Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide

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.

Contents

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

(54/58/16); Originally scheduled to end 03:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination unsuccessful. --Deskana (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination, mainly because I felt sorry for Husond and Acalamari after they were forced to defend me last time. This time, it's just me (and my contribs) doing the talking. I'll keep the nom short, I'm sure my answers to the questions below will summarise my activity well enough. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O)

[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: I intend to work most actively in speedy deletion and AfD closures. These are the areas in which I am currently most active. I would also do some work at MfD and AIV I used to be more active in vandalfighting, and I'm only new at MFD, so these would not be focus areas for me. I would also be happy to do other work if requested. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributiosn are my articles - 6 created, 5 good articles, 1 featured list. Of these, my proudest work is Starlight (song), as it was the GA which contained the least collaboration - all of it was my own work. However, I am a strong supporter of collaboration, as can be seen in the other four good articles. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
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: The circumstances surrounding my last RfA caused me some stress, as did the events which caused my sudden departure at the end of August (those who need to know more, know more). However, there haven't been many article issues that have seriously bothered me - I generally try to keep a cool head in such debates, and not let it get to me. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4. (Self question) You said a few days ago that you'd run next month. What gives?
A: I'm running now because I'm in my first week of school holidays, in which I don't intend to think about school much. Next week I'll be doing a heck of a lot of catchup, and then it's back to school. This way, it's more convenient for me, and I'm able to answer questions etc. more quickly. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ronnotel

5. In your last RfA, the biggest concern centered mainly on your essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars, now deleted at your request. What did you learn from that experience and what would you have done differently? Ronnotel 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A: I've learnt a good deal about how dispute resolution should be undertaken - not through harsh templating, but through neutral discussion. I certainly wouldn't suggest something like that in the future. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ta bu shi da yu

6. What is more important, improving articles or clearing admin backlogs? Why?
A: Improving articles. We are an encyclopedia. Admin backlogs will be cleared when I have writer's block. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Faithlessthewonderboy

7. Is this comment still representative of your views on who should be granted adminship? If so, could you explain your reasoning?
A: In essence, yes it is. I still don't see the need for a user who spends the majority (say > 90%) of his time working on articles to get the tools, considering he'll barely use them. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"He'll barely use them" is a very silly reason to oppose a candidate for adminship. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and every trustworthy editor should ideally be an admin. Melsaran (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, DHM co-nominated me, although the very first line of my RFA was "I'll barely use them" & my mainspace edits outnumber my Wikipedia-space edits 4-1 — it seems to be a throwaway comment he made once, not his personal design for life — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll expand on this answer (see also my views on adminship) - I don't believe it necessary to grant the admin tools to an editor whose first experience in an admin area will be when they are incorrectly deleting an article or blocking a vandal. Prior practice is the key, in my eyes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's asking about the trivial case where people have no experience with meta-tasks. You state that people should be opposed for what you consider little experience, but by "experience" you mean "edit count on an inflated scale". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(<--)No I don't - if I meant that I'd say it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I probably don't use my admin tools for more then 5% of edits; hence according to this rule of thumb I 'don't need them'. But than one would forget that because of my activity, my 5% of edits are more than 100% of those of most editors. Hence, I'd be very careful with such statistics.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Opional question from GDonato (talk)

8. Why do you feel that you would be a good administrator or how do you think that you being an administrator would improve or help to improve Wikipedia?
A I'll try to answer this question neutrally (ie. without too much self promotion), but my answer will inevitably be a bit biased. Why do I think I would be a good administrator? Because I have sufficient experience and knowledge in administrator related areas. Therefore, I believe that me being an administrator would improve Wikipedia in the same way that any other good admin helps the project - lowering backlogs, making correct decisions, etc. etc. You may wish to also read my views on adminship. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from IP

9. Can you explain this close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola E770, doesn't seem anywhere near a consensus to keep. 131.94.22.243 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A Yes, I can. Very few of the deletion arguments carried as much weight as the keep arguments. For example, the nom describes the poor state of the article, as do Jakew and JForget's comments. A poor article state is no reason to delete it, rather to improve it. MarkBul's comment compares the phone to an iPod (or in this case, iPhone, perhaps...) - obviously not everything is that notable, yet we don't delete stuff for being less notable then iPod. Same with Mbisanz's comment - not all phones need to be AS notable as the really, really popular ones, for as long as they are still notable, which this one is. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Jreferee

10. Did Non-administrators closing discussions justify your non-admin closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola E770 and, if so, do you think it is a good idea to let non-admins close AfD discussions having a mixture of keeps and deletes? -- Jreferee T/C 08:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A Yes, Non-administrators closing discussions does justify my closure of that AfD. It reads "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." There was a consensus, and as I consider myself familiar with the deletion policy, I am able to close without an unambiguous result. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spawn Man

11. You mentioned on User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy that "...If that [this RfA] gets rejected on the “too soon since last time” basis, I probably will lose all faith..." - If you knew that you would get opposes on this basis, why did you still go ahead and nominate yourself, and do you think it's fair saying you'll lose all faith when the time between nominations is a legitimate oppose to some people?
A Well, I was hoping/assuming/AGFing/whatevering that people wouldn't oppose based on "too soon", considering the issues in the last RfA weren't "he's uncivil" or "low experience" - rather, they were one off events that can't exactly be undone. Therefore, I went ahead a nominated with the mindset that people might realise that issues were different to normal RfA issues, and therefore not dish out the boilerplate oppose. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Anecdote

12. Most editors are supporting you in your request for adminship (me being among them). There are also many users not favoring giving you the mop. Why would you say this is happening, and are there any misconceptions you see throughout this discussion that may be contributing to some users declining to support you?
A I'm being opposed for a variety of issues, not all of which I consider to be "valid". Some reasons include my stance on RfA (entirely unrelated to how I would use the admin tools), my jokingly calling someone something they had called themself, my taking an enforced wikibreak (well, not enforced break, I could just as easily have left the project entirely =/), my apparent "hypocrisy" (the the point that people don't even need to read my responses to them, because the response must be hypocritical...), my contradictory answers to questions (I said I'd lower backlogs in my spare time, not end them completely), my getting pissed off at people who just have to take the wrong approach (ultimately my loss, not theirs), and my not understanding the use of redlinks in lists of rivers. Oh noes! With such a long list reasons (mostly) irrelevant to how I would use the mop and bucket, how could you support? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spawn Man

13. If this RfA were to fail, what course of action would you take (I.E. Leave, go on a wikibreak, continue)...? And if you were an outsider and had to vote on this RfA, what would you vote/say and why?

Optional question from Onnaghar

14. Can I ask why you went for a editor review just 2 days before posting your RfA? - I'm sure the review system is so you can review your (person in general) edits and how to edit "better". In 2 days I'm not sure whether that can happen. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A


Optional question from LaraLove

15. In this diff, you are accused of making an agreement in IRC with another editor to pass one another's GA nominations. Can you please explain this?
A

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2 Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
Requests for adminship/Giggy
Requests for adminship/G1ggy

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dihydrogen Monoxide before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I looked at the cache for the page "User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy" which 'Hesperian' refers to below here and found:

I’m listening to Wake Me Up When September Ends as I write this, and it’s somewhat appropriate. I won’t run again before October, most likely, and this gives me two months at least. If that gets rejected on the “too soon since last time” basis, I probably will lose all faith :P

Which I think is what 'Hesperian' is referring to. It just seemed relevant. Backsigns 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is why people are opposing based on his views about RfA; this is something which seems to have been blown out of all proportion. He made the legitimate point that, as most administrative tasks involve maintenance and projectspace work, the users who are active in maintenance and projectspace are those who are most likely to need the admin tools. He didn't say that editors who write a lot of articles should automatically be denied adminship, which is what some people seem to be reading into his statements. Also, his views about RfA should not be a reason to oppose him, even if you disagree with them. He has a solid record in both maintenance and article-building, and I don't understand the opposes. WaltonOne 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • People are opposing because they think Dihydrogen Monoxide is being hypocritical. H2O believes that encyclopedia builders should not be granted adminship tools because they would be "overwhelmed" in managing both article writing and admin chores. The problem is, that he fits in this category, himself. The issue also brings in doubt regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide's judgment. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and the fact that people may have possibly been denied adminship in the past because he opposed for these reasons. 86.137.127.139 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
        • What Niskid says isn't true. I've elaborated on my thoughts on adminship on the talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
          What you said: "I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them."
          What Niskid said: "H2O believes that encyclopedia builders should not be granted adminship tools because they would be "overwhelmed" in managing both article writing and admin chores."
          And you accuse Niskid of not speaking the truth? Hesperian 12:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Yep - the talk page clarifies my initial statement (as @pple said below), so what Nishkid says simply isn't true. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • According to H2O, candidate only working on article writing, in other words, a person whose contribution has 90% focusing on mainspace, shouldn't be granted with tools. Regarding H2O's recent contribution stats which consists of 1514 mainspace and 1791 wikipedia namspace, he has shown a well balance between article writing and admin chores. Therefore, Nishkid's remark that H20 being hypocritical because he himself belongs to that category is somewhat inaccurate. @pple complain 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree. To call him hypocritical in this case is inappropriate. It's also said repeatedly here that all editors are permitted to judge applicants against their own set of criteria. This seems like people opposing solely because they don't agree with his criteria. Criteria that he, contrary to popular belief in this discussion, does satisfy. LaraLove 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just realised this hasn't been mentioned yet. If promoted, I would certainly add myself to the category of admins open to recall. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Why not? --DarkFalls talk 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. support Good editor. Deserves the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Über support - Yes, yes, yes! He is an amazing editor, and, I might add, very thorough with GAs. Good luck DHMO! Love, Neranei (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Edit conflicted Support, he has gone through much, and learned a lot in the process. A fabulous person, a hard working editor and an excellent candidate. Phaedriel - 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Why the heck not? --Hirohisat Kiwi 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Good user, will be a good administrator. Although I would've liked more time since the last one. — i said 04:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support He's been around for quite a while and seen a lot, and while I'm with I in that the gap between RfAs is a bit short, that shouldn't keep me from supporting a candidate who is fully qualified for the position. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks like a great participant for a sysop. — E talkbots 04:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I'm familar with this user and his work, so I see no problem in giving this user adminship. Icestorm815 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Watered-down Support. (Sorry, that was bad.) Great contributions by the candidate. He should make a good admin. Majoreditor 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I am withdrawing support due to this evidence from Bishonen Majoreditor 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support writes articles. Cleans up vandalism. Nice guy. Will make a great admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Support - Having worked with this user for some time now, I trust him with the tools. Also, knowing the circumstances of his "sudden departure", I'd like to note that it's totally irrelevant to adminship. LaraLove 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral until question 15 is answered. LaraLove 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Should make a good admin. I could have sworn you were one before or something; maybe it's a side effect of that editcountitis medicine I've been taking. bibliomaniac15 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Edit Conflict Support! i trust him with the tools. --Chris  G  04:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, I've worked with H20 quite a bit recently, and I can see that he's changed since his previous failed RfAs, and has learned from his faults. I totally trust him with the tools. Sebi [talk] 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support I have seen nothing but good from this user. He is dependable, a hard worker, and a trusted editor. The differences shown on my talk page with him are nothing but two friends just horsing around, and I trust him to not abuse the tools whatsoever. Jmlk17 08:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that people are opposing over this comment which was clearly a joke, and the user at whom it was directed has Supported above. As to AfDs and AIV reports, everyone makes mistakes or misjudges a situation; I've done so plenty of times in the past, and it doesn't make me a bad admin (I hope). I am also shocked to see that he's being opposed over his name change, which he explained was for personal reasons. And I'm even more shocked to see that he's being opposed about some of his past opinions on RfA, and for the creation of an essay which some people just didn't like (but which did raise some valid points) - it looks like we're getting to the point now where everyone is forced to comply with the True Path of Consensus Thinking, and those who commit heresy must recant before being accepted in the community. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a fantastic editor. I see him around all the time, he's always civil, cheerful and knowledgeable about policy, and I really hope this RfA succeeds. WaltonOne 09:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong support. Finally. Everyone makes mistakes, Giggy has learned from them, and I see no reason to oppose for (silly) incidents that happened prior to his last RFA. This candidate is civil, experienced, thoughtful, and generally suitable for the mop. Melsaran (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. ULTRA STRONG SUPPORT definitly will make a great admin--Phoenix 15 10:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support I am confident that this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I may not agree with his stance over the importance of article editing, but I've seen this user firsthand in various XfD discussions, and his knowledge in Wiki-maintenance tilts me towards support. His last RfA was over 1 1/2 months and 2,500 edits ago, which I think is enough time for me. But the concerns listed below are important, so Dihydrogen, take care during your admin work to prove these concerns wrong. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Yes, he has had issues, but he is also a fantastic contributor. Recurring dreams 12:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I don't think I've collaborated with a more pivotable editor in all of Wikipedia. I understand he's rather young and very teachable. Most importantly, our mistakes here on Wikipedia are all revertible, so no error is too great, so to speak. I think he'd add a great deal more than the void he'd leave. --lincalinca 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animum (talk • contribs)
    Support, very positive contributor to mainspace, though Q7 a bit troubles me. However, you still gain my trust. Good luck! @pple complain 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Change to oppose. @pple complain 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support I supported this user on his previous 2 RfAs and all I can see is more improvement. ♠TomasBat 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Most definitely CO2 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I suppose you atmospheric gases have to stick together, eh? Caknuck 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I've seen this user quite a lot over Wikipedia, and after looking over his contributions, I think we'd have a good sysop on our hands if he gets the position. Regards - IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. I supported the first RfA, I co-nominated and strongly supported the second, and I'm going to strongly support the third. I do agree that Dihydrogen Monoxide could lower his RfA standards a bit, as they are unnecessarily high, but that's my only issue with the candidate. I was annoyed at how the last RfA sank the way it did, and it seems this one will do the same. With all his errors, Dihydrogen Monoxide has explained about and responded to the mistakes of the last two RfAs, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. Hesperian's concerns are old problems. Acalamari 18:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Support Based on what I have seen, we have a dedicated, trustworthy editor who makes continued positive contributions to Wikipedia in his own fashion. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he would abuse use of the tools. Into The Fray T/C 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support I think the comments in the oppose section are quite overblown. You'll make a great Administrator. Pursey Talk | Contribs 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Support My one concern from last time (about his interpretation of WP:BLP) isn't a problem any more, and (while maybe I'm stupid) I can't really see major problems with anything raised in the oppose. While I never read "Template the regulars", from the discussion (someone strike this bit through if I'm wrong) I assume it was advocating more use of boilerplate text as a way to prevent the perception of Esperanza-style "regulars v newbies" cliques, and while I don't really agree with it that's a valid view. I don't see the "botlike" edits as a problem from the adminship point of view; AWB & Twinkle shed a spotlight on any misunderstandings of policy; if you're doing 1000 edits a month & misinterpreting policy, your talkpage will be a flood of "Why did you revert this?" posts, and I see no evidence of this. (Hell, I've racked up 5000 edits this month cleaning up the {{UK-rail-stub}} category.) As Lara says, he carried over the edit history & didn't try to hide the name change, so I can't see any issue with that - it's not like he's trying to hide anything. I don't know about the whole "private chatlogs" thing, so can't make any comments on that, but on what I've seen I can't see any problems. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Just to point out, now that you're an admin you can read through all that deleted content to your heart's content ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    There's a difference between "able to do so" and "feels the urge to wade through deleted contributions having just worked three twelve hour shifts in a row with two more to come" — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support The current contributions of this editor have been fine and they've demonstrated a capacity to learn from mistakes i.e. take constructive criticism. Also, many of the most vocal oppose arguments seem to be having trouble assuming good faith, and make the veiled accusation that Di is power hungry. That is unacceptable. VanTucky Talk 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Good to see you support an RfA for a change. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Good to see you oppose for a change. You might notice that I've actually supported several candidates this period, maybe even more than I've opposed. VanTucky Talk 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Glad to see it makes you glad. However, many of your supports and opposes I noticed are on uncontroversial RfAs; where uncontroversial means "should pass". — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 00:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Glad to see you both hijacking an RfA thread... not really. Take it to your talk pages, gentlemen. LaraLove 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    LaraLove, why comment on the thread after 18 hours without a new post? — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - Looks great to me! I think you've learned a lot. -jj137Talk • Contribs 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - Significant involvement in Wiki-related articles - should be able to handle well the tools.--JForget 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Much improved since the last time, new name, fresh, better start. Especially, much better question answers. GDonato (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Some of the opposers raise legitimate issues, but I believe most of them have been addressed since the prior nomination, and I believe the candidate is ready to be trusted with the tools at this time. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. I think this user learns from his mistakes and now has sufficient experience to become an admin. --Bduke 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. support - I think DH will make a good administrator. While the opposers raise some fair concerns, I think he wil do a good job all the same. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Similar reason as Anonymous Dissident. He's a good editor. Instead of finding evidence to fault an editor, why don't we AGF and look at what he contributes? His name change is not to evade the old impression of Giggy, but to avoid cyberstalking by someone he knows in real life. I can't tell anyone more because this is his privacy and I respect his decisions if he prefers not to explain the details to everyone. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support The oppose concerns do not raise any alarms as to the user's ability to use the tools and follow procedure. Essays and chatlogs are sooooooo ten minutes ago. the_undertow talk 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support This editor has been through a lot and has clearly learned a great deal from those experiences. An excellent editor that I believe will make a great admin. Dreadstar † 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. He has made mistakes and errors of judgement in the past, many of which have been raised by the opposers below. However, it is my opinion that he has learned a lot from these and is all the better for it. As such, I believe that he will be an asset as an admin and do not believe he will misuse the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Despite H20's comments, the issue isn't whether an editor needs admin tools - its whether the editor can be trusted with them. I see no convincing reason to believe that you can't be trusted with admin tools.Avruch 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support per LaraLove, Dreadstar, Wimt, and Melsaran. He's a good editor, made several mistakes, and has come grovelling back to us practically on hands and knees. A bit of forgiveness, a dash of wikilove, and an assumption of good faith goes a long way. I was going to stay out of this one, but the oppose comments are piling on. The editor is a college student on his way back (I presume to be his sophomore year). This is a "learning moment". Bearian 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support He is an editor with a solid contribution history of encyclopedia building, who can be trusted with the tools. I think several things have gotten blown out of proportion and misinterpreted, including his deleted essay about templating and comments about adminship requirements. Also the username changes were all in the open, and there was sound (though unfortunate) rationale for his unplanned and immediate temporary departure. It's fair to say he really wants to be an admin (and it's good to want to help), labeling him as power-hungry or wanting it "too badly" is passing judgment on his character above and beyond his edits. While some opposers point out mistakes that H2O has made, I'm willing to chalk it up to good ol' human error instead of a fundamental lack of judgment rendering admin unsuitability. I trust him to be accountable, receptive, and responsive to any concerns about his administrative actions, especially since he's clarified at my request that he's opening himself up to recall. ~Eliz81(C) 08:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Your answers to the questions were mostly good (although I somewhat agree with those who have concerns about your priorities - yes we're an encyclopedia and in the long haul improving articles is paramount but the backlog isn't going to go away on its own, so those with the gear to clear it should be doing so). That said, I am a bit dismayed by some of the opposers who seem to expect you to be the ideal admin. You're a human being like all of us. It's not reasonable to expect anyone, especially someone who has yet to be an admin, to be the perfect one. Is it reasonable to expect you to be a good admin? Of course. Based not only on your answers here but what I've seen of your work, am I confident that you will be a good admin? Without a doubt. And hey, it's not like admins do it for the groupies ;-) -- Dethme0w 08:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    There's no groupies?! What am I even trying for!? I'm sure I've read a page somewhere called WP:GROUPIES! ;) Spawn Man 08:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  42. $upport Al, (I can call you that right?) I would support you if you changed you name to "G1ggy on Wheels". In fact, if your user name was G1ggy on Wheels, I'd nominate you. But, I digress the time matter doesn't matter and I know you are up to it. Shock around tha Clock! Dfrg.msc 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, changed from neutral. The more I thought about it the more I figured I was making the wrong call here. Sure, I am a little unsettled by some of the odd/contradictory answers given and the sudden namechange stuff going on, but really when I sit down and think about the question that is important here - do I trust this user - the answer is sure. They've demonstrated a willingness to help with the 'pedia and aside from a few minor issues haven't really done anything damning. So yeah, changing my stance here. Good luck! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Incidentally, the essay is still around, and it still isn't a reason to oppose. User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  45. Strong Support Good contributor that can be trusted with the tools. Let's not confuse admins required to take thier work serious and admins required to be robots that only know wikipedia policies. Liempt 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - a good guy, certainly has a firm understanding of the project. Sometimes he tells it how it is, which is probably a good thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  47. Weak Support - your editing credentials are very good, although the opening sentence of your RfA does you no justice. I'm supporting you on the basis of what you've proved you CAN do. Just take note of the points below and work on improvements. Lradrama 13:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  48. Late to the party support My interactions with this candidate have been exclusively positive. Caknuck 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - good article-writing, seems trustworthy, nice behind-the scenes experience. Plus he doesn't take himself too seriously, which is a good thing on the increasingly legalistic Wikipedia ("Oh my goodness! He created an essay! And then deleted it!"). And he's Australian - most of them, barring the likes of serial killer Martin Bryant or Republican Kevin Rudd, are good people, so that's another positive sign. Biruitorul 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah... they also have a better PM than we do. Not that that's saying much... :-) WaltonOne 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. There's that Jimbo's quote about adminship's not being a big deal, and accordingly, I express my position much less often than I read the RfA threads (I think I last actually commented in August). However, having familiarised myself with the discussion -- and especially the "interesting" controversy -- I feel a vote is called for. My vote is supportive. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 07:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Open to recall convinced me that this is a reasonable user.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  52. GiggityAt this point, I don't think this RfA will pass. I just wanted to let you know I'm still backing you. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support A reasonable candidate. -Lemonflash(O_o) 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support I know it is late and this RfA is probably not passing but I wanted to establish my position anyway. I support him because he is a good contributor with edits balanced among spaces, as well as having a good undersatnding of his field of interest AfDs. In fact, I think it was quite bold to close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_the_Phoenix_(organisation) discussion as a non-admin, and he closed it correctly as was confirmed later at WP:DRV#Order_of_the_Phoenix_.28organisation.29_.28closed.29, which also shows a good understanding of the core principle of consensus. Best, --Kudret abiTalk 07:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)



Oppose

  1. Oppose. Has shown exceedingly poor judgment over a long period of time. Points raised in the previous RfA include
    • His creation of the essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars, advocating the use of warning templates to communication with established Wikipedians;
    • His publication on-wiki of chatlogs containing private material;
    • A concern that he is not here to build the encyclopedia, but rather to do whatever it takes to make admin; a concern that I think accurate in light of the fact that he quit Wikipedia after his last nomination, and has only recently returned, and his threat to quit if this next RfA doesn't get up, on the now-deleted User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy;
    • His stated opinion that adminship should only be granted to editors who engage primarily in vandal-fighting and cleanup, and should be withheld from those editors who primarily contribute encyclopedic content;
    • His characterisation of my opposition on grounds of the previous point, as a bad faith vengeance vote.
    • Misjudgments in his work closing AfDs, including a speedy-keep close after only a single !vote had been cast, and the reversion of a SNOW close that was shortly afterwards reclosed by a bureaucrat;
    • His nomination of Gampalagudem for deletion;
    • The fact that half his reports to AIV were being rejected as not yet requiring intervention;
    • This comment.
    I haven't done the math, but bearing in mind the fact that he left the project after his last RfA failed, and has only recently returned, I should say it is way, way, way too soon to expect us to ignore all the concerns previously voiced. Personally, it will take a couple of years of faultless work before I'm convinced that this candidate has developed the maturity and good judgment necessary to being a good administrator. Hesperian 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    A note regarding his name change and wikibreak: Please see comment of mine below about the name change. As far as his break, he was only gone for a week, so I wouldn't really classify that as "he left the project [...] and has only recently returned." LaraLove 06:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Responses in the order of Hesperian's comments:
    • I have since revoked the opinions stated in TTR, and I no longer believe that the be the best way to solve disputes.
    • I haven't posted any chatlogs on wiki since that one...there's not much else I can say about that.
    • I don't recall threatening to quit as a result of an RfA "not getting up"...it may have been a joke, I doubt I would seriously say something like that.
    • I stand by that - encyclopediac content is valued highly by all editors, including myself, but I still don't believe that it is necessary for one to be an effective administrator.
    • It certainly looked like one at the time, considering all your comments were in reference to an RfA you had supported and I had opposed. I'm not saying it was (now), but that was the impression it gave.
    • Can you show me this speedy keep error? As for the RfA closure reversion - it was initially reverted by Chaser (if I recall correctly), and I reverted to his version - does that make him a bad admin?
    • One incorrect AfD nomination and countless correct ones...
    • I haven't made a great deal of AIV reports since then, but all of them have resulted in blocks.
    • The context of the Jmlk17 comment shows I don't actually think he's retarded. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    There's not much here I feel the need to respond to, but I must respond to the last. The problem with your comment is that by using the term retard as an insult, whether joking or not, you participate in the vilification of those who actually suffer from mental retardation. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate - your comment was insensitive rather than malicious. But that doesn't make it any less offensive. Hesperian 11:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    No offence, Hesperian, but this seems to be political correctness gone mad. (Possibly this is a cultural thing - in the UK, the term is used as a general term of abuse/humorous insult among kids, and has little to do with actual mental retardation; I assume it's similar in Australia.) WaltonOne 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)]
    I wasn't using the term "retard" as an insult - once again, reading through the context shows that this clearly isn't the case. Also, I missed your last paragraph in your initial oppose comment, but I'll respond to it here - I was away for a day or 2 after the last RfA, then edited for the whole month of August (plus or minus a few days) - on the 29th of August I was forced to leave the project, and I returned on the 9th of September. I did not "leave the project after my last RfA failed, and only recently returned" (slight paraphrase of your comment). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. H2O/Giggy is a great editor, but requesting an RfA just a coupla weeks after returning under a new username? That speaks of poor judgement to me. I also personally was confused by all the drama associated with the leaving - if you were going to return under a new username, why not just tell people? Little things like those, as well as concerning actions brought up in previous RfAs, smack of an unpredictable nature and an unwillingness to think matters through sufficiently before undertaking them, and kinda take the edge off the enthusiastic support I would have hoped to give here. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Quick comment regarding his leaving and returning under a new user name: It is totally unrelated to his previous RfA. It was over a personal, real-life issue. Advertising the name change would have defeated the purpose. He didn't hide it, he carried over his edits, so it's not as if it were a shady sort of move. That should not be an issue here. I believe votes should be based the same as they would had his name not changed. We all know who he is, and the edit history is the same. LaraLove 06:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I must second what Lara has said here - the renaming issue was a real life personal thing, nothing to do with me randomly wanting to change my identity. If it was up to me, I'd still be Giggy, but that wasn't feasible at the time (and it would be silly to change back now). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Um, if it was a "real life personal thing", then how come your WP:CHU request cited "wiki-stalking"? Hesperian 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    I really don't understand why people can't just let this go as personal. Someone he knows in real life was giving him shit in real life about his Wikipedia-ing. He had to change his name to get this person off his back. This person now thinks he has "retired", and considering everything with that account is either deleted or protected, there is no connection between that name and his new one if the old one is the only known name to look for. Hopefully I've not said more than he wanted to be known, but good gawd... seriously, leave him alone about the name change already... he's been through enough drama with that. LaraLove 12:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oh no, the cabal! :) I understand Giggy having personal problems and even changing his username, but I don't like the idea of requesting a name change and immediately skipping over to RfA. You want me to be absolutely frank? It looks like trying to evade a reputation built up under previous usernames for the purpose of increasing your chances of success. I've seen this done at least once before, so I know that people do do it. I would much prefer to see a few months of solid work under this username before running again. Anyway... my other concerns still very much stand. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, that cabal is everywhere :) Frankly, if I wanted to evade any reputation built up as Giggy/G1ggy, I wouldn't have gotten a rename - I would have re-registered. But I didn't, and a glance through my contribs/wannabe_kate shows very clearly who I am/was. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Consider this a strong oppose in light of this - your cynicism has no place here. You're on RfA, expect to be scrutinised. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. Unusually high requirements for support votes in other RfAs tell me that this user has no understanding of adminship. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how they are "unusually high" - multiple editors share my opinions on the granting of the mop and bucket to article-only editors. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to butt in, but how does that make sense with what you said above? "A: In essence, yes it is. I still don't see the need for a user who spends the majority (say > 90%) of his time working on articles to get the tools, considering he'll barely use them. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)". Just wondering if you could clarify. 86.137.127.139 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    He's saying that he doesn't think editors who spends 90% of their time working on articles need the tools and that multiple others agree with him on that. His wording "multiple eidtors share my opinions on the granting of the mop and bucket to article-only editors" is a bit confusing, I suppose. It should probably state "not granting". I think I'm understanding that right. LaraLove 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Basically I will oppose any candidate who has previously opposed RfAs stating that the only reason for their oppose is that the candidate has failed to show a need for the tools. To me, this demonstrates basic failure to understand adminship. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    "only reason" - Time for a diff! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Found none with exactly one reason ("need for the tools"), but here's one (albeit from May) without any stated reason, incidentally on an RfA that went on to succeed. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    I vaguely remember that not being a "need for the tools" oppose, and as you said, it was in May... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  4. Strong oppose. G1ggy was clearly unsuited to be an admin in his first RfA (four months and two name changes ago) -- what has he done differently since then except pump up his edit count with near-automated vandal-fighting edits?

    Reviewing the previous RfAs, I am quite appalled by DHMO having one standard for himself and another for the rest of Wikipedia. Apparently, he is allowed to apply for adminship with only 700 edits, but now he defends editcount inflation, suggesting that it is not even worth reviewing contributions if there are fewer than, say, 3000 of them. On this point, I'm not just opposing him for disagreeing with me about edit counting, I'm opposing him for being hypocritical about it.

    His answers to questions provide more reasons to oppose. His Q3 answer is unsettling: if he's never had a conflict bigger than failing an RfA, then either he seriously overdramatized that RfA, or he's never taken on anything difficult. His Q6 answer is sugar-coated, I'd say, given the disdain for article-writing he shows directly afterward in Q7, and it ends with the grandiose suggestion that he can single-handedly clear backlogs.

    I've mostly seen him on RfA, where his dismissal of actual, well-researched article editing and his susceptibility to editcountitis make me doubt his judgement, but Hesperian's comments above help to confirm that his judgement is as shaky throughout Wikipedia. In his response, DHMO is defensive about his past mistakes but not particularly apologetic. I don't see much appeal in the idea of DHMO being an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm surprised to see this from you, since you tend to be one of the most sensible and trustworthy RfA voters. Nonetheless, I must point out that he has over 7000 edits, not 700. So he isn't being hypocritical. And as demonstrated in Q2, he doesn't just make automated anti-vandal edits, he also writes articles. WaltonOne 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think he means at the time of Giggy's first RfA... --DarkFalls talk 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I misunderstood. I still don't agree with the oppose, but I respect Rspeer's opinion. WaltonOne 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry that was unclear -- I'll elaborate on that point. In his first RfA, DHMO (G1ggy) had 631 edits. I looked past his edit count to his contributions (and didn't like what I saw). His crapload of edits since then does nothing to impress me. He seems to be doing exactly what he thinks he needs to do to become an admin (vandal fighting, RfA and AfD voting, a bit of article editing for those other people who are interested in articles, and building up a clique). He has not, on the other hand, shown maturity, perspective, or experience with difficult situations. He seems to want people to be given adminship as a prize for a high score, particularly himself, but I'm not awarding him that prize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Walton, a person's RfA voting record has nothing to with sensibility or trustworthiness. People can vote whichever way they please. Also, since when do people have to be consistent in their voting record? Sometimes they like a candidate, sometimes they don't. They don't have to stick to a strict voting regiment. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    True, and I didn't mean to imply that those who disagree with me are somehow untrustworthy (far from it). I only meant that, having encountered Rspeer a lot at RfA, he generally makes sensible and well-reasoned comments that I usually agree with. In this case, I don't agree with him, but I still respect his opinion and his judgment. WaltonOne 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Um, false actually. To clear up a misconception some people seem to entertain: RFA is not an anonymous vote. It is a form of consensus finding. Your name is explicitly tied to your opinion, and your opinion is explicitly kept on record. Like in all consensus systems, if you make an ass of yourself and others, then this will have consequences for you down the road. And on wikipedia, your behavior is documented forever. :-/ --Kim Bruning 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think what is being said is that user's are free to vote based on their own criteria for adminship, which can change over time or from candidate to candidate. Not that such voting is anonymous. LaraLove 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flat no, and probably make that a "never". Quite apart from everyone else's points, I seem to remember deleting some stuff from his userspace that basically amounted to harassment of other Wikipedians. In general, I'm lef unimpressed. Moreschi Talk 10:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    The only thing you ever deleted from his userspace was User:Giggy/Australian Cabal/Tag, which said (if Google's cache is right): This page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal. Welcome to Australia. That seems more of a joke than harassment of Wikipedians to me. Melsaran (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    It also contained instructions to tag other peoples' user pages with it - which some people understood to be incitement to vandalise. Hesperian 11:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Ick – I was going to support when I read question six, I then read question seven... I became slightly confused. I then read the oppose reasons and I have concluded that this user does not have my full trust. Matthew 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - to some extent because of what I see as too much "socializing" to the extent of forming cliques, but mostly per some of what Hesperian said, and much of what Riana, RyanGerbil and Rspeer said. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I still have concerns from the last RFA and concur with those expressed above by Riana and others. --After Midnight 0001 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. WeakStrong Oppose Yes, you're a great editor. But I sense that becoming an admin is a big deal for you and I have to wonder whether the maturity is there to handle it. Also, I'd be more comfortable if you hadn't deleted WP:Template the regulars, but left it in place with an explanation of how your thoughts had changed about the issue. It tends to fit the pattern of evasion mentioned above by Riana. Ronnotel 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    changing to strong oppose as per IRC revelation - (nearly) unforgivable. Ronnotel 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong oppose I really like Giggy/H2O/whatever, but he is, in my mind, totally unsuitable for this, I've found. I told him the other day in his editor review not to request for a while (along with other editors) - did he listen to this? Nope. Not only that, he has self nominated, so he purposely ignored our reviews. This request will probably fail - if you had just waited a little while longer, perhaps you'd have done better. And I don't like the idea you seem really, really desperated to be an admin. You're a great editor, but not yet admin quality. Sorry. * Aillema 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Are you waving your finger at the user for disobeying you? He 'purposely ignored' your reviews? I think you have taken his self-nomination as a personal disregard for him following any and all advice you have given. I'd rather see his RfA 'fail,' as you put it, as an editor who is intellectually independent, then see a successful administrator in 2 months time that resulted from blind obedience. the_undertow talk 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I'm so sorry - I totally missed your comment in the editor review. I'm not sure how much it would have influenced me if I hadn't, but there you go... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose per your answer to Q7, posting private chatlogs (I know you apologised but it just so scandalous I still cannot believe it) and Ronnotel's summation immediately above. —Moondyne 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose per Moondyne. Thinking people who write articles shouldn't be admins is a killer. This is an encyclopedia. Any admin who wisely uses tools is a plus to wikipedia.Sumoeagle179 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Are you saying that admins shouldn't have been editors to begin with? I'm sorry, I read your statement about three times and it came across that you're saying that admins shouldn't be article or page writers? That to me sounds rather silly. Just my opinion, but I think the best admins are the ones who're balanced and have experienced all ends of the stick. I believe Alex (aka Giggy, H2O etc) fits that criteria, more than myself, despite being a self-professed egomaniac who's nine years Alex's senior. --lincalinca 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    No, that's what H2O is saying. Backsigns 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sumoeagle179's statement is quite clear to me. He/she is paraphrasing the candidates view that "people who write articles shouldn't be admins".[1] which was reconfirmed in the answer to Q7. —Moondyne 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    CLARIFY--I am saying it's great that admins have strong editing backgrounds. I'm opposed to the candidates idea that people who mostly edit articles would make weak/poor admins. Does this help?Sumoeagle179 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    He didn't say that. He only said that they were unlikely to really need the admin tools, and therefore that the tools should be primarily given to users who focus on maintenance work. I don't totally agree with him, but it's a legitimate point of view, and not a sufficient reason to oppose IMO. WaltonOne 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I have never said that people who write articles shouldn't be admins. I write articles, yet I think I'd be an OK admin. I think people who do nothing but write articles would have little use with the admin tools See also my comments on the talk page of this RfA. Also, while we're on the topic of Melburnian's RfA, I'd like to point out that several highly respected admins opposed it - does that make them bad admins? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Has anybody ever said that you would make a bad admin because you opposed Melburnian's RfA? No they have not. Hesperian 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    So why all the opposition per that comment? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    After all the discussion on this point, are you still unable to comprehend that you have been opposed in good faith, for good faith reasons? You were opposed for that comment, not because your comment was itself an oppose, not because people are out for revenge, not because you thought Melburnian lacked experience. You were opposed because of your stated opinion that editors who primarily contribute article content should not be promoted to administrator, lest they be overwhelmed by the workload. People have taken plenty of angles in response to this: my angle was that it revealed a lack of understanding of the adminship role; others took a WP:DOESN'TNEEDTHETOOLS angle; someone else claimed that this revealed hypocrisy. Evidently it is pretty easy to not like what you said. Yet you persist in the belief that you are opposed simply because you opposed Melburnian, a low-profile editor whom most people here wouldn't know from a bar of soap, and who has himself not expressed an opinion on you. Of all the reasons you shouldn't be admin, your insistence on finding a bad faith characterisation of this opposition is the most disturbing. Hesperian 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose You stress your article-building activities on Wikipedia, but in previous RfAs, you have opposed users because they spend much of their time doing article work. In the same respect, couldn't that be said about you, also? The wording on Melburnian's RfA confused me a little, so please clarify any mistakes in my opposition. Also, the diff pointed out by TRE is a bit troubling. Like you have said before, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Failing an RfA should not make you lose faith of the project. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I have stressed that only writing articles isn't going to improve a candidate's use of the mop and bucket - I have nothing against a balance of articles and maintenance, which is where I see myself. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. I'm probably going to commit suicide after this, but oppose. I really wish you would have waited a little more time before requesting adminship to work on solving the concerns raised in your previous request. The comments above and speedy deletion requets like this one convince me that you're not ready for admin rights. "people who write articles shouldn't be admins"; What the <script>document.write('f','u','c','k');</script> is that? We're an encyclopedia; the point of admins is to help maintain it. How are they supposed to do that if they have no mainspace experience? Truly sorry, man. /goes to jump off a building.--Agüeybaná 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Agueybana, that's not funny. CO2 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, please. I'm sure you know I wasn't even remotely thinking of doing that in real life. I just said that to represent the sense of regret I have to oppose such a fine editor. --Agüeybaná 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I thought that was hilarious. LaraLove 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Joking about suicide is far from hilarious. CO2 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Well, joking about awarding yourself a fake "CO's Day" award isn't particularly hilarious, either. ( [2] ) Sebi [talk] 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    ...and this discussion has nothing to do with Giggy's RfA. I suggest that you take it elsewhere. Also Agüeybaná, please refrain from swearing. --DarkFalls talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    (<--)Spebi, content not contributor please. CO: I agree with you, it isn't funny, but again, the context shows it wasn't serious (heck, we could all learn a bit from that). Eddie (formally Eddie, but whatever...) - "people who write articles shouldn't be admins" - Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. I have to agree that this attitude about editing articles and being an admin is over the top.Rlevse 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    But does his opinion about RfA necessarily disqualify him from being a good admin? He does have a record of article-building. WaltonOne 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Obsession about getting adminship is bad enough in its own right. His past RfA's, the latest a very recent, showed too many problems with the editor and no indication that the editor has improved in such short time. --Irpen 20:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Oppose Per pretty much everything above. He seems obsessed with achieving adminship and he seems to be a hypocrite. Wikipediarules2221 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    See WP:NPA 131.94.22.243 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, calling people "hypocrites" is not nice. --Agüeybaná 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I've dealt with worse in this RfA and across the wiki - even if it's not mentioned in Q3... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose reluctantly but decidedly. Sorry, like several others I assume, I came here unprejudiced and ready to support. But reading through the oppose section reveals rather serious concerns, and rspeer and others made good points why not to support this candidacy. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. The advice at your editor review, to wait longer between adminship requests, probably should have been taken under more careful consideration. I share many of the concerns above, and to add to the list, I'm unhappy with the behavior here and here. I understand these are your friends; do you understand the concerns about this behavior? I wouldn't have opposed for cliquishness alone, but on top of everything else it's just another red flag. --JayHenry 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not clear on what behaviour concerns you...could you please elaborate? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    My concerns echo this. In addition, I just don't understand many of the comments you make because there are so many inside jokes and I'm not on the inside. What on earth does your comment here mean? --JayHenry 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think "clique" was a mistyping of "cliche" there. Personally, I'd say "thought you already were" trails a poor third behind "doesn't need the tools" and "not enough Wikipedia space edits", but from the context I'd guess that's what he's trying to say — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    The infamous clique #1...don't tell me everyone's forgotten it. It is indeed "I thought you already were an admin" - which is a good thing, not a bad thing. As for this - I could hardly avoid considering I was the first nominator (not a co-nom), and created the RfA page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    You may be better understood if you avoid the malapropism. A "cliché" is something that's said too often, while a "clique" is an exclusive group of friends, which is a fairly undesirable thing to have on RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Eek, sorry about my spelling. I meant cliché - definitely not clique :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    It's not just one typo, it's many other issues. But I still have no idea what a "Sif transclude" is. I still don't understand what you are talking about in The Random Editor's RFA. And as for cliques, I can't tell if you are just oblivious to this concern, or actually think that such behavior is somehow beneficial to the project. You've only really been here since April and this is already your third RFA. What's the rush? --JayHenry 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. I don't care how many administrative acts an admin performs; I do care about the quality of those acts. Someone who thinks an admin does not need to be an editor and, conversely, an editor does not need to be an admin, IMO should not be an admin and perhaps shouldn't be an editor here either. --Una Smith 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please see this RfAs talk page. LaraLove 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, that sounds a bit harsh, Una Smith. It sounds like you're showing him the doors to leave Wikipedia, don't you think? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry. I can see how what I wrote could be read as a hint for H2O to leave. Hinting is not my style. Anyway, on content, I oppose: more quality, less quantity. --Una Smith 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose As Walton points out, one's views on a wikipolitical issue should generally not be held against a candidate. In this case, however, I'm afraid it also says a lot about the kind of admin H2O would be. The disconnect between editors and administrators is a problem I can't trust H2O to help with. In particular, this diff is hard for me to forget. I also share some of the concerns above, in particular about the perceived over-eagerness to become an admin. Pascal.Tesson 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - I really don't like the user's rationale in regard to question #9 - You don't get to decide what's notable or not, the community decides. You violated the core of what AfD is. Sure the arguments about the article being written poorly should've been given less weight seeing as we delete articles based on notability, but the consensus was too split in the mentioned AfD and it was a bad move closing it yourself. Generally, I think when an AfD is that close, an admin should make the final ruling. It would have saved you a lot of opposes, and if you were an experienced editor, in my eye you would've been able to see that coming - I would have steered well clear. This coupled with the fact that your previous RfA was only a short time ago, it makes me think you're not an editor who thinks things through - You obviously knew that nominating yourself so close to your last RfA would bring opposes (Based on the comment Hesperian pointed out), yet you still decided to go ahead anyway. This does not give me confidence in your judgement. Your edits are sound and I think one day, far down the track, you'll make a fine admin. However, while you might benifit if you're granted the tools now, I don't think Wikipedia will benifit, so that'll have to be an oppose from me. Regards, Spawn Man 12:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Per the doubts expressed by users above. Too many question marks here for me to give the thumbs-up. --Folantin 12:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. It's a shame since i like the user and almost nominated him last go around. What a difference a month makes I guess. I was going to support, but I looked at what's happened with him and all the circumstances, and there's no way I can support. He leaves August 28th after being fed up with here apparently, yet wants adminship less than a month later? I'm reluctant to give it to him as a result. But this in itself isn't a reason to oppose, so I decided to read the questions. And wow, what I saw surprised me. Questions 6 and 7 conflict themselves. you say that you primarily contribute articles and would rather do that instead of admin work, yet you say that primarily article writers shouldn't be admins? Very confusing. All this would probably knock me down to a neutral though. But after reading what you did with that one AfD, that kinda takes the cake. If an admin were to make that close with that decision it would've been awfully iffy in itself. For a user to close it is basically going against the policy - we trust admins to close them over editors for a reason. That and I disagree with the rationale of your decision, it seems like you let your beliefs get in the way. If the article is <script>document.write('c','r','a','p');</script>, why not eete it and let it get a fresh start? Terrible decision there. You did something similar in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Guerrero as well. Although in that one I would've kept it myself, it's better if editors do not close ones that could be argued either of 2 or 3 ways. But really, if you want to work on articles still, taht's fine, go to that. But do I trust you with the tools based on what I've seen. Alas, I do not. Wizardman 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify one point, I left on the 28th of August because I was being stalked offline. Nothing against you guys. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Alright then. That's a sufficient explanation for that point at least. Wizardman 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Of the 58 users that this person reported to WP:AIV, 17 of then were removed without blocking. This shows a lack of understanding of when a block should be applied. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose I really like you, H2O, but I just don't think that you will make the best admin right now. Suddenly leaving Wikipedia apparantly because of a failed RfA and then without warning, returning to Wikipedia (which I am glad you did) and then almost immediately making a request for adminship just worries me and strikes me that you are a little moody. That is definitely not what I like to see in an admin. In addition, it has been quite soon since your last RfA and I don't think that you have answered to what the oppposers suggested. Sorry, but I really have to oppose here. Captain panda 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Woah...I didn't leave because I was pissed off with Wikipedia...I left because I was being stalked in real life. Oops, said too much >_> Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2;O) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oh. My mistake. Sorry about that. I still think it is best that I oppose, however. Captain panda 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. This user seems to have an unhealthy lust for adminship. Plus, I don't like the drama surrounding him in regards to leaving and name changing (we have enough dramatic admins coming and going as it is). Also, "Of these, my proudest work is Starlight (song), as it was the GA which contained the least collaboration" is bothersome because Wikipedia happens to be a wiki, which happens to be based on collaboration. -- John Reaves 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - as per Hesperian & John Reaves Xdenizen 07:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per concerns and points raised by 1==2 and rspeer. Neil ム 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Make that strong oppose per childish bickering with oppose votes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R 2. Neil ム 11:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose sadly, this user undermines their excellent work with occasional horrible lapses of judgement. This ([3]) shocked the pants off me. Sorry, can't trust you right now, no matter how much I'd like to. --Dweller 10:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Struck. Moved to neutral. --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    It was a joke; it was a response to this. Acalamari 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose, mainly per Riana and the username change/timing issue she describes, but it's also topped off by a little thing I saw today: this haughty reproach. You expect...wow. Does being "the GA reviewer" make you the king or something? That majestic tone is not something I want to hear from an admin. I'm also rather concerned by judgment issues arising from your rating that article as a GA—not that that is, as such, a weighty part of my oppose reason. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
  31. Your answer to questions six and eight contradict each other: you say you'll only help at backlogs when you have writer's block, yet say that you'd make a good admin because you'd lower backlogs.Struck out because this was answered satisfactorily in question #12 Also, question seven wasn't satisfactorily answered, IMHO. Bishonen's link above worries me as well... · AndonicO Talk 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, also about question eight, as an admin you have to be prepared to make incorrect desicions, as well as correct ones. · AndonicO Talk 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm. I'll try to add them all at the same time next time. ;) I forgot to mention Until (1 == 2)'s reason, about your AIV reports. · AndonicO Talk 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Weak Strong oppose - I'm sorry. I don't feel comfortable right now, given some of the evidence above - Alison ❤ 01:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    And I just saw this conversation in its entirety, re. the link from Bish above. No, sorry. This is not what being an admin is about - Alison ❤ 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - I think it is vital that admins understand the encyclopaedia side of the wikipedia. To me one of those things is understanding the purpose of redlinks in the right place. DHMO recently went through and removed redlinks from the List of Austrlaian Rivers [4]. The edit was easily reverted but what worries me is the judgment call that led to the edit in the first instance: it indicates to me that s/he is not ready just yet. --Golden Wattle talk 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Bishonen's diff is very troubling. When someone recreates an article you deleted, are you going to tell them off in the same way? -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose See below. per Amarkov, Golden Wattle, the inappropriate non-admin closing and other issues. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Swith to STRONG OPPOSE per Bishonen's empirical evidence. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose as per Bish, and Riana, sorry. Dureo 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong Oppose per User_talk:Irpen#GAR_is_that-a-way.21. If the editor accept a gentleman's agreement: I will make a GA review for your POV article - you would make a review for mine, then what to expect from when he will be an admin? I block your opponent - you block mine? I close your AfD - you close mine? Admins should act on merits not on connections Alex Bakharev 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong Oppose. I have seen multiple recent comments where the candidate is fanning the flames rather than attempting to calm a situation. This is not the type of behavior I wish to see in a candidate. Chaz Beckett 09:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Moving from oppose to strong oppose after seeing sarcastic responses in this RfA, especially Q #12. The only thing such behavior is accomplishing is hurting his chances in future RfAs. I realize it's probably very frustrating, but definitely not admin material now or in the near future. Chaz Beckett 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. Oppose per Alex Bakharev, Bish and Riana. And my own personal observations make me concerned about maturity. Sarah 14:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per ChazBeckett's reasoning. 17Drew 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - name changes, RfA density is too high for my liking, a grand total of two edits to AIV. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    That would be incorrect: he has 48. · AndonicO Talk 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&limit=2000&action=history - I see one in this history. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    One in the past four days. For his "grand total", he has 48 (including those as G1ggy and Giggy). · AndonicO Talk 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Also, regarding the recent name change, it's already been explained several times why he has that new name. Acalamari 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see anything in the questions or statements, where were you referring to? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Look in some of the supports, and also at some of the responses to other opposes. I will provide diffs if necessary, but as you'll read, the name change was for real-life issues rather than a sudden want of a new name. Acalamari 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  42. NeutralOppose: I was going to sit this one out, but I've just seen this user's comment in response to Amarkov over on R's RfA and it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence they'll not make a bad situation on Wikipedia worse with an inopportune comment. The allegations of a deal over the GA make me uncomfortable especially as I was asked by a user to investigate GA status being removed by Irpen. I had a quick look over the article and on the surface, it looks decent enough, but upon closer inspection, it's really not very good. Using the word "pundit" and all it entails in the introduction just isn't cricket, I'm afraid.Nick 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. I came here to support, but the issues pointed out by Riana are are really not what I'd like to see in admin (excluding the real-life issue). Oppose especially per answer to question 12...that was pretty out of line. — Malcolm (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Switch to strong oppose per disruption of the GA process. — Malcolm (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Wilful disruption of the GA process is not acceptable, even if some practice it regularly. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  45. Strong oppose Because of GA approval for a deleted and re-created POV fork (see the deletion discussion here:[5])--Dojarca 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  46. Oppose, as per the post that Bishonen bought up and the fact that sarcasm doesn't become an admin. - Francis Tyers · 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  47. Strong oppose per Bishonen and many others. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Erm - No. I find it rude to not answer questions, it shows only an unpredictable user. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) - See Neutral. 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please see the Supreme Court case Optional v. Mandatory where it was overwhelmingly decided the words have two distinct meanings. the_undertow talk 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Neither sarcasm nor racist edit summaries are particularly helpful[6]. A candidate can choose not to answer the questions and people can choose to oppose because of this. Chaz Beckett 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    It was more helpful that the opposer sees the difference between the two words, than it is for him to asses the nom as 'rude' and 'unpredictable.' As far as you catching me in a Mel Gibson/Michael Richards moment, as long as I wear a white jersey, I'll fee free to make innocuous commentary about the way that white people can and cannot cut-a-rug. the_undertow talk 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    However, it is worth pointing out that a quick review of the candidate's contributions shows he hasn't been around since the question was posed, so it seems rather unfair (in my opinion at least) to oppose on the basis that he has not been editing for 30 hours. Will (aka Wimt) 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Woah. What's going on here? If someone asks you a question in real life it is optional - say you ask say something like "What time is dinner ready?" - you expect an answer and not just a dead response, then there's no point of asking the question. But I note Will's comments and will keep a check on his log-in contribs. But maybe I'll stick to just Oppose and a signature next time. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'll take it to your talk, since this is not the place. Regarding your putting a signature at oppose - that would be even less constructive than my opposing your oppose. At least you have something of interest to say, even if I disagree. the_undertow talk 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, what can I say, like LaraLove, I was struck with shock as I see Bishonen's empirical evidence. Before that I still held slight hope that this was only a misunderstanding and you would soon address people's concerns by answering Q15. However, in view of your perceptible reluctance to answer along with more and more proof of corrupted GA process coming into light, I regretfully have to change my vote. Sorry! @pple complain 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  49. Reluctant oppose - I find myself rather conflicted here, as I quite like the candidate and think they mean well, and I openly encourage younger people with the ability to do so to apply, as I think it counters a certain age bias which is sometimes observed on Wiki. However, my criteria for RfA are very simple - one has to have a history of good faith communication and an ability to deal with conflict appropriately, and one has to have a firm basis in and understanding of policy (maybe not the finer points of it but certainly a broadly general idea of what it is about that reflects in their practice). Most other things can be learned easily, but I'm seeing a history of little eruptions, misunderstandings and other randomness which point to troubles ahead should the candidate be approved (which would, admittedly, require something of a miracle at this stage). Every RfA (three so far) has had some complicated issue (often more than one) that has needed explanation. This is not such a bad thing in and of itself, but probably is a good sign that it would have been better to wait until issues are resolved and ancient history. I'm also concerned by this user's inability to handle questioning or criticism of his actions (I'm looking here at answers to some of the questions) - I'm aware of a couple of admins who are like this and their actions are constantly under review at AN/I. Add to that some plainly bizarre comments regarding article-only admins, and I have no choice but to vote oppose (I was initially going to abstain as I did last time). I also second Sharkface and Riana's comments. Orderinchaos 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  50. Oppose, due to Bishonen's discovery about the GA article review. Gimmetrow 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  51. Oppose - This is unfortunate, but with all things considered, I cannot in good faith support. Various issues were raised early on that I felt were irrelevant knowing Giggy, however, recent events have changed my mind. I've read the IRC logs in their entirety and, while I disagree with Bishonen's summary which seemed a little worse than what I read, I still find issue with the where and how of it all. I also am displeased with the passing of both articles which fail to meet the criteria. I take further issue with the fact that he has been online (according to some on IRC) since the currently unanswered questions were posed, but not editing WP other than to add a vacation tag to his user page. LaraLove 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  52. DHMO has a rather abrasive way of dealing with situations, as shown above, that I feel would make him unable to be an effective administrator. I can deal with incivility, but DHMO handles things much worse. It also seems that DHMO is focusing on adminship, which can show a need for power. Ral315 » 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  53. This worries me as I see no reason to doubt Bishonen's description of the events that led up to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  54. Strong Oppose. IRC is a problem already, because people can make deals without others knowing. And here we have someone caught red-handed, and very enthusiastic to boot to become an admin - coming here, self-nominated, after disappearing and a few days after having an editor review. He actually behaves like he is an admin already, and not a very good one. Bossy, unfriendly, haughty, ... --Pan Gerwazy 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Per above. RuneWiki777 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  56. Oppose I'm sorry, H20, but the above links concern me about maturity issues with you. No offense. I'd like to see you as an admin some day, but not now. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  57. Oppose per evidence given by Bishonen. Jonathunder 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  58. This has been a very difficult RfA for me to watch. I now H2O reasonably well as an editor, but the Diwurgen mess makes me not trust you with the mop yet. Sorry. Maxim(talk) 00:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral – While I think H20 has what it takes to be an admin, the comments by the opposers and some of your old subpages leave me too dubious to support. —[[Animum | talk]] 13:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - DM has done some great things so I won't oppose, but this concerns me. It essentially was a break message after his failed RFA stating he would return if he still had faith in the project. Sorry, but that makes me think you might be prone to do something drastic or maybe just leave, if things didn't go your way. Sorry. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I fail to see how this makes him unsuitable to be an administrator TRE... this is entirely volunteer. CO2 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    My response is simple. Dedication is key. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral 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. --Sharkface217 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm going to have to agree about the fact that you've done really great things, however the oppose comments are making me be on the fence here. There's TTR that's making catching some eyebrows, and then there's the urge for admin tools as to not write articles. I'm really concerned about all this, so I can't do much but be neutral. —O (说 • 喝) 00:47, 23 September 2007 (GMT)
    To be fair to the candidate, TTR was dealt with in the last RfA and it's a stance he seems to have since abandoned. Orderinchaos 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral leaning to oppose that in turn leans to moral support, sorry. I have DM in good regard, but I can't support his RfA at this time. I share some of the concerns expressed by the opposers, particularly Riana. DM should perhaps try to rebuild a solid, stable participation in this project before attempting a new RfA. Húsönd 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Regretfull Neutral I can't in faith oppose, but I certainly cannot support. This editor is a stunning and hard worker, who I respect a great deal, and who nominated me for RfA twice. But, although I understand about school holidays etc., the timing of this RfA is poor - i.e. far too soon. If anything though DHMO should be strongly applauded for one thing. If anyone thought RfA was a clique of "mates" all trying to get each other adminship then this one has done the damage to that concept. I'm trully sorry mate, but I hope you understand. Pedro |  Chat  08:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning to support. I've reviewed Giggy at least once, and I understand how he works on Wikipedia and what he's trying to do. It's unfortunate that some extraneous issues, such as the quirky username change, are obscuring the substantive content of his contributions. From personal experience, I oppose on principle the "not now, not ever" approach - a few months will do much to allay the concerns here, and I will almost certainly support the next request if I'm still watching RFA a few months from now. Shalom Hello 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Reluctant neutral, I would like to have supported this nomination. The apparent contradiction in the user's answers - particularly 6 and 7 - is extremely difficult to reconcile. While it's no reason to oppose, the timing of certain events (the short-term Wikibreak and then the name change) do create a rather questionable image of what's going on, and the candidate should have done more to be open about their reasons and motivations prior to someone else calling them out on it. It is important for administrators to not only be honest, but to be forthcoming as well. Anyway, a little more time before this nom and a little more preperation would have made it easier to support .. unfortunately I just can't do that right now :( ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - So glad there was a good reason for that diff. I have concerns over you; too great to support, but happy to move from outright oppose. Good luck whatever. --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral (Moving to Oppose) - Awaiting answer to question 15. Considering 90% of my contributions are to the GA project and improving the quality of it, this is quite disturbing for me to see... and I must admit that I am shocked by it. However, one can never get the full story from a lone diff, so I await an explanation/clarification before I make my decision to support/oppose. LaraLove 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Lara. Did you see this by the way? Not poking at you with your question at all, but the candidate has already denied making any form of deal within his contributions to Wikipedia (as opposed to his "contributions" to IRC). Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Pedro. I had not seen that, however, I'm not satisfied. The request to show proof of the accusation looked promising, but then the denial of explicit permission to publicly post any such archive shot it to hell. (Considering it happened on, I assume, a Wikipedia IRC channel, do the same rules apply here concerning "private conversations" considering their is no assumed right to privacy in such a channel?) Some explanation as to what was said and what was meant is what I'm looking for. I'd also like to see the article nominated at GAR to get an idea of the quality according to several reviewers. I see issues in scanning it. LaraLove 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral - There appears to be a bit of a beat up over this GA approval thing over IRC. I've seen the logs, and from what I can see, there was absolutely no collusion, just a good faith request for articles to be reviewed followed by a good faith acceptance of the offer. There is no relationship between Dihydrogen Monoxide and Digwuren, just two random individual who's path crossed. I don't think there are any privacy issues if I give a summary of the chat:
    • At 01:18:37, Dihydrogen Monoxide broadcasts an offer to review a random article for GA, explaining he's in the mood.
    • At 01:28:49, Digwaren takes up the offer and mentions Denial of Soviet occupation, which which he had previously nominated for GA review in the usual process. Dihydrogen Monoxide presumably took a glance at it, and indicated he would recommend changes, and put the article on hold while the changes get reviewed.
    • At 01:40:35, Dihydrogen Monoxide indicated he'd left improvement suggestions on the talkpage, and presumedly, around that time, completed the formal passing procedure.
    It's rather sad that Dihydrogen Monoxide ends up being smeared by those who have an personal issue with Digwuren. Martintg 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    The content of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen suggests Dihydrogen Monoxide was not entirely innnocent. Neil ム 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    My reading of the logs is that there first was an unsolicited request broadcasted for articles for review, followed by an unencumbered acceptance, the was no prior negotiations before this, so there was no conflict of interest. Martintg 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I watched the last RfA for H2O, and was disappointed with the turn it took. I was saddened to see that something the editor did in good faith, was twisted into something it was never intended to be, (TTR issue) and while it may have been a bad idea, I truly don't believe H20 created that essay with any malice or bad intent. I do believe he learned a lot from that RfA, and I also do not consider the name change to be any issue. As I'm not intimately involved with GA procedure, I'm going to refrain from addressing that, but the evidence I've seen leads me to believe that H20 possibly could have gone about this in a better way, rather than using IRC, but we all live and learn, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will learn from this experience. I'm not convinced that he "conspired" with anyone to pass GAs, I believe it was a combination of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and poor choice of forum (IRC chat) that would make it appear this is what happened. From what I know of H20, if there's one thing he'll do, is learn, and move on, and improve. All that being said, I initially absolutely planned to support this RfA, but after looking over the oppose comments, I have to admit there are things that I'm not comfortable with, and thus, I'll remain neutral, and give big amounts of moral support. However, I do want to voice my opinion that (as we all have), yes, H20 has made mistakes, but I'm 100% confident that he learned from them in the past, and will continue to learn from them in the future, and I believe that administrator or not, he is a wonderful and valuable contributor to this project, and deserves respect for all he's done, and for his continued efforts to improve Wikipedia. (And I fixed the comment format from #10, so that numbering would continue.) Ariel♥Gold 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Changing to Neutral leaning to oppose (and I'm really sorry about this one), but the issues Bishonen raises really are serious. There is no way this weasel-worded poorly-sourced piece of POV-pushing should legitimately have passed as a GA (even in an improved state, it doesn't even look likely to pass its AfD, let alone a GAC), so - much as I dislike the way everyone seems to be lining up to sling mud at you - I have to assume that either something iffy was going on, or you had a bad lapse of judgement. Since it does seem to be a one-off thing, I'm not going to oppose you on the basis of it, but if you pass now everyone you come into conflict with as an admin will have a legitimate reason to assume bad faith. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral - until question response. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Neutral - I am changing, albeit a bit reluctantly and after much thought, to neutral as well. I am concerned about the GA incident. Not inasmuch as I think that DHMO did anything intentionally dishonest based on what I have read, but more because it speaks to a quality of judgment that I wonder about. It seems to represent a desire to put one's "Wikipedia career" goals ahead of the project itself. It does not seem as though we will see a response from him on the topic before the close of this RfA. I am also concerned about the focus that DMHO has on this RfA. WP:NOBIGDEAL seems to be a two way street to me. Not a big deal, but the focus here is extreme. That being said, I don't envy his roasting here in any way and think it takes some real chutzpah to bear up under it as he has. I want to re-assert that we do have a valuable editor here who has made many fine contributions to the project. I am merely concerned about priorities and how they might impact DMHO's use of the tools. My recommendation would be taking a step back, considering much of what's been said here and continuing the good work. Into The Fray T/C 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Neutral I closed last night a DRV of an AFD that this user had closed. The general agreement of the DRV participants is that this user got the close wrong, but there wasn't general agreement about what to do instead (even split between overturn and delete, overturn and no consensus, and relist - but absolutely no endorsement of the close). This experience is quite limited, but the unanimous non-endorsement of the AFD close indicates that the user isn't ready for that aspect of being an admin. GRBerry 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    That's a bit harsh - I doubt there's anyone here who hasn't made at least one good-faith but wildly wrong XfD call — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    There's a difference between an inappropriate nom and an inappropriate close. 86.138.190.45 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Neutral (from oppose) per Riana's initial oppose, this, and this. This user does some good stuff, but like last time, recent events have made me uncomfortable. Daniel 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Neutral Good user, but I don't have the heart to support or oppose. M.(er) 04:52, 29 September 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.