Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Voice your opinion (talk page) (195/28/7); 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I do intend to be open to recall. I have not developed an exact process yet, but mine will be highly similar to SirFozzie's.

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)

Thanks for the question, I was kinda expecting something like this. I don't think I could go through every reason for opposition in past RfAs; they are generally valid and worthy of consideration, but there are many, regrettably. So to briefly characterise, there have been many issues concerning maturity, concerning my making snap judgments or decisions, sometimes on the spur of the moment, and sometimes coming to regret them later. These have come up in a few circumstances; there was the GA issue raised by Bishonen 9 months ago, there have been occasional random bouts of incivility, there was that editor review, etc. I'm happy to go into more detail on a more specific issue, I just don't want to break the tl;dr barrier!

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

Again, I can't comment on every incident, but to be brief, it has been a slow learning journey. Many would argue the journey is still ongoing... while I disagree, I'm probably a bit biased on that. But what I have generally learned is that the preview button is really helpful, and that Wikipedia really isn't that important. As JamieS93 pointed out in his support, this RfA failing isn't the end of the world. I think I could help the project more with the tools, but I'm cool with it either way.

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)

I don't think there is a great deal to say that hasn't already been said, either in the initial blog post or in my other commentary on the situation. I think the_undertow could have done things in a better way than a rogue unblock, but at the same time, I don't think the critique he received, including the allegations of racism (contradicted by our own encyclopedia articles), were justified. I don't go around seeing cabals, but in this case I do feel there was some serious behind-the-scenes stuff taking place. Some would argue it's somewhat similar to the GA project (though, since the Digwuren incident, I have never done such a thing, and am still disappointed by those who attack GA solely because of that incident).

Note, you said to respond to Moreschi, but as others have opposed per him and added some other commentary on that, I have also responded somewhat to their concerns. Hope you don't mind.

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.

I have answered all of the AGF 2 challenge exercises, using the multiple choice option. Answers here.

Optional questions from MBisanz

8. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?

I have looked at this list before, so I am at least aware of all of them. I have also used the majority of the tools on Commons. Not all the tools have a specific related policy, and in such cases, using common sense and my best judgement, and asking for a second opinion where needed, would be my plan of action.

9. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?

I'm not sure what specifically you're asking. Yes, I would be happy to pass on deleted content to non-admins, if they ask and if it falls under the criteria noted on the template.

Optional questions from  Marlith (Talk)  02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

10. How have you changed since your last RfA?  Marlith (Talk)  02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot. I think I've matured a great deal, and so the immature, poor-judgementish behaviour has cut down. I still give my frank opinions, but I don’t make random childish rants, for instance. I think the comments below (in all three sections) answer this question as well as I ever could.

Optional question from InDeBiz1

11. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

I assume you ask in the context of adminship. If so, than yes, an editor can be trusted after a past block, in my opinion. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom, for instance, where I nominated a user who had vandalised in the past. A reasonable amount of time—I prefer not to use an arbitrary measure. If they can be trusted, it doesn't matter if it's been a week or a year since last time.

Questions from Matthew

12. In your own words please: what is an administrator?

A. An administrator is a user who is trusted to assist the site in a maintenance role. They are also expected to uphold high levels of conduct, to be welcoming and helpful to/with new users, and to help move the encyclopedia forwards.

13. A block is a ___ ___?

A. A block is a technical measure by which an account is made unable to edit for a set period of time, in accordance with the Blocking policy.

14. When is it inappropriate to ban a user?

A. It is appropriate to ban a person when they have exhausted the community's patience, to the point where the community is no longer to deal with the user. A user is de-facto banned if no administrator is willing to unblock, or to propose an unblock. Users can also be banned by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the WMF.

Sorry, misread this as when is it appropriate. It would be inappropriate in situations where a person has not yet exhausted the community's patience, where administrators would be willing to unblock, or to propose an unblock, and where progress can be made on the encyclopedia with the help of the person in question.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/G1ggy
• Requests for adminship/Giggy
• Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide
• Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2
• Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

• 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. hmwithτ 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

My God! WP:100 in 11 hours? Is that a record? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be. It certainly is for the fifth Rfa in less than a year by one person. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is - Phaedriel, the second-fastest WP:100-hitter, received her 100th support 13 hours after acceptance. DHMO is highly likely to hit WP:200. Valtoras (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would not be surprised if the opposes get up to 50 or so...Balloonman (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the record for WP:200... I think we might break that before I wake up! G'nite allBalloonman (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that the shortest time is roughly 3 days. I've seen nothing 2 days or shorter. Should WP:300 go ahead and be made? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate all the support, but the number is relatively immaterial and not really a big deal. It's the consensus that counts, not how high up WP:100 I get... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself bud... oh you are ;-) Balloonman (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did want to add a comment about the Bishonen evidence related to GA corruption. We've seen several opposes based upon that isolated incident and we've seen several supports who still hold it out to be a concern. I would be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat bothered by it myself. What alieviated my fears was H2O's comments during coaching about how he learned from this and has redoubled his efforts to try to redeem himself in the GA community. The fact that LaraLove, a person who all but lives in GA, is one of his co-noms speaks volumes for how he has repaired the damage done with that community. Yes, he blew---nobody is denying that. But that being said, I think the people in that group who work with him on a regular basis have grown to trust and value his input despite a major knock against his reputation.Balloonman (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes, yes! I am assured that he will be a big help to the project with the tools. Singularity 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2. . 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)
3. 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)
4. (ec) Fine, yes. WODUP 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
5. (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)

   Support MBisanz ^talk Moved to neutral.MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

6. 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)
7. Good god yes. SQL^{Query me!} 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. Support - Dureo (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. Support Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Decent candidate, has reasonable clue, accepts Monopoly money. east.718 at 06:01, May 29, 2008
15. Yes! --jonny-mt 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Helz yes. Tiptoety ^talk 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
17. 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)
18. 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 ↗^TCB 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support rootology (T) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Big Support - DHMO is a valuable contributor and a major asset to Wikipedia, and will only be more so with a mop in hand. – ClockworkSoul 06:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
21. This editor should be an admin. Darkspots (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. Support. For sure. Alex is ready for the role, 100%. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. God yes Viridae^Talk 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
26. + Much matured. Keegan^talk 06:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
27. 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)

    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)

    Unfortunately, you have to be signed in to !vote. Please sign in.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    It's not... for scores of reasons.Balloonman (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

28. Support, but can someone summarise Dan's nomination for me, tl;dr ;) --Stephen 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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)

29. Support, looks like he has everything needed to be a proper admin. SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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. hmwithτ 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
32. 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)
33. Tarragon $upport. I like your idea's and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Dfrg_msc 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
34. That's hot. One of my favorite contributors. Mike H. Fierce! 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Absolutely 110% overwhelming support! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. Support - per everyone. Will make a great admin. nancy ^(talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
38. 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)
39. Support, again. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
40. 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)
41. Support. Dedicated editor and participant who has also contributed quality article content. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Yeah, per that huge heap of text way up the top there :) Daniel (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. 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)
45. 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)
46. Support. If I was made an admin, he could be on the board. Good luck Giggy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I think H2O is a thoughtful, smart editor who will do well as an admin. Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support- Duh! Mellie ♥ 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
49. 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)
50. Support - No problems I can see. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
51. 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)
52. Über support, per this. --Kakofonous (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Claro que si Spencer^T♦C 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. 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 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. 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)
59. 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)
60. Support - You can't be any worse than the current lot! --Chris 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
61. 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)
62. ^{(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)
63. 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)
64. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. 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)

    p.s. the noms are way. too. freaking. long. i am not reading all that :/ naerii - talk 11:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hey! Mine is only one paragraph! You can read it. :D Lara❤Love 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

67. Strong Support. This is one of the users I have strong respect for. AVand^talk_contribs 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I've seen this guy everywhere and he'll make a great admin. --CapitalR (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
69. 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)
70. Support - A duh support. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - I'd put something witty here, but all the good stuff's already been said. ffm 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Strong Support. Of course. Malinaccier P. (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - 'nuff said. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
74. Support, definitely.  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
75. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
76. EC Support you're a great guy :-) CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
77. Is the line for "Indiana Jones"? Oh, wrong line. In any event, Support! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
78. Possibly the latest nom support in history :D Lara❤Love 12:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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)

79. Didn't beat the nom support. --Kbdank71 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
80. 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)
81. 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)
82. 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)
83. Support hang on, since when have you not been an admin? :D Happy‑melon 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
84. Strong support Per everbody above. One of the best candidates I've seen in a long time. I see him 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)
85. 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)Note: Domain of lighting has identified himself as the author of this support below.

    Sorry my good man, IPs can't comment like this, so I've indented you. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    I have this account (IP and I are one and the same) so I've dedented the vote if that's ok? Domain of lighting (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

86. Support You're not an admin? Pff... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
87. 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)
88. Support No sense he would abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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) Switching to oppose. Too many concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

89. 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. Razorflame 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
90. 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)
91. 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)
92. 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)
93. 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)
94. Support a leader in Commons and Wikimedia. Vishnava _talk 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
95. 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)
96. 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. Dlohcierekim 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Bishonen's support goes a long way to allay any residual concerns I had. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

97. 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)
98. About fucking time. dorftrottel (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
99. Geez, I go 24 hours without peeking and there's a new RFA with 100+ comments already, and my comment is already superfluous? Although there are a couple of diffs in the oppose section that seem to indicate that DHMO might not be perfect, and as tempted as I am to vote against (and seek recall for) everyone that is not perfect, (1) we would only have 2 admins left; and (2) my own glass house couldn't take that kind of scutiny. At some point you forgive excesses in the past. The "net benefit" arguement makes this a no brainer for me. (Actually, I see I could have made this shorter. The short version is: per Dlohcierekim.) --barneca (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
100. Support 101 =[ I have to support you for what you have done! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
101. Strongly: ever since I met Dihydrogen Monoxide back in May 2007, I have constantly been impressed with him. I have had continually good interactions with him, and I don't believe he'll do any damage. He's trusted on other projects, so I don't see why he'd go berserk here. I co-nominated him back in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy, as I believed he was ready then, and I believe he's ready now. Oh, and Daniel should pat himself on the back for one hell of a nomination statement. :) Acalamari 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

     WP:100 ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

102. Support. No issues here. Every encounter with DHMO has been positive. None of the oppose diffs worry me at all. Tan | 39 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
103. Support. →Christian.И 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
104. Strong Support I have been waiting for this RFA since February. I have actually considered starting this RFA without telling him I did it just to see how many people would support even if he hadn't indicated his acceptance. J.delanoy^gabsanalyse 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
105. Support - Indeed, maturity is a wonderful thing. Sean William @ 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
106. Support Been waiting a long time for this one. No reservations whatsoever. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
107. Support After looking at the links for opposes, and the comments in support, I think there are enough reasons to believe DHMO is ready for the tools. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
108. Yes, please. Ironically I was kicking around the idea of asking if he'd be interested in being nominated for adminship. I see that I'm not the only one (besides the noms) who had been thinking about it. This one is long overdue. Arkyan 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
109. If it were any other editor, flags would go up with all the RfAs, but I have had nothing but good experiences with this dedicated editor. Maybe he might have some occasional bad judgement, but no worse than I have in my tenure as admin; besides, as per Q#1 he's undertaking minor but helpful tasks which can be aided by the tools, so I see nothing wrong here. Excelsior! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
110. No more beat the nom supportsBalloonman (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
111. Support I think that he will do a good job..Modernist (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
112. Support Not persuaded by opposes, believe he will be an asset with the tools. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
113. Support per my esteemed colleagues, above. I'll highlight Barneca and Dlohcierekim's supports as good statements of my reasoning; If drama there was, it's in the past. I may disagree with an editor, or even an admin, but disagreeing is a far cry from believing that that admin will abuse his tools. DHMO is a good editor, and will indeed be a net positive as an admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
114. Support Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
115. Support Yes, please! I've been waiting for this opportunity for a while, and I'm glad it's finally arrived. There is a lesson for all of us: if you behave like a kid, you get treated like a kid. If you behave like an adult, you get treated like an adult. Giggy/H₂O has matured since I did an editor review on him last year: that was before he wrote all those beautiful GAs and FAs. Good luck to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
116. support —DerHexer (Talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
117. Support (EC x116). What's left to say? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
118. Support - It's about time. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
119. Obviously- Yes please! Give him the the mop already.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
120. What an interesting candidate! Dihydrogen Monoxide has done some fantastic article work and he is a great credit to the encyclopædia. He usually acts in a mature fashion and can communicate effectively, but I do worry about some of his remarks made off-wiki. Nevertheless, he has shown at Commons that he can be an effective administrator and I believe that he will act professionally in that capacity here in English Wikipedia. He appears to have a strong sense of justice and equality; he is willing to stand up and be counted, even if it will garner him opposes from certain editors. Will there be drama? Maybe, but I honestly believe he will do what is right with the tools. The best of luck, EJF (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
121. Support DM3 is one of those editors where I always believed he already was an admin. No concerns from me. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
122. Strong Support I opposed Alex in his last two RfAs because of immaturity and civility issues. I think he's learned from his mistakes, and has shown an improved demeanor on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
123. Support Nothing but good interactions with him. Honestly thought he was an admin already. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
124. Strong Support: I normally don't have much to say in RfAs. Hell, I've never even talked to Dihydrogen Monoxide, but whenever I read projects, read talk pages, there always seems to be a comment from him and it always seems to be insightful. The man is a machine with the amount of mainspace edits, and I think it would be a disservice if he wasn't sysoped. Looking at his work at Commons, I see no reason to object to this. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
125. Support - has been the most helpful to me at Bot Requests for approval, and I've seen him around recently helping out the GA's as well. --T-rex 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
126. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
127. Support - Seen this user around and believe him to be very helpful. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
128. Support - Worthy user who will not abuse the tools. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
129. Support - About time, too. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
130. Support —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
131. King Size Support - I've been waiting for this to open a while now. Most definitely ready. iMatthew _T.C. 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
132. Support. I think I've played some part in shooting down several of H₂O's previous RFAs (see for instance Oppose 10/his answer to Question 3 above), but I've been truly impressed by his development since those. Are you sure you're the same person, Giggy..? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC).

     No... we worked on that... civility, maturity, and responsibility.Balloonman (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

133. Support per pretty much everyone else; Alex will make an excellent admin. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
134. Al Tally ^talk 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
135. Support - I've watched DHMO for quite a while, and I have to agree with Bishonen, he's really not the same fellow who was here a few RfA's ago. I think all of us can have our sillier moments, but he's shown that he can take responsibility seriously by his work on Commons, and his talk page is full of examples of his assisting editors with a wide variety of issues. He's shown he can collaborate with others and has pretty good communication skills. Risker (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
136. Support - Alex is a trusted admin on commons, is a quality contributor here, clearly gets what wikipedia is all about and understands what the tools are for/not for. While I appreciate the points raised below I can't see any reason to think he'll use the tools innapropriately - Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
137. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
138. Definite support Especially with two great trustworthy and fair co-nominators adding their bit - but mainly because it's about time now.--VS ^talk 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
139. Support - Have seen this user around a fair bit, and have been impressed genearlly. So I support. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
140. Support. A content monster. I like content monsters. I think they should be given the tools needed to remain content monsters and be content monsters in a highly effective way. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
141. Support - Very helpful editor, I see no judgment worries otherwise. - Merzbow (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
142. Support Yes, H20 will be an excellent admin. Firm command of policy and an excellent mediator. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
143. This should have come a long time ago. As far as I can see, DHMO has fixed all the immaturity concerns present in some of his past RFAs, and in my eyes Moulton is a fairly intelligent guy with a COI problem, so I do not agree with Guettarda etc. "Storming off in a huff" doesn't concern me because it helps you cool down one's anger. In general, the opposes do not convince me, so therefore I !vote/vote/decide to Support. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
144. Support Definitely. I have read many of his comments on various talk pages throughout the project. I am impressed by the thoughtfulness, deliberativeness, and intelligence of the points which he's raised. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
145. Support I had my reservations in the past, but I think that enough time has passed. We all make mistakes, and I'm a believer in second chances. DHMO is a great editor who will do just fine with the mop. faithless (^speak) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
146. Support. Should we make DM pay for his mistakes from years back? I say NO. He should've got the mop long time ago.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
147. Ultra strong support. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
148. Super Strong Support DHMO is one of the best editors around here. He does more for the project than dozens of editors combined, and only wants to help the site. The opposing side does have a few somewhat good reasons, but I find that the majority just need to lighten up, and realize that making him an admin is nothing but good. Drama? Pffft. Give me a damn break. You guys want to complain about drama? Try starting at the source... he'll be better than the majority of the 1500+ "admins" we already have, Good Lord. Jmlk17 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
149. Strong, strong support. Most of the opposite are petty disagreements, and this is one of the most sensible editors on the project. Any issues I had from previous RfAs are long gone. This is overdue. Wizardman 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
150. Support - One of the few things I have to do before I leave. Make me proud, Alex... Astral (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
151. Support What is there else to say LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
152. Strong Support - Why didn't you tell me you were up for RFA? I would have co-nommed damn it! :P We have had conflicts and disagreements in the past, but those have helped me to know you better. I strongly believe that you will be a great admin. Good luck with the tools, --Chetblong (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
153. Support The oppose votes fail to shake my confidence in Dihydrogen Monoxide, who is a friendly, experienced and helpful editor. I'm sure he will be the same as admin, and the idea that he would abuse the tools is laughable. Frankly, much of the oppose rationales are not only petty (to use Wizardman's apt term), but are plainly unfit for serious consideration by anyone who truly believes in the positive values that are at the heart of this community. VanTucky 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
154. Support I must admit, this user has had some troubles with AGF in the past. However, I feel that after eight months, this user should have matured enough to remove his previous incivility. I trust Giggy with the tools provided that he continues to show newfound maturity.  Marlith (Talk)  02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
155. Support of course. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
156. Support - I've seen DM around for a while and he would be an asset as an admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 02:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
157. Commons trusts him enough to be a bureaucrat ... I think we can trust him to be an admin. Hard worker, nice guy, unlikely to blow up the wiki... Drama avoidance needs work, yes, but those faulting him for putting things in front of the community to see whether consensus still exists are way wide of the mark. Oh, and why didn't anyone canvass ME? I almost missed this one. support ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
158. Support I do have some reservations about his judgment occasionally, but this is still an overwhelming net positive. The tools have been a long time coming for Giggy. GlassCobra 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
159. I wasn't planning on supporting (although I think he'd make a great admin). However, after seeing some of the opposes, I'd just like to counter out some of the more piss poor ones below. Monobi (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
160. Support because I'm eternally grateful :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
161. Hells yeah. No one's more deserving. But I understand some opposing concerns and would advise Alex to go really slow at the beginning. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
162. Definitely. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
163. Support This H20 is duck-certificated. :-) Seriously now, we all known that Dihydrogen made quite a few mistakes before, but I believe that he has greatly improved in the recent past. He is dedicated, experienced and communicative. And, after all this time on Wikipedia, he's still friendly! Good luck mate, I'm looking forward to see this closed successfully (so I can make a long awaited amendment to a certain page you know which). ;-) (note: edit conflicted twice) Húsönd 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     PS:I second Riana. If promoted, please administer with caution and wisdom. Húsönd 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

164. Support Excellent editor. Excellent GA reviewer. I have no problems with this RfA. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
165. Haemo (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
166. Not much left to say Support. Oh! I forgot to mention this short, but excellent essay. —Travis^talk 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
167. Support. I've seen good things from DM here and on commons. No doubt he'll work well as an admin on this project. - auburnpilot talk 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
168. Support Will be an asset to the community with a mop. While I understand the concerns raised by those below, I think DHMO is communicative enough that if something does go off the rails, it can be set right soon enough. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
169. Support He is certainly a strong editor and I see no problems. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
170. Support It seems that the issues of maturity raised here are in the past; though some of the issues raised in this RfA have concerned me, per question 4, DHMO says he will be open to recall. Given this, I think he can be trusted to be responsible with the tools - if not, they can be removed.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
171. Support No doubt in my mind that DHMO has always and will continue to improve Wikipedia more then most editors, and surely to a greater extent if granted adminship. Drewcifer (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
172. Support You mean he's not an admin already? Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 05:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
173. Support Wonderful to see someone grow and improve like this. I think it is time to put him to the test, and I am very impressed with some of the answers here. --John (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
174. Support Good interactions with this user, will be a solid administrator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
175. Support- And I bet this will be a WP:200. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
176. Strong Support Good asset, will be good admin. Unsurprised by the alliances of some of the opposers. Minkythecat (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
177. Support due to candidates reaction to canvassing by the opposers. Jacina (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
178. Support Good asset, I hope a certain cabal is quaking in fear. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
179. Super Strong Diamond-Encrusted Special Support, I've known DHMO for awhile, and I am absolutely convinced that he can be trusted to use the tools in a responsible and professional manner. His conduct elsewhere where given the tools has been exemplary, and his contributions to the Wiki here are incredible, to say the least. If DHMO were not promoted, then we would be cheating ourselves out of what I'm convinced will be a really good servant of the Wiki. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
180. Support - Seen lots of good contributions from this user in several areas of the encyclopedia VegaDark (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
181. Support -- ahh what hasnt already been said...... what they all said Gnangarra 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
182. By the way, thanks for your commitment to the project.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 08:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
183. Strong support - Track record of building is strong. As for impartiality etc, the GAC/FAC record compares favourably to a lot of admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
184. Support — I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, you'll certainly make a good administrator. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
185. Support. He will be an excellent admin. Axl (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
186. Support It's time, surely and if Daniel is prepared to nominate that pretty much seals the deal. Good luck and all the best, Alex. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
187. Trusted, solid article contributor, competent, experienced, and good nomination statements. You have my support. Anthøny 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
188. Support on the power of the nomination statements and answers to the questions Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
189. Support: Nobody I think is an admin is! The user can be trusted with the tools, in my opinion...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
190. Support No reason to believe he would be anything other than a great admin. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
191. Support: A tireless worker ... and let's be serious. He's a bureaucrat on Commons. What the heck trumps that in terms of his ability to become an admin here? Yes, I've disagreed with him on a few things, but it's a crying shame how RfA is turning into "If X ever does, says or even thinks anything with which I disagree, it means s/he's unfit."  RGTraynor  13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
192. Support I have historically opposed DHMO's RfAs, but I think that he has improved and will make a good admin. However, this will likely never cease to worry me. Captain panda 14:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
193. Support I supported in your last RfA and can see no good reason not to in this one also. RMHED (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
194. Support, will not abuse the tools. Also offering moral support due to apparent Oppose canvassing by the ID Wikiproject people. Kelly ^hi! 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
195. Support, trusted already with extra tools on commons and the multiple FA's etc show his commitment to the project. -- Marcsin | ^Talk 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
196. Support Reliable user. Speed CG ^Talk 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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)

   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)

2. 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)

   Would you be able to articlulate your point further, focusing on responding to Q3? Daniel (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   "your views have been distinctly rejected by consensus". What on earth are you talking about? --Folantin (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   Do you realize how long ago that diff was? He should have changed by now.  Marlith (Talk)  02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

3. 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)

   I was thinking of this. Nor is the blog post especially endearing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   Yes, I mistakenly thought that he was quitting Wikipedia. Hence, the farewell note on his talk. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

4. 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)

   DHMO is not a member of the BRC. Lara❤Love 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   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)

5. Oppose - per Guettarda. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Additionally, after reading some of the comments below, he's seems like someone who craves drama. He retired 2 weeks ago and then is at RfA. Has serious maturity issues, in my opinion. He needs to control his temper, per the Chetblong incident. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

6. 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)

   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)

   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)

   White pride is considered an anti-Semitic and racist term by the Anti-defamation league. I stand by my consistent statements over the past couple of years that naively supporting racist code-words is still racist. And as far as admins go, I had enough of admins supporting racist POV-pushers on this project. And maggot, please redact your personal attack for stating my well-founded opinion is fallacious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Why must ones off-wiki opinions judge whether he would be good or bad. From what I can tell, he has never edited a white supremecist article or anything. And he has never pushed a POV to one. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

7. 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)
8. 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)

   There's a third option that you didn't bother to consider. Perhaps it was intended to be humorous? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I've thought about this for a while and have decided to oppose. My main concern is the candidate's strong criticism of a supposed "Intelligent Design cabal," in this case meaning editors who oppose ID.[4] First, the tendency to see cabals is divisive except a humorous context (and sometimes even then). Second, the idea that a cabal could form around a view that prevails among the overwhelming majority of experts in a given field is mystifying. We may as well talk about the "approximately spherical earth cabal" or the "Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth cabal." DHMO has done some good things and made other comments that I agree with. But the bottom line is "would I trust this person with the tools?" and I'm uneasy enough that -- reluctantly -- my answer has to be "no." (Please note that my concern is with the "ID cabal" worldview and not the particulars of the Moulton case, where I have chosen to remain uninvolved.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen. That whole episode stunk. I do not trust the user. Neıl 龱 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose: There are already 100+ supports, many from users for whom I have great respect, so I expect this will pass. Still, my concerns are in line with those of Friday. The single quality most lacking in our admin corps is maturity, and I see repeated and varied concerns about DHMO's maturity and judgement. I can accept that we disagree about Moulton - plenty of sensible people think his case should be reconsidered. But this reading of the situation is troubling on a few levels. Most importantly, an editor who thinks that the_undertow was unfairly railroaded after a responsible exercise of his administrative powers, and who fails to understand why his actions were inappropriate, should not be an admin. That's exactly the kind of drama-generating approach that we need less of. I'm sorry to sound harsh, and I debated whether to bother here, since DHMO has done a lot of good work in articlespace and on Commons and this seems certain to pass, but I feel pretty strongly about that. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for your comments MastCell. On the "and who fails to understand why his actions were inappropriate", I'd point you to my answer to Dweller's question above... I said there that I do think he could have gone about it better than a rogue unblock. I agree fully with his overall stance, but I don't think being that bold was the best way to do it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose I agree with MC. This is essentially a wasted oppose, but I must make it even though I am sure this candidate will pass with so much support. Just a few things about him that give me pause, as above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose—Nice chap, but I'm not impressed with his contributions to the FAC review process, where he all too often declares "Support" without sufficient explication. I don't have solid evidence, but I have suspected his participation on occasion in support for friends without exercising his critical faculties. And I'd like to see a greater focus on leadership—both in administrative terms and writing, since good writing seems to be part of his aim as a WPian. I don't see it at the moment.TONY (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Of the opposs so far, Tony, this one is one of the more painful to me. Yes, I did fall victim occasionally to this practice, often on articles I have reviewed recently, but I can't remember doing so in the last two or three months. In the meantime I have seen you, and agreed with you, criticising this behaviour from others. Without meaning to attack your comments or anything like that, are you sure you're not accidentally mistaking my old and none-too-commons quick-supports with some more common, and more recent ones, from others? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    No, Tony is not mistaken. I understand your enthusiasm and desire to contribute to the Project, but your frequent premature supports on ill-prepared articles that don't meet criteria is a current, ongoing issue at WP:FAC, and if not for the hard work done by other reviewers who identify significant issues subsequent to your premature supports, your "Support early, Support often" !votes at FAC could be causing a decline in FA standards. I'm sure I've brought this to your attention before; please review the FAC archives to see how often you Support over a long list of questionable sources, or how often subsequent reviewers identify significant deficiencies after you support. Supporting articles over long lists of unresolved sourcing questions ignores our most fundamental WP:V policy. This has been a concern now since February when I began gathering hard data from the FAC archives; I hope you will heed the seriousness of this concern and the effect it has on other reviewers at FAC, who must pick up the slack. As I see your adminship is pending, I sincerely hope that you will be more aware of this issue in the future. This is another example of why I deplore admin coaching: editors either respect and understand our FA standards and the hard work of other reviewers and value excellent content contributions, or not; coaching won't create the kind of excellence we should expect in admins. DHMO, my greatest concern is that your response to Tony's oppose shows that you still don't acknowledge this issue, even though I'm sure I've raised it with you in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

14. oppose I was supporting earlier but there are way too many concerns brought up in the oppose section for me to be able to support. Both the Moulton matter and the GA article issue worry me. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
15. strong oppose. Condems me on his blog, calls for my desysopping over a minor incident that many people supported me in , and never even bothered to to inform me of any of this. We don't need another backstabbing cliquish admin that makes outrageous demands. Strong doubts about his judgment. Posting at top cause iPhone can't scroll feel free to move this down. 32.161.221.162 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)swatjester identified himself as author below---do not indent

    I'm not sure if you meant to log in, but I've indented this because you've posted as an IP. Please log in and unindent it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Plz sign that ip edit as from me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Restored. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Many thanks Swat - I just wasn't sure who it was. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Not a problem. I saw right after I posted that it was logged out and I was thinking "Crap, this is going to take forever to fix, and I'm going to get edit conflicted." Which I did. Thanks also to whoever moved my comments and stuff for me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    (deindent) Phil Sandifer also condemned me and called for my desysopping over a minor incident that many people supported me in, yet I still hold him in good grace and buried the hatchet long ago. Perhaps you should have done the same, Swatjester. Sean William @ 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose. Still do not trust the candidate's ability to avoid drama. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. I double this contributor's ability to use discretion. Administrators need some semblance of discretion, especially with the remote possibilities to see confidential data (deleted revisions), unblock-en-l, et cetera... This contributer has exhibited that lapses in discretion exist that may be contrary to handling/viewing confidential data he may see during a tour of adminship. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose Per Ryan, Swat, joshua, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not happy about this, because I wanted to support (and I said as much in the last one). However, I cannot. To put it candidly, DHMO is very arrogant about his "78910 FAs". He never gives up an opportunity to make note of them; it's almost comical. Here and here are the two examples I can recall quickly. While it's good to add excellent content, and it is something of which we should be proud, constantly making note of "his 10 FAs and all" gives me a very negative feeling, and I worry about how this attitude will translate into being an administrator. This, combined with all the above concerns? This RfA will probably pass, but I cannot support. Sorry. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    So... I'm a little confused... You're opposing because he's proud of the hard work he puts in here? I know I probably couldn't even get one article to FA... I'd be freakin proud of 10, too. As to the blog, that's really immaterial to here, unless it was copied on-wiki somewhere, in violation of one or more of our policies. Off-wiki opinions and whatnot are just that. SQL^{Query me!} 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    I refuse to participate in this RfA, and withdraw my oppose. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose This editor's arrogance pointed out by Seresin and his role in the Moulton/The undertow affair which he followed up with incivil comment and a biased presentation of facts at his blog tells me he lacks the maturity and judgement required for a position of responsibility. Odd nature (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose per the relatively recent lapses in judgement mentioned by Guettarda, Folantin, Raymond Arritt, etc. Yilloslime (t) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Raymond Arritt, MastCell, SWATJester, TONY, OrangeMarlin, etc. For me, the most important ability for an admin is good judgement in (often difficult) admin related issues, and there are way too many concerns about this. —Apis (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose Shot info (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Too many concerns. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    Like what? Please be more specific when posting an oppose vote like this. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

23. Weak oppose per Raymond Aritt. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Has a record of corruption — an unacceptable trait for anyone here, let alone an admin. Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    Outside of Hearsay I'm not seeing anything there but accusations. SQL^{Query me!} 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    @Crum375: Do you have any actual evidence of this 'corruption' besides the link you gave? In that link, Bishonen is referring to something the GA system asks that people do... spend some time reviewing articles if they nominate some articles. Are you going to allege that working quickly to review articles is a sign of corruption rather than efficiency? Are you going to allege that you yourself have never communicated with other editors to make them aware of matters that interest you, or received such communication? Or are you just going to allege that you don't do such communication on wiki? There is nothing wrong with communicating with other editors about matters of concern. What is wrong is when the system is twisted around to overweight one side's power to win disputes as a result of that communication. Giggy doesn't do that. Can you say the same? I'm not sure that your oppose is a supportable position, really, especially given Giggy's answers to #3 and #5a, and that Bishonen has supported this time, after noting that Giggy has had remarkable growth since then. That pretty much undermines you, I'd say, unless you are the sort who thinks that people never change and grudges should be held indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    Lar, the record speaks for itself, and to me it looks like corruption and fraud. I believe that such behavior is unacceptable in anyone, IRL or on wiki, and specifically if we get admins of this caliber, it will further degrade this project. That you are defending such despicable conduct is very worrying. Crum375 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

25. Oppose I don't know this guy, he seems like a nice person and a skilled editor, and while I've seen far worse "corruption" going on around Wikipedia, I have doubts concerning his ability to handle social issues. He is certainly very good at technical aspects of the site, however. Amerique^dialectics 04:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose The comments above convince me. We need less appetite for drama and more maturity in the admin corps and it doesn't appear that promoting DHMO would help that. Leithp 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose I don't believe that somebody changes significantly within a matter of months. There's a history of behaviour inappropriate for an admin. His response to the question "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" is basically "there are times when the tools would come in handy." Well, that's true for all editors - but it's not an acceptable answer for someone who aspires to be an admin. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    In the case of DHMO ( only), this sounds promising to me as He is a better contributor than as an admin and hopefully continues with more wonderful mainspace activities in future also. To be frank , I would have opposed any other wikipedian who came to RFA..with such vague answers -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    Mr. McFerran, I did follow up the statement cited with specific examples of areas in which I would actively use the admin tools. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

28. Oppose Especially per OrangeMarlin , KillerChihuahua , Swatjester, this, and leaving angry and posting this on his blog. I don't think this user has demonstrated the maturity to be an administrator. I know I don't trust him with those tools.— Ѕandahl 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    I see nothing wrong with the blog post you linked to. Is it shameful for administrative candidates to express some sort of emotion? Sean William @ 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

   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)

   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)

   Fine. I'll switch :) Al Tally ^talk 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I've known giggy for a good amount of time, and I'm always impressed by the work and the service he's done for us. I've always been a big supporter of him, but in this RFA, my view of him has been slightly cast into doubt. I think that Giggy is fit for adminship, as with many other users who never seem to pass due to the dangerous misconception that GA/FA=OMG great admin. However, I find sometimes that he can be somewhat like...an adolescent. I like fun and games just as much as he does, but I feel sometimes Giggy is a tad impetuous. He tends to feel strongly about things, and as a result something bad happens that was not really intended in the first place. I was quite shocked reading his blog and how a few of our editors almost left because of his words. My greatest fear is that Giggy will create a big drama scene akin to the Durova affair. That is my worst fear about him, and I address to him: Be cautious! Do not let your feelings cloud your judgment. bibliomaniac15 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Netural. I would dearly love to support, as I can see that DHMO has come on in leaps and bounds. I've watched the way in which he's worked with Balloonman on the admin training, and have been very impressed by both. DHMO's clearly trying; perhaps he tries too much, which is the problem: he struggles to hold back his enthusiasm and passions, and the results can be on the ugly side. In a perfect world, I'd vote something like "conditional support," and ask for him to continue in admin training and see how things work out for a probationary period. But this isn't a perfect world. Still, I don't want to oppose. Which is why we have a "neutral" section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you I appreciate the vote of confidence. For those critical of coaching, I'd like to point out that Jb told me previously that he didn't like the idea of coaching, but was impressed by the 'professionalism' of what we were trying to do.Balloonman (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yup. For what's is worth, I'm happy to say that my gut feeling remains generally against admin coaching. But Balloonman and DHMO show how it can be done, and I have been very impressed (again, with both of them). They certainly have persuaded me against any kneejerk judgements about coached admin candidates. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral Initially I thought the Cwii incident and another incident which privacy policy prohibits me from bringing on-wiki were isolated lapses in judgement, however upon further lengthy reflection on the other matters brought to light in this RFA, I can no longer support this candidate's desire for adminship. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Firmly neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral — I initially had nothing but strong support for this user's RfA but OrangeMarlin's and Guettara's oppose has thrown me off quite significantly. It's going to take a good explanation to make me support but I really don't want to oppose because I do thoroughly trust this user with the tools. Switched to support. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Neutral. Arrogant bastard with too many FAs. Also, user is too cute to be an administrator – Gurchzilla (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Do you mean "cute" as in the slang-term for "conniving" or this? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   No, definitely that -- Gurchzilla (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

7. I so very much don't know. On the support hand, I'm inclined to believe that the past "idiocy" (a term which I'm sure DiHiMo will be the first to agree with) and that particular breed of immaturity is truly in the past. I believe it's a mark of maturity to post his frustrations on a blog, rather than go off into the land of spurious RfCs and Requests for Strong Urging, and this is rather sublime. However, on the oppose hand: 1) There does seem to be a certain sort of "cheerleading" (or, in Ultra Formal CIVIL-ese, "social networking") that surrounds this user, 2) I don't know whether it comes from mis-understanding of scientific theory or some sort of misplaced empathy for "noble savagery", but DiHiMo seems to have a lack of empathy for the struggles of those dedicated to keeping this an encyclopedia of fact, not a blog of pleasant fairy-tales that lots of people really really like, and 3) and I'm sorry, but the failure to connect this with this with this shows a lack of fully-formed perspective on the debate. Decades and centuries of oppression coalesced to form the Black Supremacy movement, and, while "excused" is not really the right word, it adds perspective to the "heart" of the movement. There isn't any long-standing history of racially-motivated white surpression in the countries where White Pride is "trendy" - white-on-white violence, sure, black-on-white violence, undoubtably, but putting caucasians as a whole on a lower peg due solely to the color of their skin (i.e., not this or this) has never been a culturally "hip" thing to do in any of the Western nations I'm familiar with. Hence, the thesis statement of White Pride ("I am proud to be white!") is, at best, a completely idiotic sentiment. Proud to be Jewish, proud to be Catholic, proud to be Muslim or Texan or Californian, sure thing - but the only reason to segregate this pride by skin color and skin color alone is to keep the darkies and mud people out of the party. That's racist. That's a lack of perspective. Wikipedia says something else? Wikipedia's wrong. So - and it's moments like these where I knew how (or "it was possible", take your pick) to have a sensible paragraph break in a numbered list - these last two issues are perhaps isolated, perhaps not. Either way, the isolated nature itself is irrelevant - it would be foolish to suggest that even overwhelming ignorance in one thing means ignorance across the board, or even, perhaps, ignorance to the mere point of incompetency. That said, though, especially in tandem with the first point, this lack of fully-formed perspective is enough to make me hesitant. There's already more than enough half-informed folk of all sorts toiling away - what the project needs, especially in terms of admins, is more of those rare, but existent, fully-informed folk - to extend the oft-used "janitor" metaphor, the sort of janitors you can absolutely trust to clean the computer lab without unplugging the machines. =) I may well reconsider later - and either way, it's probably moot, since as I submit this statement, this RfA seems well on its way to cracking the elusive 200 Club. --Badger Drink (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree with you, to take pride in one's skin color is racist. On the other hand, I do have to ask, would you be ofended if he said that he was proud to be black? Or proud to be Asian? Or proud to be hispanic? Or any other racial group? If your answer is no, then we have a problem. Each of those racial groups is allowed, or even encouraged to take pride in their heritage. In the US, May is, by act of the President, Asian-Pacific Month. February is Black History Month. There are annual Asian and Black beauty pageants. Scholarships exist exclusively for people based upon their minority status. It is socially acceptable to say "whitey" or "the Man" in reference to overbearing white guys in suits. But if a caucasian (in the US at least) says something about not being ashamed of his/her race, then he/she is labelled a racist. I am am not the least bit ashamed to be Caucasian. Does that make me a racist? Does it make me a racist not to be ashamed of who I am? Likewise, I'm also proud to have a son that's Asian and a sister-in-law who is black. There is a difference between being proud of who you are and putting others down because you think you are better than them.Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)