war over something so trivial. However, I propose that this vote be formally discounted (just to reiterate, this IS a vote) by the community (not by bureaucrats). There is ample precedent for the community discounting votes (see the history of User:Neil Larson and User:Matthew Richardson). Walton^One 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree it's a comment without value, leave it for the 'crats Walton. Please. Pedro : Chat 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Productive, successful editor in the mainspace - however, objections by Majorly and AO, and the substance behind them weigh too heavily. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Majorly and Miranda. Too many examples of poor judgment. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment You do appreciate, do you, that Majorly has supported (Number 61)?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He sarcastically supported after being harassed for his opposition. That doesn't change the validity of his concerns. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Candidate states in his response to Question 1 that, "The fair use policy is way over my head...". Regardless of any intent to work at WP:IFD, a reasonable grasp of the non-free content policy is essential for all admins, not least because it is used in many other areas besides WP:IFD. CIreland (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably mis-stated that...I have a general knowledge of the fair use policy (I work a bit fair use images in my work on album/songs/video games etc.), I just wouldn't be overly confident applying it in cases of deletion. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough response, I'll strike the oppose. CIreland (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The Majorly log posting incident andBishonen's evidence lead to believe that the admin tools will likely be misused (though not necessarily abused). I don't trust the candidate's judgement at this time. Chaz ^Beckett 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- an excellent and hard working contributor, however comments made at the editor review referred to above raise concerns with judgement and maturity. I like to see a good solid history of level-headedness in potential administrators, and those comments were made as recently as October. Happy to reconsider in the very near future should this editor choose to nominate again. - Longhair\^talk 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any one the issues raised in the past as a deal-breaker. However, there are many lesser problems that cause me serious concern. After reading your three previous RfAs, I find that each one had a different one for failing. The first one failed primarily for inexperience; however, if it had continued longer than it had, I believe the answer to Q4 would have caused it to fail instead. I find that answer a serious problem. Your second one failed for the essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars and posting of private conversations on wiki. I agree that both of these incidents are cause for concern. Finally, your most recent one had the most conerncing issues of all. Two concerns were your renames, and your views on who should be administrators. I don't particularly disagree with the latter, although how you phrased it could have been better, and I clearly shouldn't comment on the former. The major concern, and in my mind most inexcusable, was the GA passing issue. That is not good behaviour at all. Finally, on this RfA, the TRE review. The first thing I noticed when reading it was your tendency to repeat other editors' off-wiki comments. It was very inappropriate to name those people without their consent. (I assume, based on their comments here, that this was not the case). In addition, the review was not civil, as AndonicO has said. These are the most prevalent concerns I've seen in your RfAs. These issues, combined with an overarching theme of lack of maturity and poor judgment, plus other little things here and there in opposing comments of your RfAs cause me enough concern to oppose your RfA. I am sorry about this, really. I wanted to support you, but I cannot in good conscience do so with the concerns I listed above. You are an excellent article writer, and I hope that you continue to do so, and after several months of addressing these concerns, (or at least giving enough time after them to show you've changed your habits) and editing, I hope you have another RfA I can support. I (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the views expressed in Q4 of the 1st RfA haven't represented my opinion for a long time. Same applies with templating the regulars, and the administrator stance. Although not that long a time in some cases...still, the point stands. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. One would hope your views have changed on those issues. I was making note of those points not because all of the concerns are still particularly relevant, but because it shows that with each successive RfA, it isn't a single issue that continually prevents a successful result, but instead issues that are rather different from previous ones. This shows to me that while you usually (with the exception of discussing/posting private conversation without participants' consent) address the previous problems, new issues have a habit of continually arising. This, to me, demonstrates that you aren't, for lack of a better word, learning behaviour that becomes an administrator, and then demonstrating it. Upon reviewing my initial comment, I see that I didn't make that very clear; I apologize. But it is what I just discussed, plus concerns brought up in this and previous RfAs, viz. private conversations, the tone of your review of TRE, the poor judgment you have sometimes exhibited and maturity issues, that cause me to oppose. I do not doubt your support of the project or its goals, and by no means am I discounting your excellent contributions to content and elsewhere, but I do not believe that, at this point in time, you are ready to be an administrator. I fully believe that after several months of continuing to edit, addressing these concerns, and having no new ones come up, you will make an excellent administrator. I (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Apart from failing to meet my usual RFA standard of at least 20-something FAs and being a horrible admin at the Commons, </joke> Majorly presents some serious concerns. I know I'm not one to talk about immaturity, but whatev... --Agüeybaná 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite impressed with the 'pedia building. But I'm still concerned that your cliquishness will cloud your judgment. Just last week you rudely attacked another editor for opposing EVula's RfB and accused Cecropia of assuming bad faith by asking questions. I understand that these discussions do get frustrating but comments like "Grow up Nick. You've opposed, you've had someone prove you wrong and give a long list of reasons why that's the case. Restating your case will do nothing for you - give us a real argument, withdraw your oppose, or leave us alone" are completely unacceptable. Look, I disagreed with Nick too, but nobody proved his opinion wrong, and you can't treat people like this. You're nice to your WikiFriends, but you have to start being nice to the rest of us too. We're all in this together. Also maybe slow down a bit? Four RfAs in 8-9 months as a contributor? --JayHenry (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think I'm the Nick in question there. I appreciate and agree with your sentiment in general Jay but to be fair to H20 I personally have no problem whatsoever with what he said in that diff or the manner in which he said it. I'm pretty blunt myself at times and I'm not complaining if someone else is too, it's fair enough in the rough and tumble of debate as far as I'm concerned even if what he said was inaccurate in every regard. (I'd also like to point out that my oppose below was for another reason and I only noticed this comment afterwards.) Why is the numbering inaccurate in this section by the way? The numbers on this section go 1 - 10 then start at 1 again, giving a somewhat misleading impression of the overall total. Nick mallory (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbering fixed - The issue was that the reply needs to be made using #: rather than ::. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, I wasn't implying any skulduggery, my knowledge of the markup stuff is minimal. Feel free to strike the last bit of my comment if you like as it's no longer relevant. Nick mallory (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Although Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best article writer's I've come across, I agree with Majorly. Qst 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Sadly Oppose - While looking through some of Miranda's concern and Majorly's add-on, it seems that you have a hard time differentiating between humor and secondly "Per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly (admin only)"..Chatlogs publishing is so so wrong :| and also this since you leaked private info/conversation and thus can not really be trusted..soory..but you are a Great Guy and Crikey I would love to have you as an admin, but your immaturity takes the better of you..Comet styles 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Regretful oppose I was neutral in H20's last RFA. My comment from the last RFA was this:

I cannot in good faith oppose or support H20. Dihydrogen, you seem to take the office of adminship a bit too seriously. The mop isn't that big of a deal. Personally, I think that you might make a good Admin, but such comments (like your answer to Q7) greatly confuse and bewilder me. In my opinion, it is always better to be a Wikipedian who is not an admin but greatly contributes to the encyclopedia than a mop who spends all his time doing his administrative duties. What first drew me to Wikipedia was the knowledge to be found here and the fact that anyone could contribute to the articles. After a while here, I too got caught up in the administrative duties, spending all my time scouring RFA, AIV, FPC, SPEEDY, etc. Eventually, I took a step back and realized that what is truly enjoyable (for me, anyway) was the process of contributing to the articles rather than dealing with the administrative tasks. Administrators, I believe, should be Wikipedians who enjoy contributing knowledge to the encyclopedia and improving the quality of articles rather than ones who enjoy doing administrative duties. You, it seems, do not wish to contribute to the articles but rather to the administrative stuff that seems to be running rampant now on Wikipedia. And, while that's somewhat good also (in it's own way), you don't need a mop to do that.

There is always this to worry about. And this. And this. And this, which I feel is representative of how an admin should never act. There's also the fact that this is your fourth RFA or so in less than a year, although some might charge that it was cleverly disguised as your second due to the fact that you had two previous RFAs under different names. All of this being said, I think H20 is a good editor who just takes Wikipedia a bit too seriously. Your acceptance of this RFA, your 4th in under a year!, gives me the impression that you are actively and recklessly aiming for the title of administrator. And remember, the mop isn't that big of a deal. I suggest you keep your temper in check, be less involved in cliques, and take a break from bi-monthly RFAs. This being said, I really am sorry that I have to oppose on this issue. Unfortunately, it is my view and the view of many others that you are not ready for the tools at this time. --Shark face 217 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The concerns expressed above lead me to believe that this user tends to develop a fortress mentality that is not conducive to being a good administrator. east.718 at 23:39, December 28, 2007
Sadly I've supported your RFA's in the past, but I can't per the comments and concerns raised by Jayhenry, and Majorly. Dureo (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. At first, I thought I was the only unlucky person to experience breach of privacy from DMHO. Little did I know that other editors, such as Majorly, also experienced similiar problems. This issue was shown on my unsuccessful RfA. In here,[3], DMHO said " since you got my MSN details onwiki, it's an onwiki matter for me". Let me remind you, DMHO, I emailed you (using Wikipedia's email user function) when I discovered you're about to leave Wikipedia through your userpage. I did not obtain your email/MSN unless you replied back. You personally requested me to add you on MSN to discuss about why you're leaving (DMHO, check it out yourself, you send it on September 5, 2007 at 12:52:22 AM). I admit I was wrong when I changed my MSN nickname to the RfA link, but isn't that so-called canvassing the same thing as posting a notice on my userpage announcing that I'm going through an RfA? To sum things up, I feel very unconfident that when you become admin because you'll be able to access a lot of personal information when your previous records counts against you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust him as an administrator. He seems unstable and has an unhealthy air of rogueness about him. John Reaves 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, too liable to give into the temptation to say things he knows perfectly well he shouldn't. DGG (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I might have let the whole Majorly log posting incident go as old news, if he had not brought it up again during the RFA last month. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I respect the nominators greatly, and his contributions to the project are admirable. But through my personal experiences with him I really don't think he's mature enough to use the tools wisely. krimpet ✽ 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose → JayHenry's & Majorly's arguments, mainly. I do value privacy offwiki, and I don't want a user who appears to disregard privacy so much to access deleted revisions. Also, we've got completely different view of adminship [4]. And I do not like Bishonen's evidence at Digwuren's rfar. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have since taken back the comments on Melburnian's RfA. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Don't really trust him enough. --Folantin (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Majorly[5], and in spite of Walton's support rationale. Posting bits of private communication (and repeatedly) is a total deal-breaker; total as in never. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:01, December 29, 2007

As a sidenote, I feel I should add that I'm utterly unimpressed with Miranda's comments here. I almost supported out of spite for her purely personal, non-rationale opposition. Also, I think rspeer's oppose from DMHO's last RfA still holds true. Where is Kurt Weber when you need him? I dorftrottel I talk I 14:04, December 29, 2007

To my understanding, Kurt only participates self-noms ;-) --Agüeybaná 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not correct, I've seen him support in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ruhrfisch. We should make him 'crat one of these days :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Kurt would be a good bureaucrat as I'm afraid he would let his instinct take over and decide to refuse some self-noms as admins even when the consensus shows different. Just a thought though. Tim meh^contribs 01:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose you're just kidding. Kurt would of course make a fabulous 'crat. The only reason he isn't one is that RfBs are usually self-noms. I dorfbaer I talk I 10:40, December 31, 2007
I cannot support at present and must oppose. DHMO does fine editing but there are some maturity issues here. After the imbroglio over the chatlog issue, he did bring it up again in November which has the effect of re-posting it to admins only. You brought it up there in order to affect the voting. You simply did not learn. In addition there are other issues which couple to together to make me uncomfortable. I'll not support if I am going to have to worry about the new admin. I am sorry. -JodyB _talk 15:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Does not understand sensitive and private issues / oppose~~. This editor has decided to indirectly disclose the contents of an email reply concerning oversight of nonpublic personal information. Two issued here. First issue. Administrators are given access to deleted contributions. With the editor indirectly releasing the contents of the email, I fear what may happen with the access. Second issue, a good understanding of oversight is required. In that, it is not up to the requester if an oversight is done, but the oversighter. Also, that PII needs deleted or oversighted. I'll disclose that D did oppose my RFA< but the reason I oppose his, I have explained. Regards, Mercury 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would never have made that connection had you not brought it up. As a matter of fact I'm still bloody confused :s ~ Riana ⁂ 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My email response was related to this chatlog. Mercury 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still confused but it's probably just me being me. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury, I'd have thought that there being no log whatsoever of where that page went would be a very clear sign it got oversighted. Another admin, who I won't name or anything, asked on IRC yesterday if they could see the log, I said it was still onwiki and that the page was noted here, probably. They found the page, looked through the deleted edits, etc. etc. and came back to me and said that there was no trace of the log. Gone. I really don't think me saying the word "oversight" will make a difference when it's so blatantly obvious that the oversight has taken place. Oh yeah, I find it unlikely that an oversight would have oversighted the content had you not notified them, so yes, it was up to you. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You still don't assuage my concerns regarding your understanding of oversight and the need for removing PII via deletion and oversight. This is en.wiki policy. As far as my concerns still existing, so does my nonsupport of this RFA. Regards, Mercury 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, sometimes oversighters are in on the drama and oversight diffs at their discretion. At least I think that is what happens. Spebi 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose My own experiences with the editor continue to suggest there are significant concerns regarding his level of maturity and judgment. Xoloz (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - After some reading and thought, I have decided to oppose your RfA, friend. Concerns about maturity put me off mostly. But also the revealing of private chat logs is also quite worrying. If a contributor needed help with a personal problem that required quiet discretion, would they be more inclined to request help from someone who has published private material in the past? I think if you became an admin, user's who know of your past (specifically the Majorly thing) wouldn't be able to trust you with sensitive predicaments. Sorry, you are a great article writer, but trust is an issue. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose John254 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose From experience at GAC/FAC, I know Dihydrogen Monoxide is a phenomenal article writer. However, a number of civility and maturity issues have been brought up in the above opposes. If they were minor, I would let them slide, but some of them appear quite serious, so I must oppose this RfA, unfortunately. I suggest you keep up the excellent article work, but be cautious with your comments to other users. If you exhibit an improved level of maturity and civility, then you should be fine, come your next RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Bishonen's evidence is the killer for me.--Doc^g 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Until I see a good explanation for this issue Bishonen's evidence which was raised, but not really tackled, at the last RfA. Nick mallory (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per the answer to my question, and to the nominee's answer to question number 1. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns raised above. Icestorm815 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I could write a long treatise here on how Wikipedia is not Myspace, how we're writing an encyclopaedia and how the things referenced by the opposition above are not a big deal, but your reactions in the debate about them (on this very page too) are a big deal. Such a treatise would contradict its message, so I will not write it here. User:Krator (t c) 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Maturity issues and Bishonen's evidence .--Sandahl 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

#Oppose — I have no problem with people who disagree with my well-known stance on self-noms. I do have a problem with people who can't keep control of themselves when they are expressing that opposition. Qst did just that in an IRC discussion we had earlier this week on that issue, and I see no reason to think he will be able to maintain control in other situations, either. Quite simply, he is too temperamental. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Somehow I was under the mistaken impression that DHMO and Qst are the same individual. That is not the case. My apologies to DHMO. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Non-reason turned nonexistent-non-reason... I dorfbaer I talk I 11:36, December 30, 2007

How is a volatile temperament a "non-reason" for recommending that someone not be in a position of technical (i.e. blocking, deleting, etc.) and social (i.e. potential chilling effect) power? --Iamunknown 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How does telling Kurt Weber, on IRC, your honest opinion about his opposes in plain words prove a volatile temperament? I dorfbaer I talk I 19:52, December 30, 2007

Ah, a reply posed as a question but intended as an answer. Very clever. Were you on IRC? Did Qst give Kurt Weber an "honest opinion about his opposes in plain words"? That is not how I read Kurt's initial comment. --Iamunknown 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this Qst's RfA? And yes, I think this is what it boils down to, without having seen it. Consider that "honest opinion about his opposes in plain words" may well include the f-word, and other poems. I dorfbaer I talk I 22:05, December 30, 2007

Okay, I think I now understand your opinion. --Iamunknown 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Per above cited Bishonen evidence. --Strothra (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not trust this user with the tools. Ral315 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per all above. --n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 11:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Bishonen's evidence. Ronnotel (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Multiple rationales, see above. -- Y not? 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Bishonen's evidence and maturity issues as mentioned Whitstable (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose because of Bishonen's evidence and the Random Editor editor review. Captain panda 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose too many concerns this time. Hopefully next time. Dloh cierekim 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose per the above concerns. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. 1) Wilful fraudulent disruption of the GA process per Bishonen's evidence. I personally can't believe he is still allowed to review, and have no respect for his claimed GA contributions. 2) Three previous RFAs, under three different user names, within four months' time (2 of which being self-nominations); He has tried to give reasoning behind the multiple name changes in these previous RFAs as "Wiki-Stalking" but frankly this does not make sense to me personally, as there was history behind each of these names that led directly to the new name anyway. Question whether or not to hide history/linkage. Motives questioned and cannot be trusted. 3) This user seems all too anxious to attain a "mop and bucket" as is evidenced here and here. (I've seen more comments such as this, but this is what I could find in a hurry). Again, motives questioned. 4) This language is not befitting of an administrator. Only one example. 5) Other multiple objections in previous RfAs that are just too hard to overlook, ever. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1) I invite you to look at any of my recent GA reviews. I'll also say again what I've said previously - we didn't know each other, there was no willful fraud or anything of the sort. I just made a mistake on a review. 2) First rename was contained nothing to hide, second rename was because the "Giggy" account was being harassed in real life. Numerous users can vouch for this. No history behind that rename, I invite you to show one. 3) First diff was a joke related to my Commons adminship, see also Riana's comment to my talk page (where she jokingly threatened a block), as I was replying to it. Second diff has been done to death, I have nothing more to say about it. 4) I agree. But there were plenty of equally incivil admins there. 5) I find it difficult to believe it's possible for an event to never be "old news". — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you his "claimed GA contributions" are valid; DHMO is an excellent article writer. · AndonicO ^Talk 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the last two RfAs, I believe I clearly explained that the issue with Jmlk17 was a joke. See this. Acalamari 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Will add himself to recall, and already has policy... We don't need the drama associated with that, and I don't want DHMO to be an admin if he is so committed to something that constantly causes drama. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - needs to address the above concerns before being granted further responsibility. The Transhumanist 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

Neutral and Abstaining I want to support, I see a lot of good qualities in this contributor, but his comments at random editor, and other previous WP:CIVIL violations concern me greatly. I don't feel I can support right now, but I don't oppose either. If we don't see any more comments like that for a few months, I will be more willing to give my full support. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I also want to support, but for the same reason as Mr Sensless, I must abstain. Good luck though, Dihydrogen Monoxide! S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - I was coming here to support, but the issues raised in the opposes, the fact that many of the opposes come from editors and admins I respect a lot, and the attacks on people who oppose force me to remain neutral here. While I don't think he'd delete the main page or indef block those he is in conflict with, Wikipedia has enough tension and conflict with adding another possible source. Jeffpw (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral DHMO is a great editor, and I see him around all the time, be it on my watchlist, beating me to reverts, and whatnot. However, the issues brought up on the opposes above, plus on his last RfA, make me too uneasy to support; I guess I'm just getting mixed messages. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I must echo all of the above neutrals: I see this user around often and am always impressed by the amount and quality of his work. I have even wondered why he is not an admin. However, reviewing the opposes above, I understand. This user has not shown the level of maturity or level-headedness that I expect in an admin. As said above, I have no doubt that this user would never abuse the tools. I can not, however, be so sure he would never misuse them. SorryGuy Talk 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I couldn't be more neutral, which is sad. DM's a valued user with plenty of experience for the admin tools, but I must echo some of the concerns raised by the opposers, especially DM's temperament. Hús ö nd 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - I want to support, and came here to support, but after reviewing (for over 1 hour) the issues raised by the opposes, I cannot give my support at this time. The other users who are neutral also echo my sentiments. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not sure I want Alex to have the tools, but I am sure that he's an excellent article writer and, in general, a good, good person. There are some damning examples of misjudgement above, but my personal liking of DHMO stops me from getting in the way of his success by adding another oppose. After all, I'm not sure I want him to have the tools, but that means that I'm also not sure I want him to lack them. -- Mike (Kicking222) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I respect Giggy a lot, but its rather disturbing to see so many issues brought up by so many other respected Wikipedians; the seesaw is now hovering.--CM (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, though I hope that if does not pass you will continue to make productive contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Good user, may have an elevated idea of the importance of holding admin tools. Too many real question marks raised above for me to support at this time. --John (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
per John. Note that Giggy's an admin at Commons now... perhaps being an admin there will be of benefit in giving Giggy more experience in dealing with people and situations in a calm and reasoned way. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I admire your work and effort on the good articles project in particular, but I am worried about some of the opposed comments, especially relating to how you might use the tools if you were given them (based on your judgement in a few past examples above). While I myself have no personal reasons to oppose you, I also think there are too many valid opposed opinions to support you. Because of this, I'm voting neutral for now. Best regards, LordHarris 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Per all above, I must remain neutral. Please don't be discouraged, though. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, Don't Ask, Don't Tell--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What's you're acutal reason for neutral? Acalamari 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - other than tossing a coin, I can't make a vote either way. And by the way, as the original delister of the DoSO article, I don't think Giggy was particuarly spiteful, just rather silly. Will ^(talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact the correct word is "stupid", not "silly", you've summed it up perfectly :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Regretful Neutral - I really really want DM to become an admin! I would love nothing more than to say, yes, he's should have the tools. But I can't when he continues to make comments and poor calls like the ones expressed by the oppose voters. I don't feel the need to vote oppose and pound more nails into DM's coffin - I don't want to make such a fine article editor so disgeartened that he may leave... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral You have done some great work in articles; but some of the oppose comments prevent me from supporting. Cheers, --Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 22:24, 31 December 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.

Categories: Unsuccessful requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

[edit] Questions for the candidate

[edit] General comments

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search