Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:11, 29 May 2008

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Voice your opinion (talk page) (96/8/2); Scheduled to end 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination by Daniel

Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs), or Alex, has been on Wikimedia since August 15, 2006—approaching two years now. On reflection, there can be no doubt that there have been ups and downs during this period. I ask not that you fixate yourself on the very distant past, but rather consider the most important question: has the development of this user since their last RfA, and in recent periods generally, demonstrated that this user has a sufficient level of understanding, experience, and cluefullness, to be a good administrator?

I would like to give this statement some depth, because of how critical I feel it is. Excluding his first RfA when he was very new, Alex's last three RfA's have all been unsuccessful due to concerns other than inexperience. It may surprise you to learn that I was neutral leaning oppose in two of these. I do not think Alex would have made a good administrator a year-or-so ago. I do not think he would have made a good administrator seven months. However, this is not the most important factor in participation in this discussion. We all make mistakes. Some of us learn from our mistakes; some don't. The former are given a chance at RfA, the latter aren't. Many Wikipedians do some questionable things when they're new here; some never stop, but some mature before our eyes and turn out to be fantastic Wikipedians. I certainly did my fair share of silly things, but I hope that I came out the other end of the pipe in reasonable shape. The reason why juvenile criminal records are sealed (in the real world) is because people new to society make mistakes, and we don't want to ruin their lives; I cannot understand why such a principle would not extend onto Wikipedia, albeit in the most general of forms.

Formerly Giggy, now Dihydrogen Monoxide, I have followed Alex's development on Wikipedia with great interest. He is a surprisingly-well rounded contributor, who has demonstrated experience in many areas of Wikipedia. He has been a substantial contributor to 10 Featured Articles, 25 Good Articles, 4 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Portal, 2 Featured Topics, and 11 DYK's. He maintains a list of his contributions at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles, which may be of interest. That's not a half-bad effort by any standard. What's more important, though, is in the creation of these articles, lists and portals, Alex frequently collaborated and interacted with others (myself included). He addressed concerns about the articles, sought input on improving them, and then proceeded to articulate his viewpoints in traversing the featured article process—not an easy thing to do—and has come out as successful ten times. His very positive Good Article reviews are only an extension of this skill he has developed.

"So what? He writes articles", you say. "That doesn't make him qualified for adminship by itself". True—although administrators should have experience in mainspace to be able to deal with content disputes effectively (I saw a good analogy to how a department manager is often a former department employee, simply because they understand how that department works)—they also need to be well-versed in policy, have a positive history of interaction with Wikipedians outside of a content environment, and have overall good judgement and experience. Alex has all three, as any cursory check of his contributions will show you. He is friendly, welcoming, happy to assist new users with questions, and best of all, he does everything with a laugh and isn’t overly-serious about anything, yet knows the time and place for being respectful and reserved. The latter has been the most stark improvement—there were certainly concerns about his judgement and questionable acts of non-seriousness earlier in his time at Wikipedia, but I'm confident that Alex has learnt from what was said about them by others, has taken the criticism to heart, and is a better Wikipedian for it.

So, what experience does Alex have in such tasks? Well, probably most impressive is the fact that he is an administrator and bureaucrat at the Wikimedia Commons. His userpage can be seen here; he is one of only nine total bureaucrats, of whom seven are active (both at the time of writing). He is also a recently-appointed member of the Bots Approval Group, and has in many respects been offering a "non-bot-operator" opinion that was so craved by the community. He has, to date, performed both his Commons and BAG roles with distinction, and I see no reason why both that won't continue, and why he wouldn't do similarily well with English Wikipedia adminship. He has had rollback rights since January 10, and has not once been approached due to misuse of it—not something which is very common these days. Furthermore, Alex was a driving member of the narrowly-unsuccessful Brisbane 2009 Wikimania bid, and I was honoured to be his proxy vote in his absence at the recent Wikimedia Australia meeting.

To quickly summarise: 10 FA's, 25 GA's, 11 DYK's, various other content contributions, helpful, calm, intelligent, bureaucrat at Wikimedia Commons, Bot Approvals Group, flawless use of rollback. Over 22,500 edits, around 600 semi-automated, 5,500 (~30%) mainspace, 5,000 (~25%) projectspace, 5,000 (~25%) usertalkspace. Alex will be, in my very humble opinion, a fantastic administrator. His assistance in areas such as image deletion, updating Did You Know, deletion discussions, and general maintenance, will be a clear benefit to Wikipedia. So, I respectfully ask that you reflect on the question I posed to you, the reader, at the top of this RfA, and on the following statement by Denis Waitley: Mistakes are painful when they happen, but years later a collection of mistakes is what is called experience. Please, dwell not on the distant past, but reflect on the intermediate time period, and the relative improvement. There is no doubt in my mind that Dihydrogen Monoxide, based on my observations over a period of around a year and a half, has improved to a point where he will be a fantastic administrator, and someone who I feel I can trust with the extra tools to do a good job. I truly hope you agree.

Best of luck, Alex. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conom by Balloonman Admin Coaching is more than just learning about policies and procedures, if that were all there was to it, then there is no way that H20 should ever have been my coachee. H20 knows more about policies and guidelines than I ever will. He is instrumental in so many areas that most already think he is an admin and those who don't are wondering why go through coaching? Why would Balloonman, who opposes the notion of using coaching to "polish off resumes" accept H20 as a coachee? Because I saw a need that I thought I could help with. H2O's previous nominations failed due to several intangibles. This, IMHO, is a harder to address than lacking article contributions articles or unfamiliarity with policies and procedures. To work on his image here, I asked H20 to live by the mantra, Civility, Responsibility, and Maturity and treated H20's coaching as an extended editorial review. On a regular basis I have provided him with direct and immediate feedback on how his action have/have not lived up the mantra I've preached. Throughout his coaching I was impressed with how he grew in these three areas.

H2O is committed to this project. He only wants to see it succeed and has it's best interest at heart. He is a solid contributor with more FA/GA's than I have fingers. He knows policy and guidelines better than almost anybody I've ever met. H20 has proven himself to be worthy of the trust demanded to receive the tools.Balloonman (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Lara❤Love

I was a strong supporter of Alex from his second RFA on. I dropped my support during the third over the GA review issue—an issue with caused me to lose a lot of trust in him. Since then, he has more than regained my trust. Not only have I watched him mature, but I've been impressed with the great effort he has put into article writing. His skills have consistently improved and I truly view him as a great asset to the project. He has a solid grasp on policy, is knowledgeable in administrative areas and is already familiar with the tools (having been an administrator on Commons for several months now). His success on Commons (having recently been unanimously promoted to Bureaucrat) gives me further confidence in his abilities. His knowledge in the area of image use is, in my opinion, valuable for adminship, as image backlogs at CAT:CSD can get, and currently are, terrible. He has become a thoughtful and courteous editor who clearly keeps the goals of the project in mind. So, for all of those reasons, it is my honor to co-nominate Alex for adminship. Lara❤Love 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm not perfect, but I try to be my best. Worst comes to worst, this fails and I go write some more articles. With that in mind, I accept. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Most of my time is not spent participating in admin-stuff, though there are times when the tools would come in handy. As part of my work on Commons (admin and 'crat; RfA, RfB), I sometimes come across cases where being able to see deleted image content here would be very useful. The ability to undelete here would also be useful in cases where fair use images are deleted off Commons, as would the ability to delete when images are transferred from here to there (see the backlogs at Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons, which I'd like to help out with). I also come across speedies occasionally, and I have a good knowledge of the CSD, so I could help out with that. I have also helped out at DYK in an administrative capacity (updating T:DYK/N) on occasion, and have closed/participated in XfDs, so there are other areas in which I could lend a hand. The tools would also be useful as part of my work as a bot approvals group member—adding bots on trial to the AWB approvals list, for instance, is an admin-only task that sometimes delays BRFAs, and so the admin tools would make the process here run a bit smoother.

Primarily, though, I will remain an article editor and reviewer. It's what I do best.

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

A: My best contributions are probably those listed at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles. Of these, I am especially proud of a few things—of my 10 featured articles and 2 featured topics, for instance. I have also done large amounts of content review, and have received the "GAN reviewer of the month barnstar" multiple times.

I am proud of the work I have done in improving articles, and helping others to do so.

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: Having been an active editor for over a year, I have inevitably come into conflict with others before, though I don't actively go out to seek it. It is easy when considering adminship to shut up for 3 months—to hide from tense situations so as to not have disagreements, and not garner potential opposition. (This is partially a fault of the overly political RfA process, but also a fault of candidates.) I didn't intend to be such a candidate, and have continue to give my honest opinions on multiple issues across the project, commenting actively at AN, ANI, and on several requests for arbitration. While doing so, I have done my best to remain calm and civil throughout—staying out of the way of conflict is not commendable, but being a dick isn't either, and I have done my best to fall into neither of these categories.

Some people with longer memories will recall this incident, raised by Bishonen in one of my prior RfAs. This was quite a blow against the GA process and me, and I have striven since then to regain the respect and trust of those whose reputation, by association with GA, was dented. I will stress again that Digwuren and me did not agree to pass each other's articles or anything like that, and I endorse his year long ban. I apologise again to those whose faith in the GA process was harmed by this incident, it is one of my biggest regrets in my time here.

Optional Question by D.M.N.

4. If you did happen to make a wrong decision, which many good faith users critizised, would you put yourself open to recall? D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions by Dweller

5a. Rather than Balloonman's comments (below), how would you briefly characterise the reasons for previous, failed RfAs? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5b. More importantly, what did you learn from each? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Re Moreschi's comments below: rather than responding to an oppose, which can appear aggressive (and prompt further opposes), would you like the opportunity to explain the circumstances up here, instead? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Filll

7. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.

General comments

Links for Dihydrogen Monoxide: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Note: The following question was posted under Balloonman's nom. I moved it here. hmwith τ 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What happened? You were the first nominator Balloonman, only a few hours ago here? Much pertinent information that needs to be considered regarding this user's past (reformed or not) is now missing such as this: ..."To know the answer you have to look at H20's history. H20 has had four failed RfA's:

The first one failed primarily due to inexperience.
The second one failed because of his essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars and posting of private conversations.
The third one died due to the allegation of collusion involving good articles. There were other issues such as changing his name and his views on who should/should not be an admin. But those later points probably would have been overlooked if not for the Good Article fiasco.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2 was killed due to an incivilility at an RfB, an editor review and concerns about lack of maturity/poor judgment. It was also hampered by the fact that it was your fourth RfA in less than six months!".......

♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket02, this was removed by Balloonman here. I don't want to speak for him, so I'll leave him a note asking him to clarify. Hmwith, thanks, this is probably a better place for it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote my nom as the primary nom. Which included a brief summary of the first four noms. When I saw the size of Daniel's nom and how well written it was, I decided to take a secondary role with the nom. I moved Daniel to the top and shortened mine in accordance with my belief that secondary noms should be kept short and to the point. This is particularly true when I think the first nom is too big---as is being testified below with people saying they ain't reading all that.Balloonman (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Yes, yes! I am assured that he will be a big help to the project with the tools. Singu larity 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. Support. (edit conflict) Let's get this party started then...sure, 'pedia building. We'll hit him repeatedly with a wifflebat or trout if he mucks up in future....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (ec). I think the nominators put it better than I could but, very briefly, I've reviewed the last two failed RFAs (before I even knew this one was coming) and have measured the comments there against the contributor I've interacted with here. That process has made me completely comfortable with this support. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Fine, yes. WODUP 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2) I have been thoroughly impressed with the way Giggy has handled things, and also impressed at all the good work he has done FOR the project. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support MBisanz ^talk
Support - Per the noms from the trusted users above and per my own personal interactions with DHMO after he reviewed Neil Peart as a good article candidate for me. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good god yes. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only just discovered he wasn't an admin while attempting to get aid in getting some images moved to commons, which was surprising to say the least. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be a tireless worker. I think he has moved on since the opposes last time around. Kevin (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a positive addition to the admin corps, his growth over the past year has shown he is clearly ready for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dureo (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Giggy has really matured here on-wiki, and has shown his great dedication to the project - he would be a great asset as an administrator. krimpet✽ 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decent candidate, has reasonable clue, accepts Monopoly money. east.718 at 06:01, May 29, 2008
Yes! --jonny-m t 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Helz yes. Tiptoety ^talk 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. Again you forget to tell me about it, and again I had to look through RfA to find it. Daniel and you are the most miserable bastards I've ever seen... :p—Dark ^talk 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Alex has been a great friend to me from the beginning when I met him. We have communicated through many methods including real-life (another meetup must be planned soon!) and through IRC. I do not believe there is any problems looking through the contributions and he has just become a Commons bureaucrat so he is known to be trusted. Good luck Alex. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rootology (T) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big Support - DHMO is a valuable contributor and a major asset to Wikipedia, and will only be more so with a mop in hand. – Clockwork Soul 06:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor should be an admin. Darkspots (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always had positive experiences with DHMO. Given past experience and Q1, I know he's a man of my own interests, and that's primarily being an editor. Good luck mate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For sure. Alex is ready for the role, 100%. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's beyond time. I've seen Giggy work on other projects and he's great! Yes, he got off to a bit of a shaky start but an awful lot has happened in the last 6 months. No problems whatsoever here - Alison ^❤ 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God yes Viridae ^Talk 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
+ Much matured. Keegan^talk 06:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my most recent interaction with him was when he turned down a GA nomination that I'd edited on - his comments were fair and very helpful, and I was (once again) impressed with his approach. From all that I've seen in the last few months, I don't have a problem supporting the nomination. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mos def I think Alex is now ready, and I have no doubt that he will be an excellent, trustworthy admin. -- Kicking222, not signed in. (If a b'crat doubts I am me, feel free to use the email on my userpage.) 06:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you have to be signed in to !vote. Please sign in.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have emailed Mike (Kicking222) with a note that his vote has been indented. As he had previously expressed support of (one of) my RfAs, I don't consider this canvassing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not... for scores of reasons.Balloonman (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but can someone summarise Dan's nomination for me, tl;dr ;) --Step hen 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what dan said is: he's great, support himBalloonman (talk)
"Dan" or Danny as he likes to be called (*flees*) talks rubbish and hopes people will support Giggy based on the the size of the statement itself... To summarize, support or he'll fill you up with ice. —Dark ^talk 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like he has everything needed to be a proper admin. SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionally strong support - I grew excited the moment I saw this RfA from the top of the page. Water (that's what Dihydrogen monoxide is) is among the most active editors on the project. Well rounded and well versed in policy, his outstanding contributions span from a massive number of good article contributions, anti-vandalism efforts, and assistance at administrative noticeboards such as ANI. He is always civil and helpful in discussions, and is always focused on improving the encyclopedia. Giving him the mop and bucket won't just be giving us another editor with access to extra technical powers; I truly believe sysopping this editor will make Wikipedia as a whole a better place. And adding the nominations from editors whose judgement I fully trust and the fact that I sincerely believed for a while that he was already an administrator, there is absolutely no reason not to support this RfA. Valtoras (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support (edit conflict)x2 I've had nothing but positive interactions with Alex from day one. He is certainly mature enough to handle the tools. In fact, in my honest opinion, Alex is more knowledge and trustworthy than many seasoned admins. It's time to let him use his fullest potential to help Wikipedia. hmwith τ 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your number of co-nominators barely meets my standards. I'd have prefered to have seen a couple more, at least. However Daniel's verbose nomination statement at least creates the desired page size I expect. Pedro : Chat 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tarragon $upport. I like your idea's and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Dfrg_msc 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's hot. One of my favorite contributors. Mike H. Fierce! 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely 110% overwhelming support! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - superb editor, diligent, tireless, dedicated, and with some of the most impressive content contributions I've seen. Every interaction I've ever had or seen with this user has been very positive. Will be an excellent administrator. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per everyone. Will make a great admin. nancy ^(talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know you, Balloonman vouches for you, and between the two of you I feel there is enough trust to support. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, again. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one of the most dedicated article builders I know of. Committed to developing concensus in order to move the project forward. Couldn't say more. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dedicated editor and participant who has also contributed quality article content. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, per that huge heap of text way up the top there :) Daniel (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason as last time. Hopefully the extra buttons won't be too much of a distraction from your great article work and GA reviews. Spellcast (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Certainly now a more mature person than we saw at previous RfAs, an excellent content contributor/reviwer, has a clue... oh, and fantastic username! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:16, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
Support. Well, I'd put something witty in here, but I'm afraid its too early in the morning to think of such things. Great user. Qst (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I was made an admin, he could be on the board. Good luck Giggy. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think H2O is a thoughtful, smart editor who will do well as an admin. Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Duh! Mellie ♥ 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen DHMO everywhere. A hard-working, civil and trustworthy candidate who has my full support. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No problems I can see. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - The opposes don't worry me at all. We are all human, we all make mistakes, but I do not think that having an opinion about a block is one of them. He has said he will follow consensus and if that is not good enough for you, then it is most certainly good enough for me. Supported per WP:WTHN. Asenine 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Über support, per this. --Kakofonous (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've worked with DHMO here and at Commons and he's come along in leaps and bounds, he's honed his judgement and is an excellent contributor of quality content. I'm now completely certain that the promotion of DHMO would be a considerable benefit to the project. The nom's not bad either, I suppose. ;-) Nick (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with this one - he knows his stuff, and tells it how it is. Good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claro que si Spencer^T♦^C 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY Strong super duper Support: Perfect ! He is humourous and intelligent ( Nothing more to say ).... First Time , I dont even have to do a single research before deciding to press the button -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it was January when I last supported Dihydrogen Monoxide in the quest to become an administrator (apologies for the use of the word 'quest' there, I couldn't think of anything else!). There really is no place to start with Alex, he has provided me with any number of things, including:
1. substantial and significant help when I used to review articles for GA status, by showing me what to look for, interpreting the what is a good article? criteria for my first/second review (I can't remember which) and, I think, colloborating on at least another one.
2. determining consensus over at featured portal candidates where unbeknown to most of those here, is actually a featured portal co-director with me and OhanaUnited. He has and still is playing an important role in the upkeep of various portal credentials around en.wiki and helps close nominations that have received sufficient support to be promoted.
3. provides invaluable advice when on IRC, especially on #wikipedia-en where he has given great help to other aswell.
4. making my second RfA a little more amusing, and thus more enjoyable to be involved in
5. works extensively at, well... everywhere, making his own voice count and representing others in the process. A clearly outstanding candidate for adminship. Rudget (Help?) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've traditionally opposed DHMO in the past, but this time I even offered to nominate. Good work G1ggy. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You can't be any worse than the current lot! --Chris 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe this candidate will make a good admin from what I have seen of the candidate contrib. in my time here. Good luck. KTC (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^{(multiple edit conflicts)} Nearly strong support - I usually don't give my strong support to many candidates, but my first thought in mind when I saw this nomination at the RfA page was, "it would be very hard for me to oppose him". Alex has done a lot of exceptional article-writing work, with a high involvement in article-building areas such as GA reviewing. I really think his focus is in the right place; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's our top priority. From all that I've seen, I believe that he has the maturity for administrator decision making - for one, the areas he mentioned in Q1 are all things that he's had some experience in, not overstepping into somewhat unfamiliar ground, which I like seeing. Just recently, I had been noticing him and wondering when he'd run for adminship. He seems to know his stuff and policies. And finally, I was honestly impressed with his simple, NBD nom acceptance statement – "Worst comes to worst, this fails and I go write some more articles." Good luck with your adminship, you have my support, JamieS93 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and unqualified support. Having worked with Giggy on Commons, I have no hesitation about trusting him here. Durova^Charge! 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suport vincit qui se vincit; has learned from past mistakes, knows why we are here, writes articles, friendly to newcomers, not elitist etc--Phoenix -wiki 11:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
omg i couldnt be first to support? :( this is the only rfa ive ever actually added to my watchlist pre-emptively. naerii - talk 11:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. the noms are way. too. freaking. long. i am not reading all that :/ naerii - talk 11:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Mine is only one paragraph! You can read it. :D Lara❤Love 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. This is one of the users I have strong respect for. AVand ^talk _contribs 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen this guy everywhere and he'll make a great admin. --CapitalR (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought DHMO was already admin. I'm definitely sure DHMO will not abuse admin tools. D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A duh support. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd put something witty here, but all the good stuff's already been said. ffm 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Of course. Malinaccier P. (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'nuff said. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, definitely. Frank | talk 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EC Support you're a great guy :-) CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the line for "Indiana Jones"? Oh, wrong line. In any event, Support! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the latest nom support in history :D Lara❤Love 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope... Since I think "beat the nom support" is a sign of truly strong candidates, I don't !vote on my noms until they break 100 !votes or until the last day of their candidacy... that way every !vote can be a beat the nom support ;-) Balloonman (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't beat the nom support. --Kbdank71 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious I really can't believe you aren't an admin already Support -- Brilliant user, no problems at all! --Cameron (T|C) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful with the tools. Use them wisely and sparingly. I sincerely hope the administrator tools do not affect your ability to write articles. And if you send me thank you spam, this support will be rescinded. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never witnessed an instance that could make me doubt the benefit this candidate would have to this project as an administrator. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support hang on, since when have you not been an admin? :D Happy‑melon 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per everbody above. One of the best candidates I've seen in a long time. I see hom everywhere, especially GA and GAN, and I have no doubts he will make an excellent admin. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like his username. However I will be very disappointed if he does not thank me for this ;) 81.149.250.228 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my good man, IPs can't comment like this, so I've indented you. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Every edit made by this IP, even the bad ones, has been me 81.149.250.228 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thems the rules. See WP:RFA for more info. You must have a registered account to comment on RFA's. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're not an admin? Pff... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit. I went offline, come back online, and missed my chance to nominate. SOAB. DHMO is one of the strongest, most clueful, most daring, and most capable administrators we have. He should have the tools to go along with that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No sense he would abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I've disagreed with him sometimes and agreed with him sometimes. His recent behavior with the Moulton situation especially gives me pause. That said, overall I think that giving him the tools will benefit the project as long as he doesn't engage in controversial uses of the unblocking tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wanted to nominate him earlier to because he completely fills all of my requirements. He has a deep understanding of the relevant policies and he definitely meets all of the other requirements. Razor flame 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a little concerned by the links given by the opposition, not so much that they prove that Alex is wrong on this or that issue, but just that the recent blog post suggests that he currently has "issues". Sometimes, that makes me go neutral or oppose, on the theory of giving the candidate time to blow off some steam, so that neither they nor anyone else gets hurt. But in this case...OMG support. Let's keep up the drumbeat: we're building an encyclopedia, and nothing else matters as much as that; anyone who is essential to getting that done needs to be supported in every possible way, and Alex is absolutely critical to the proper functioning of WP:GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Über Support User is totally 1337. In other words, have interacted with H₂O, he is a good user who won't abuse the tools. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I opposed for good reasons on the previous occasions, but I see no reason to oppose this time. The GA process is so broken that any alleged abuse of it really doesn't matter. And opposes based on comments he's made on other sites are frankly odd. — iridescent 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I would far rather see him sticking with article writing and reviewing than getting sucked further into all the drama. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a leader in Commons and Wikimedia. Vishnava_talk 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's come a long way since his earlier RFAs but I've seen and appreciated his various contributions. He's not perfect (but, hey, who is?) and he has my trust. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite being perplexed by the link from Guettarda's oppose, I believe DHMO certainly can be trusted with the block/unblock, protect/unprotect, and delete/undelete buttons. I don't want to get into the can of worms involved there. This is in the past. There comes a time to leave the past in the past. DHMO seems deeply into Wiki-politicking and still has a flair for the dramatic. Oh well. If he were perfect, he would be up for sainthood, not adminship. He is a very bright young man who is passionate about this project. His contributions are astounding. He has more than adequate understanding of policy to have the buttons. If I were political, I would probably disagree with him thoroughly on many things. Political differences aside, to say his adminship is a net positive is a vast understatement. Dloh cierekim 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Resistance is futile, Lol. Your deeply needed, I see you everywhere and to be honest I already thought you were an Admin. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About fucking time. dorftrottel (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Don't trust his judgment; when even Moulton's strongest supporters say "leave him blocked", DHMO argues for an unblock. And this is posted after this evidence had been presented. Does not appear to have the maturity to be an admin. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, thank your for your comments. I understand the concerns, and will point out that, as an administrator, I would not be willing to unblock Moulton without a clear consensus. Supporting an unban and unblock is where I leave it—it's part of the consensus building process and I don't intend to ignore this and rogue-unblock. Part of the consensus building process is also having differing opinions and being willing to compromise—in that sense I don't see an issue in my disagree with Lar and Kim (I assume you refer to them when you say "his strongest supporters"). Again, thanks for giving your opinion. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No thanks. I do not trust this candidate's judgement at all. (I'd never trust anybody capable of this [1]). --Folantin (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to articlulate your point further, focusing on responding to Q3? Daniel (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he had really cared about the credibility of the GA process he would have distanced himself from it after that incident. Of course, the GA Project is more about social networking than producing good articles. As Dbachmann put it: " WikiProject Good Articles even has a newsletter now, and an impressive 195 members... How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources?". --Folantin (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that the merits of the GA process as a whole are relevant to this discussion, especially when your views have been distinctly rejected by consensus. The fact that Alex now compiles detailed reviews which improve articles is not something which one should be able to oppose over, in my opinion. Or do you dispute that his GA reviews help articles? Daniel (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"your views have been distinctly rejected by consensus". What on earth are you talking about? --Folantin (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the GA process is a negative on Wikipedia and should be abolished as it is simply "more about social networking than producing good articles". The fact that it still exists after a handful of other people with a similar minority viewpoint have tried to close it down is a testament to the fact that your opinion on the process does not have consensus support, and to be honest it is not even relevant here. I am confident the people who will be reading this RfA in the coming days will recognise your historical attitude to such a process and conclude that your oppose is of little merit due to it being motivated by such. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people simply don't care about GA. It's held in widespread contempt. It's not really surprising when pieces of dreck like this [2] get passed. That was nominated by a member of the GA team and passed within 24 hours. A month previously the nominator was lecturing us about the new high standards the GA process would impose. I'm still trying to work out how to fix the mess on that page. I don't care if Uncle Tom Cobley and all think GAs are just dandy. The facts tell a different story. --Folantin (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one passed GA on January 10, 2007. You did the right thing to delist it, it's nowhere near GA quality. Good work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I waited six weeks to see if GA quality control picked up on it. No such luck. The fact that this was nominated by a GA reviewer and passed remarkably quickly doesn't inspire confidence. As Killer Chihuahua says below: "there are very serious concerns raised about behind-the scenes collusion on GA articles". --Folantin (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this chap had recently retired? Granting adminship after storming off in a huff over something trivial does not seem like a good idea. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this. Nor is the blog post especially endearing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So because you misunderstood what he was saying, he's unfit to be an admin? There's clearly nothing in that blog post to indicate that he's "storming off in a huff". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G1ggy does many good things, no doubt; however I am not comfortable with giving the tools to anyone whose judgment about blocking/unblocking is so very poor. In addition to his "disgust" and quitting mere days ago, mentioned by Moreschi, there is the more pertinent issue of his interpretation of events in the referenced blog post. He seems to have missed the salient point about the undertow's action, and wiki-lawyers on about "banned" vs "not banned", missing completely that the undertow didn't discuss the unblock with anyone; didn't post on ANI for discussion prior to the action (as Durova, considering the same unblock, had done previously, as is correct) or even after his actions - No, he unblocked and promptly went off to WR to tell the party about it. This is very poor judgment for an admin, and G1ggy blasts, not TU, for his actions, but those who were appalled. No, this is siding with the Clueless. In addition, there are very serious concerns raised about behind-the scenes collusion on GA articles; which combined with the MySpace "friends" vs "non-friends" I have seen recently from some members of the Bathrobe Cabal, worries me exceedingly. I do no, in short, trust that G1ggy has What is Best for the Encyclopdia in mind. Puppy cannot support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHMO is not a member of the BRC. Lara❤Love 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to trouble myself to dig through the contribs and paste all the diffs which I believe show a close association. You are the founder of TBC; you are a co-nom. The undertow was/is a "best friend" of yours; it is his actions and the reaction of DHMO/G1ggy I was discussing. This should be sufficient. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Guettarda. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose For some off-wiki comments that indicate a complete lack of understanding of racist code words. Also per the other opposes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is rather fallacious. There is a reason that we have two separate articles (White pride and White supremacy). This also has nothing to do with adminship. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a supporter, I have to say that I share some of OrangeMarlin's concern on this. However, I'm quite certain that the nominee's not a racist (or, rather, I see no evidence at all that he is a racist), and I don't see misunderstanding the phrase "white pride" as a dealbreaker as far as adminship goes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still appears to be the same dramatic kid we saw in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2. Some more recent questionable actions are pointed out above, also. I don't quite get why so many people appear to believe that you should pass an RFA if you simply do them over and over. Friday (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per [3]. Wikipedia is not a social club, an MMORPG, or any such thing. I don't know if this was trolling or serious, but assuming that it was serious, Wikidrama is not a good thing and if you becoming an admin is going to create more of it, then that's not something we need. --B (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Pending optional answers to my optional questions. :-) I'll clarify that; if the candidate chooses not to answer them, it does not mean I will automatically leave this as neutral or oppose. Or support. Hope that's clear! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling Adminship may make his great article work suffer. I think he'd be so much better as a non-admin editor. Would prefer he stuck to article work rather than trivial admin jobs. Meh. Al Tally ^talk 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my article writing has really suffered since becoming an admin...(chuckle..actually could add alot of admins and bureaucrats are right up there on that list too, heck) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 #'''Support''' Despite being perplexed by the link from Guettarda's oppose, I believe DHMO certainly can be trusted with the block/unblock, protect/unprotect, and delete/undelete buttons. I don't want to get into the can of worms involved there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence&oldid=160458878#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen This is in the past.] There comes a time to leave the past in the past. DHMO seems deeply into Wiki-politicking and still has a flair for the dramatic. Oh well. If he were perfect, he would be up for sainthood, not adminship. He is a very bright young man who is passionate about this project. His contributions are astounding. He has more than adequate understanding of policy to have the buttons. If I were political, I would probably disagree with him thoroughly on many things. Political differences aside, to say his adminship is a net positive is a vast understatement.[[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]] 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' - Resistance is futile, Lol. Your deeply needed, I see you everywhere and to be honest I already thought you were an Admin. [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#0f0">'''Realist'''</span><span style="color:#120A8F"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] ([[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#EF9B0F ">'''''Come Speak To Me'''''</span>]]) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
+#About fucking time. <big>[[User:Dorftrottel#DT|dor<!-- -->ftrottel]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Dorftrottel|talk]])</big>  16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 =====Oppose=====