Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:30, 29 December 2007 editJodyB (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,997 edits →Support: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 15:00, 29 December 2007 edit undoMajorly (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,677 edits →Oppose: apparently my oppose is not good enough for some people, so I am removing it and the irrelevant thread that follows itNext edit →
Line 175: Line 175:
#::::This is supposed to be a stress-free website? Miranda, ] owes you a truckful of white ] if they sold you on that. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC) #::::This is supposed to be a stress-free website? Miranda, ] owes you a truckful of white ] if they sold you on that. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
#:::::Miranda has made her decision and DM has replied. I don't think there's any more need to make comments about salmon, I wish we could talk more about salmon but damn... This is an RfA. Let's just keep it friendly, or if not friendly, at least ]. ]] 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC) #:::::Miranda has made her decision and DM has replied. I don't think there's any more need to make comments about salmon, I wish we could talk more about salmon but damn... This is an RfA. Let's just keep it friendly, or if not friendly, at least ]. ]] 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose''' Has abused my trust on several occasions, and I don't think he's mature enough for the role. ''']''' ('']'') 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:'''Elaboration:''' First off, I like Giggy. He's a nice guy, friendly and helpful to others. I first met him on these very pages at RFA. We didn't get along at all, but I decided to add him to my MSN list, so I could get to know him better. I added him so we could become friends, not enemies. Since adding him, lots of problems have happened. Firstly, I noticed he made, in my view a ridiculous oppose on someone's RFA. I jokingly told him that I'd get loads of people to oppose his next RFA. Unfortunately, he took it too seriously. Perhaps it was my fault that I didn't use smilies or something - it isn't always clear in a chat room situation when people are kidding or not. I'd never do that to ruin someone's RFA. Anyhow, he thought it would be a good idea to publish the private logs without my permission on here. Now that was quite long ago now. However, he was still bringing it up on ]: "Per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly (admin only). I know I'll get absolutely raped for even bringing this up again, but so be it. Especially if this vote changes things... Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)" last month. Just looking at that comment there, while he may be a fabulous article writer, he is really immature and the words above are really inappropriate. "I know I'll get absolutely raped..." How old are you, Alex? I mean, that's just really inappropriate use of a word associated with such a vile thing. There's so many others too. The use of the word "sexy", I noticed is another, particularly on RFAs. I just find it inappropriate in a potential admin. There have been other leaks. For instance, ], he quotes me from private conversations without my asking. And the most recent thing I told him in confidence, he has leaked as well, but not on the wiki. I simply find him too untrustworthy, and immature for this position. Don't get me wrong - he's a great guy for sure, but totally unsuitable to be an admin. ''']''' ('']'') 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#::Whatever that MSN discussion was, it wasn't joking, and it did contain evidence that you had done what you accused to do previously. The point made in your RfA was that I was expecting exactly what you've brought forward here - opposition solely because I opposed your RfA in a more unconventional manner, but in a way that nonetheless demonstrated how I believed you to be unsuitable for adminship at the time. In the TRE thing I paraphrased you...I didn't quote you, I didn't bring forward sensitive information, I didn't post a chatlog - heck, we didn't even talk. Finally, I haven't told anyone the most recent thing you told me (and if you choose to tell me these things, that's your problem, but I'd say it says something about how you trust me...) and I have no idea where you get that impression from. After you told me that, other people came forward and told me also - I've told nobody. If your privacy is being violated because of these events, you may need to re-consider the people you trust (or at least be more careful with the information you disclose), but please don't accuse me of doing something I haven't done, and would never do to you (or anyone). ] ] <sub>(])</sub> 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:::The irony here is that the community really needs to see the deleted chatlog itself in order to make a properly informed decision on this issue - yet undeleting it would, obviously, constitute posting private correspondence on-wiki, which is part of the disputed conduct in the first place. If Majorly and DHMO would both consent to its undeletion, then I think it would be beneficial to let the community see it, in order for everyone to evaluate the rights and wrongs of DHMO's behaviour with reference to the circumstances at the time. (Obviously, they're under no obligation to accede to this - it's just a suggestion.) ]<sup>]</sup> 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:::::I believe that since Majorly introduced the chatlogs as an issue, he should make them public. ] ] 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
#::::The content is not the bothersome part. The fact he posted ''without asking me'' is what is. People say all sorts of things in a chat room situations, especially stuff they don't mean. Oh and there is no evidence that I have "failed" someone's RFA before. I just said I had. People talk, they say things they don't intend. I'm sat here writing this message - I could say a lot of things, but I don't. I can think clearer and say to myself "No, that's not a good thing to say". In a real time situation, things that are said can be things that are not meant. Why would I want to fail his RFA so badly? Indeed, how could I? I'm just one editor. The things I said I said non-seriously - I do it all the time with my real life friends, other people I talk to from Misplaced Pages and so on. I'm a very sarcastic person, and sarcasm is one of the hardest things to detect in a chat room situation. Anyhow, no one needs to see the log. I'm still irritated that it was ever posted, but there's nothing we can do about that now. Let me make it nice and clear: I'd never attempt to get someone's RFA to fail, just because I disagreed with a tiny thing they did. Especially if that person was a friend. ''']''' ('']'') 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#::::The ironic thing is that people seem to think MSN, IRC etc are now part of Misplaced Pages. Slightly knocks the wiki concept. Actually I just logged on to this infamnous all powerful IRC thing - not missing much am I. Look like a load of bollocks. Best in future people decided to keep Misplaced Pages related conversation on-wiki instead, perhaps. <b><font color="black">]]</font></b> 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:::::This was MSN, not IRC. I added him as a friend, not as a Wikipedian. I don't know where you get the idea people think it is part of Misplaced Pages. I went well without it for many months. If you think it's bollocks, here's a little tip: Don't go on it. Thank you. ''']''' ('']'') 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:::::: I sure wish we could just ignore things like IRC and MSN. But seeing as the ArbCom is currently hearing a case that will likely drive away some of our best 'pedia builders so that people can continue playing power politics on IRC, I hardly think the culture around the chat clients is beyond criticism. --] (]) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose''' It bothers me that only two months ago, H2O posted ]. He misquoted myself and Majorly (right after getting opposed in two of his RFAs for ]), threw ] and ] out the window, and scared off a recently nominated admin (who he had co-nominated only a week or so before). · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC) #'''Strong oppose''' It bothers me that only two months ago, H2O posted ]. He misquoted myself and Majorly (right after getting opposed in two of his RFAs for ]), threw ] and ] out the window, and scared off a recently nominated admin (who he had co-nominated only a week or so before). · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#:On the contrary, I paraphrased the two of you exactly. See my response to Majorly, he left for numerous personal reasons none of which had anything to do with the blunt and honest ER he requested. ] ] <sub>(])</sub> 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC) #:On the contrary, I paraphrased the two of you exactly. See my response to Majorly, he left for numerous personal reasons none of which had anything to do with the blunt and honest ER he requested. ] ] <sub>(])</sub> 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:00, 29 December 2007

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Voice your opinion (talk page) (56/23/8); Scheduled to end 09:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As Riana stated in her nomination, most of my admin-type work revolves around XfD, NPP, and RCP.
XfD: I have participated in many a deletion debate in my time, mostly around AfD. I believe I have a thorough knowledge of the deletion policies, and an equally good knowledge of consensus surrounding deletion - with this in hand I would be well equipped to judge deletion debates, and thus to close them. In my work as a Commons administrator (RfA), I've done a lot of work mostly surrounding deletion, however I wouldn't spend much time at IfD if sysopped here. The fair use policy is way over my head...
NPP: I don't actively patrol newpages these days - I used too, and I still have the knowledge (I hope!). However, I do occassionally tag a newpage or two (or, if appropriate, improve the article, rather than tag for deletion), and I fairly certain in my knowledge and understanding of the CSD criteria. As an admin I would spend time patrolling CAT:CSD, and would do my best to salvage articles wherever possible - I would of course be happy to delete the "Misplaced Pages teh gayz K THX BAI" articles though :)
RCP: I recently became aware of the #cvn-wp-en IRC channel, and I have been vandalfighting through there a bit. I've also made a few AIV reports of late, all of which have resulted in blocks. It has been noted before that I used to be a bit trigger happy in vandal warning/AIV reporting, I've done my best to slow this down, and will continue to do so. As an admin I wouldn't block without a full set of warning, and continued vandalism after the warning. We need all the constructive editors we can get.
If sysopped, I will be adding myself to CAT:AOR. My recall policy, as I intend it to stand (I'm open to critique of it, obviously) is available at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I think User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles summarises this nicely. Of what's listed there, my proudest contributions is a toss-up between my four featured articles (Age of Mythology, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, Powderfinger, Internationalist (album)) and the stuff at Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums, much of which I've brought to the status noted there. The content on Portal:Music of Australia (well, the non-Powderfinger content...:) ) also deserves mention here. Rather than try and label one specific contribution, I'll just say that "my best" are those that I've made in approving the quality of Australian music articles around here.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A similar (in a sense) question was asked by Orderinchaos at my recent editor review, and I answered him with some recent diffs. Since they're still recent, and as they answer this question quite well, I'll copy paste my answer from there to here.
I reverted the (repeated) addition of first person autobiographical text to an article, and left an explanatory note. The user requested I undo my edit, stating we sometimes allow autobiographical content. I responded suggesting the user write it in their own words, to which he stated that it took him hours to type it up, and again stated that it should be included despite not being the common procedure. At this stage, I pointed the user to WP:AUTO, to which he accused me of not stating the policy correctly. I attempted to clarify my position, at which stage the user told me to read "that section" ("The problem with autobiographies"). I did so, and explained to him that I found nothing justifying his edits - and thus asked if he show me. The user's response was vague and ambiguous. I told them that they were welcome to re-add the material, but that the discussion was going nowhere. And then I saved this page. Throughout the entire discussion, I believe I remained civil, stuck to policy, and didn't attempt to bite or offend the newcomer - simply explain to them why their contribution, in its current form, wasn't helpful.

Questions from Avruch:

4. Can you address the concerns raised over your review of TRE, what you hoped to accomplish by writing it that way and your view of its actual effects?
The Random Editor requested (both on my talk page and via Google Talk) that I give him a review. I asked if he was sure, keeping in mind our recent interactions; he said yes, and he wanted it honest. Perhaps I was overly honest, perhaps not. After I gave the review, he got a rename (it's been said elsewhere to what, but I won't say it here just in case...). We spoke again (via Gtalk) and he said that of all the reasons that forced him to try and hide his TRE identity, that review was not one of them. So from that perspective I can't see any "actual effects", except to make a few uninvolved people think I drove him off. From my perspective, and from his, I didn't.
5. How many editors have you nominated at RfA, and of those how many were successful? How many since your own last RfA?
I used to keep a list, which could (I think) be viewed at User:Giggy/RfA (admin-only now). I haven't logged it for ages, so I really can't remember. My two most recent nominations have been for Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) and E (talk · contribs), both successful. My last RfA closed on 29 September, almost exactly three months ago.

Question from Keepscases:

6. Do you feel that repeated vandalism of Misplaced Pages should be considered a criminal offense in a court of law? Keepscases (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No, except in extreme unforeseeable circumstances.

Questions from User:Krator

7. You have four editor reviews on your name, and your comment on another's is the reason why a dozen people below oppose this RFA. What do you think the value of processes like Editor review and Requests for comment/User conduct is for Misplaced Pages as a website containing articles on various topics, covering all branches of knowledge (encyclopaedia), in contrast to Misplaced Pages as a community?
8. What piece of feedback, given to you by a Misplaced Pages editor, has changed your on-wiki behaviour the most? Consider this question a variant of question two. The answers are not required to be recent.
9. If you would ever invoke your right to vanish, would you delete User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

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

Uh - mind if I remove this? Are we making mountains out of molehills for the sake of a few people who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A note like this one doesn't harm anything - but, I agree, a large template-looking warning is a little much. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tweaked. Lara❤Love 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

So that is 9 total, including the two he mentioned? Or are you counting only sole noms? Out of 9, three successful, four withdrawn and one failed (not counting himself)? Avruchtalk 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be nine total, since the two he mentioned are not logged on his list. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you're trying to imply here. The reason why his first two RfAs (G1ggy and Giggy) weren't listed here originally is because all RfAs under the name "Dihydrogen Monoxide" are automatically listed here by the functions in the template, and all other RfAs under other user names have to be manually listed here. Unless I'm missing something here, DHMO didn't intend to hide his previous RfAs at all, from what I've observed, he's realised his mistakes and has acknowledged this, and so I don't really see why he would have any reason to hide them. To assume that he was trying to hide them is assuming bad faith. Please correct me if I'm incorrect in anyway, but is a list of nominations by a user (I'm not talking about self-nominations) really necessary, at all? This is for discussing his past RfAs, not those of who he has nominated. Spebi 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No one suggested he was hiding his own RfAs. We were referring to his noms. I asked the question about his noms because it speaks to his view of adminship and qualified candidates, and the record of success indicates whether his views are supported by the community. Avruchtalk 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Avruch asked a question about his previous noms, so I looked up the information and reported it here. However, seeing that DM had asked privately to delete it ("requested via private message"), I was cautious and said I would allow anybody to delete it if DM didn't want the information coming out for a reason. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, I've obviously missed the point. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Spebi 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hdbragon88, that was deleted as part of the User:Giggy namespace at the end of August, shortly after I renamed to this one (see the past RfA for some detail about that) - I have nominated numerous users under this username, none of which were listed on that page. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh OK, then, you've nominated at least seven people under Giggy, and at least two under DM, then. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support, yes I do want Dihydrogen Monoxide to become an administrator. Spebi 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    C'mon Spebi, is that talk really necessary? -JodyB talk 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Better? Spebi 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. -JodyB talk 14:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Yes, Yes, and Yes. Rt. 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Need I say more? Spebi and Rudget have my thoughts already planned out. — E 10:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unless I'm in the wrong place...? -- Anonymous Dissident 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    As per Miranda and Spebi !! ...--Cometstyles 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Effing Yeah! This user has basically been an admin in my eyes for the longest time. I feel he has a way about doing things. Good luck! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 13:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. You bastard Giggy:p You deliberately put this RfA online when you know I was going out. Didn't even have enough tact to wait until I finished my well-prepared co-nom... (It's a joke peoples. No offense meant.) In a more serious matter, I believe that Giggy has what it takes to be an administrator. In my opinion, he regularly shows good judgement and clue. He is also a content writer; a firm editor who has driven many articles to FA. I believe he would make a great addition to Misplaced Pages as an admin. --DarkFalls 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, from a not-so-proud member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club. Lankiveil (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support It is about time. --Siva1979 13:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Alrighty then. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per noms. Gifted writer & helpful fellow user. PeaceNT (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I was neutral last time, as I felt the timing was wrong, however I believe issues from the past have been addressed and that DHMO will be a net gain to the administrative team - and in the final analysis if something is of benefit to the project we should seek to embrace it. Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - H2O is sensible and will make a great addition to the admin team. I have no concerns. Keilana(recall) 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. I have no concerns whatsoever about this prolific contributor. MichelleG (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
    Interesting you'd come out of long inactivity just to comment on two RFAs... what about the very serious concerns outlined below? Did you miss them? Majorly (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Is this an accusation of a bad-faith vote? My "long inactivity" was all of a week, and I have never met or had any personal interactions with the candidate that I can remember (and sometimes I forget to sign in). MichelleG (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have not encountered this user previously, to the best of my knowledge. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how you find that interesting Majorly. It's trivial at best. But interesting? No. the_undertow 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I have mixed feelings about DHMO. I share the concerns for the Good article debacle from the last RfA. I agree there are maturity issues. Just my opinion, but there are times I find his behaviour-- shall we say other than soothing. (Sir, you need to cool your jets a bit.) However, he is knowledgeable of deletion policy. It heartens my soul to read "would do my best to salvage articles wherever possible." I also take him to not be in haste to block. Dlohcierekim 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Expansion on rationale re IFD I see it as a plus that the nom acknowledges weak areas and expresses a desire to avoid them. To be frank, I avoid IFD too. In the end, adminship is not that big a deal. I would be much less happy if he had promised to have the "mess at IFD cleaned up in a day and a half." The first law applies, "do no harm." Dlohcierekim 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, as the candidate has a high degree of knowledge in areas where the tools may have the most benefit. I don't have any concerns about the candidate as such, but would note that some of our colleagues who oppose this RfA have very valid points that the candidate should address if this request becomes successful. I cannot say that I agree with the comments at the Editor Review linked above, but that's a disagreement on point, not procedure. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Calm, civil, intelligent, understands policy. There's no reason not to Support. SQL 16:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Apart from the serious concerns below, of course. Majorly (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Come on Alex, you're better than that. Don't coerce the opposers, don't coerce the supporters. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I suppose that, in the spirit of fairness, you will remind LaraLove below of the same, Riana? What she said to Miranda is much worse than Majorly's reminders. --Iamunknown 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion is allowed on both sides. Although this is a vote, and each user's vote should be counted equally, it is also beneficial to discuss and challenge rationales; it helps other users to make a more informed decision on how to vote. Walton 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Lara had done it once. At the time I wrote this Majorly had done it twice. Please don't accuse me unnecessarily. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    (u) Anyone may question anyone's comments, wether in the support section, or the oppose. I still don't see anything that serious, to make me feel the need to oppose, in the oppose section. DHMO's made a couple mistakes, yes, but, I feel he's learned from them. Sorry, but, my Support stands. SQL 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support' Yeah, oh yeah. Sunderland06  16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oh man, how was I not one of the first to come here? H2O has addressed a major concern from his previous RfA in that he has adapted his editing style to get in some excellent writing. He will make a fine admin, if he is willing to change in such a big way if the community feels he should. J-ſtanUser page 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. I was a member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club before it even existed. I've seen this user all over the place, always making positive contributions, and I honestly thought he was already an admin without bothering to check. --Qmwne235 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Same as above! Support, duh! ≈ MindstormsKid   17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support for substantially the same reasons as last time, and I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the opposers' concerns. Firstly, I have read the now-deleted IRC chatlog he posted on-wiki some considerable time ago. In that particular chatlog, Majorly did appear to be threatening Giggy (as was) over an oppose on an RfA with which Majorly disagreed. Majorly has since explained that the threats were intended as a joke (and I accept his good faith on this matter), but it doesn't come over that way in the log. It was certainly inappropriate for Giggy to post the chatlog on-wiki; however, given the circumstances, and the fact that it contained no private personal information of any kind, I don't think it was an unforgivable, or even a very serious, lapse of judgment. (As a side point, I personally dislike IRC and have never used it. Almost everything about Misplaced Pages should be discussed openly on-wiki; stuff that contains private personal information should be discussed by e-mail. Secretive backroom discussions are never a good idea.) I'm not condoning the posting of private discussions on-wiki, but for me it isn't a deal-breaker in this instance. The second incident to which Majorly and AndonicO refer involves DHMO's reference, in another user's Editor Review, to certain off-wiki comments allegedly made by Majorly and AndonicO about that user. Again, this is a lapse of judgment but not a catastrophic one. DHMO should not, in the circumstances, have ascribed those private opinions to individual editors (Chatham House rules should, perhaps, have been applied in this instance), but again, it did not involve the posting of any highly sensitive information in a public forum, and so is a forgivable lapse. With regard to Miranda's oppose, I have examined the diffs she presented. This one appears to be a perfectly civil comment - ironically, it was an apology to Miranda herself - and does not deserve to be characterised as "conspiracy theories about contributors". What he actually said was "You are one of the few people on this project who have this encyclopaedia’s goal at heart…and not Veropedia’s. Keep it up :)" I think the smiley, and the context, make it completely clear that this was substantially a light-hearted comment, not any sort of attack on those contributors who choose to participate in both Veropedia and Misplaced Pages. To address one further point (made by Majorly): to criticise him for using the terms "raped" and "sexy" in a humorous, light-hearted context is, with all due respect, yet another manifestation of the political correctness which is unfortunately becoming prevalent in Misplaced Pages culture. In context, these terms have their place in a humorous context; and I do not think we should all be spending our lives carefully considering every word we say, and censoring ourselves, on the off-chance that we might inadvertently give offence to someone. Plus, I've known plenty of admins to use the term "sexy" in a humorous context. It isn't a sign of immaturity. To return, therefore, to the main issue at hand: DHMO is a fantastic editor. There is no need for me to list his countless valuable contributions to the project, as others have done this already. He is one of the most experienced and capable non-admins, and is active both in article work and in projectspace. Will we choose to waste the skills and talents of a willing volunteer due to a few minor lapses of judgment in the past, or will we choose to look beyond them? Remember that perfection is not a pre-requisite for adminship; while we sometimes have candidates who appear to be perfect, they are often hiding things from the community. DHMO doesn't pretend to be perfect, but is honest, trustworthy and experienced, and it is time to make him an administrator. Walton 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Wow - have I beaten Gurch for "longest RfA support rationale ever"? (I can't find the old diff in question, so I'm not sure.) :-) Walton 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    You're over 1000 characters out ...  :) Majorly (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I thought I had set the record in either Ryulong 3 or Kelly Martin 2, so I suppose I'm disappointed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. bibliomaniac15 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Per the noms. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
  23. Support - 17 GA's and 4 FA's = Good work. Plus, I have seen this user around quite a bit. The opposes below did "raise an eyebrow" for me. However, I trust Riana's judgment (as nom) and plus this candidate is willing to join administrators open to recall. So here is my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. (audible groan at material revealed below) ...(sigh) ultimately a net positive. Though WP is not a social club, H2O/Giggy/Alex/whatever has a good mix of friendly morale-boosting banter and article writing and collaboration. I am noly supporting on the strength of quite significant article improvement in the face of issues outlined below. Any less and it would have been in net debit but there you go...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support A great contributor, and given the behaviour of certain admins recently you seem mature by comparison. RMHED (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support -- He continues to improve, to do better for WP, and has learned from past mistakes; he's ready now. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Seen this editor around a fair bit, and have always been impressed. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support can't believe I didn't support earlier...in fact, I can't remember if I did, so remove thisif I have...--Phoenix-wiki  20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support even though all of the below has come out, that doesn't lead me to believe Dihydrogen Monoxide will abuse the tools, and Walton One's support comment above reinforces that. I have seen him around in many places and believe he is an asset to the project. —Scott5114↗ 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Like Junglecat, the opposes "raised an eyebrow" for me as well, but I have seen this user around Misplaced Pages and feel that their contributions will benefit them as an administrator. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per Walton and my own interactions with the user. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. I support this nomination, just like I've supported all of the times DHMO has been nominated for adminship, and again, I have something to say: First off, every single one of my interactions with DHMO has been positive since I first met him back in very-early May of this year. I have found him to be a civil user with great knowledge of policy, and doesn't bully newcomers or revert-war his way across the encyclopedia. Now I won't deny that he's made mistakes and made errors in judgment (we all have, ultimately), but from what I've seen of DHMO, he's someone willing to learn from his mistakes, and due to learning from errors, he is a better editor and person overall. With the last RfAs, I believe that the concerns raised in them have been addressed, and I do not think that they should be continually used again him; however, I will say that the only thing I am worried about is what Majorly's mentioned below about the chatlog issue; I don't know why DHMO felt it was necessary to mention it again, but I think that DHMO realizes that it was wrong to mention it. In the end, I believe that DHMO will be a good administrator: he is an excellent article-writer, he collaborates and works well with people: him being an administrator will be a benefit to the project. The marvelous nomination from Riana (who, I have to say, strongly opposed his last two nominations), only gives me more reason to support, and the co-nomination from Anonymous Dissident is a bonus. Acalamari 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. The TRE review is really the only thing going that had me concerned. I think the style of the review was probably inappropriate, regardless of any recent prior interaction between H20 and TRE - but TRE did go on to delete the main page (twice??). Jeffpw's point that we need less, not more drama is well taken - but, I'll hope for the best in this case. Avruchtalk 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support — Will make a good admin. -- Cobi 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support, seen his contributions.--Astroview120mm 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. I agree with the nominator, noting that she has changed her mind about this candidate. It is time he is given the tools. --Bduke (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Would make a good Admin. Johnfos (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support I have given this some thought as I have not always agreed with DHMOs (and previously Giggy's) activities here at Misplaced Pages, seeing him as more interested in the social aspects of the project. The last few months, however, have seen a great improvement in his focus and a maturity not always evident before, to the point that I see him as an asset to the project. Applying my only real test I use at RfAs, he is unlikely to abuse the tools and therefore deserves my support. Further, opposing based on views held about policy are, to my mind, flawed. As long as he follows existing policy when using the tools, he has every right to work to change policy he disagrees with. Good luck with the nomination. -- Mattinbgn\ 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Of course. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support and on reflection, I should have supported last time as well. — iridescent 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Prodego 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Per Acalamari. Daniel 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Giggy's article contribs shows he clearly knows what this project is all about. Even if this ends as no consensus, he'll be an admin in the future. So he might as well get the tools now instead of going through another RfA that will inevitably succeed. Spellcast (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. The Transhumanist 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Weak Support Experienced in many areas, great article writer. The opposes below do concern me but I trust that you won't do anything like delete the main page. --Hdt83 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Jmlk17 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support While I don't always agree with H2O, I generally find him to be a good, trustworthy editor. He has made mistakes in the past (notably the chatlog fiasco), but who hasn't? I believe he has learned from this, and doubt anything of the sort will happen in the future. Basically, he knows what he's doing, and won't abuse the tools. No good reason to oppose. faithless () 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support But beware fellow wikipedians, thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect!--n1yaNt 07:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support And I hate giving reasons for support, but I don't want to be reminded of the opposes below, as I have seen them. The opposes are of no concern to me because they are the summation of 'how an admin' should act. A perfect admin has excellent grammar, improves articles, takes no sides, is never terse, is unbiased, and always fair. That's great for a bot. This user is flawed. He has opinions, asserts them, can show bias, and doesn't always bite his tongue. I'm tired of robots. We speak of gaming the system, but being a 1950s American wife incarnate is not my idea of adminship. Having dealt with conflicts, having said shitty things, and getting your hands dirty is the tragic flaw that fails RfAs but gains my support in this case because I support for exactly every reason that is given as an oppose. This user is not the model per se, and we should not aspire to be models, but moreso to be those who are flawed, and carry those flaws over in order to deal with real life situations. Admins should not be held to any higher standard that any other editor, IP or registered. Cops with 4 year degrees are great cops, academically. Those who have been through admin school are great because they have been groomed to follow protocol. This guy's contributions to all areas of Misplaced Pages have been done with heart,and what's better is that he has made great contributions. Admins can better deal with the 3 extra buttons when they have been on the inverted end of the stick. I'll take experience over grooming any day. the_undertow 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Yah, don't think I could say it better than the undertow up there.^^ — xDanielx /C\ 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. I opposed this user's RfA on Commons however his behaviour since convinces me I was wrong to do so. Is this user perfect - no - just the same as the rest of us. Will he make mistakes - yes - just the same as the rest of us. However my interaction with this user around wikis makes me quite sure that a dialogue with him is always possible, friendly & worthwhile. That is a very important quality in an admin. Additionally I trust him. --Herby 09:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support He is a trustworthy guy. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Without reservation. Fantastic candidate. Maser 09:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support A great editor and I think undertow summed up nicely to handle any concerns I had. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 12:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - Stop changing your fucking name :) - hahnchen 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. No. Sorry. miranda 11:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I feel if this user is an administrator, it will be an "us versus them" type of mentality, which drives (and is continuing to drive) this community apart (i.e. new/established/IP editors versus admins) to his friends' own benefits, as seen by this reversal of my edit of a user who I was GA reviewing and this posting on her userpage, without contacting me why he reverted the edit. I really don't understand this user assuming good faith with people who want to legitimately contribute to this project with conspiracy theories about contributors, which is assuming bad faith. miranda 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hey, Miranda... FYI, this is DHMO's RfA. If you want to air your dirty laundry, try your back yard. Lara❤Love 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well that was uncalled for... everyone is entitled to their opinion. Scarian 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yea, only she's pointing out a situation that has nothing to do with anything. She reverted my edit and he reverted it back citing the message I left on her talk page. Then she claims that in him letting me know of the exchange that he has somehow acted in bad faith. Negative. How this has possibly resulted in an oppose "per Miranda" is beyond me. Lara❤Love 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't care about the reverting nonsense but I do care about the last diff Miranda provided in which the candidate basically impugns most of the editors here. I won't support someone with that attitude. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    See, I don't read it that way. I see an apology received with a bad faith assumption. While I agree that there is a jab at the Veropedia crowd in there, I believe it was meant lightheartedly and in a manner that also compliments her. An obvious exaggeration with the "one of few". Lara❤Love 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Miranda, I reverted your edit at GAN because Lara had already informed you that she wanted someone else to review the GA. My revert included a link to the diff where she had said that. I don't feel the need to inform you (or anyone) of every revert I make if the edit summary will suffice. The note on Lara's talk page was just as an FYI because she was obviously involved and would probably be interested to know what was happening with her GA review (in her position, I'd be interested too). Finally, I'm shocked that you class an apology for past actions as a bad faith attack on other members of the community. My point was that while Veropedia may serve a great cause, we're on Misplaced Pages now - we should be working to make the most of it. And for the record, Riana is a Veropedian (last time I checked) and she nominated this RfA. I have nothing against Veropedia or Veropedians. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for proving my concerns. miranda 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    You're welcome...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC
    Also, I guess we are throwing the NPA rule out of the window in 2008? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a stress-free activity, but it's starting to become the opposite, which is sad, because this is a volunteer website. As far as Veropedia and involvement, I am not active on that site. What I am trying to say is, admins are supposed to be fair, unbiased, and neutral. We already had an arbcom case about an admin basing her judgment using "empirical evidence" in order to block and "out" a user. Many of the users on this project do not want to go through that again. Thanks, I won't be changing my vote. Well, I will. Make that a strong oppose. miranda 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is supposed to be a stress-free website? Miranda, someone owes you a truckful of white salmon if they sold you on that. Keegan 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Miranda has made her decision and DM has replied. I don't think there's any more need to make comments about salmon, I wish we could talk more about salmon but damn... This is an RfA. Let's just keep it friendly, or if not friendly, at least pleasant. Scarian 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose It bothers me that only two months ago, H2O posted these comments. He misquoted myself and Majorly (right after getting opposed in two of his RFAs for similar misconduct), threw WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA out the window, and scared off a recently nominated admin (who he had co-nominated only a week or so before). · AndonicO 14:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I paraphrased the two of you exactly. See my response to Majorly, he left for numerous personal reasons none of which had anything to do with the blunt and honest ER he requested. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, no, I never said that about Random (nor did Majorly). I did say that he got carried away with his RFA, but then again who doesn't? Your "blunt and honest" review sounds more like it came from a police investigator; I would think that might have been a reason for his leaving (even if not the main one). · AndonicO 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. HELL NO!Paul 1953 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Would you care to clarify why you are opposing, and do so in a more civil manner please? Acalamari 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Given that User:Paul 1953 has a long history of unprovoked personal attacks, as demonstrated, inter alia, by his userpage history and talk page, I struck the above as an obvious bad-faith vote. I was reverted - I do not understand why, but I have better things to do than edit-war over something so trivial. However, I propose that this vote be formally discounted (just to reiterate, this IS a vote) by the community (not by bureaucrats). There is ample precedent for the community discounting votes (see the history of User:Neil Larson and User:Matthew Richardson). Walton 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Whilst I agree it's a comment without value, leave it for the 'crats Walton. Please. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Productive, successful editor in the mainspace - however, objections by Majorly and AO, and the substance behind them weigh too heavily. -- Iterator12n 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Majorly and Miranda. Too many examples of poor judgment. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Candidate states in his response to Question 1 that, "The fair use policy is way over my head...". Regardless of any intent to work at WP:IFD, a reasonable grasp of the non-free content policy is essential for all admins, not least because it is used in many other areas besides WP:IFD. CIreland (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    I probably mis-stated that...I have a general knowledge of the fair use policy (I work a bit fair use images in my work on album/songs/video games etc.), I just wouldn't be overly confident applying it in cases of deletion. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough response, I'll strike the oppose. CIreland (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. The examples presented by Majorly and Miranda lead to believe that the admin tools will likely be misused (though not necessarily abused). I don't trust the candidate's judgement at this time. Chaz 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose -- an excellent and hard working contributor, however comments made at the editor review referred to above raise concerns with judgement and maturity. I like to see a good solid history of level-headedness in potential administrators, and those comments were made as recently as October. Happy to reconsider in the very near future should this editor choose to nominate again. - Longhair\ 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. I don't see any one the issues raised in the past as a deal-breaker. However, there are many lesser problems that cause me serious concern. After reading your three previous RfAs, I find that each one had a different one for failing. The first one failed primarily for inexperience; however, if it had continued longer than it had, I believe the answer to Q4 would have caused it to fail instead. I find that answer a serious problem. Your second one failed for the essay Misplaced Pages:Template the regulars and posting of private conversations on wiki. I agree that both of these incidents are cause for concern. Finally, your most recent one had the most conerncing issues of all. Two concerns were your renames, and your views on who should be administrators. I don't particularly disagree with the latter, although how you phrased it could have been better, and I clearly shouldn't comment on the former. The major concern, and in my mind most inexcusable, was the GA passing issue. That is not good behaviour at all. Finally, on this RfA, the TRE review. The first thing I noticed when reading it was your tendency to repeat other editors' off-wiki comments. It was very inappropriate to name those people without their consent. (I assume, based on their comments here, that this was not the case). In addition, the review was not civil, as AndonicO has said. These are the most prevalent concerns I've seen in your RfAs. These issues, combined with an overarching theme of lack of maturity and poor judgment, plus other little things here and there in opposing comments of your RfAs cause me enough concern to oppose your RfA. I am sorry about this, really. I wanted to support you, but I cannot in good conscience do so with the concerns I listed above. You are an excellent article writer, and I hope that you continue to do so, and after several months of addressing these concerns, (or at least giving enough time after them to show you've changed your habits) and editing, I hope you have another RfA I can support. I (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, the views expressed in Q4 of the 1st RfA haven't represented my opinion for a long time. Same applies with templating the regulars, and the administrator stance. Although not that long a time in some cases...still, the point stands. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. One would hope your views have changed on those issues. I was making note of those points not because all of the concerns are still particularly relevant, but because it shows that with each successive RfA, it isn't a single issue that continually prevents a successful result, but instead issues that are rather different from previous ones. This shows to me that while you usually (with the exception of discussing/posting private conversation without participants' consent) address the previous problems, new issues have a habit of continually arising. This, to me, demonstrates that you aren't, for lack of a better word, learning behaviour that becomes an administrator, and then demonstrating it. Upon reviewing my initial comment, I see that I didn't make that very clear; I apologize. But it is what I just discussed, plus concerns brought up in this and previous RfAs, viz. private conversations, the tone of your review of TRE, the poor judgment you have sometimes exhibited and maturity issues, that cause me to oppose. I do not doubt your support of the project or its goals, and by no means am I discounting your excellent contributions to content and elsewhere, but I do not believe that, at this point in time, you are ready to be an administrator. I fully believe that after several months of continuing to edit, addressing these concerns, and having no new ones come up, you will make an excellent administrator. I (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Apart from failing to meet my usual RFA standard of at least 20-something FAs and being a horrible admin at the Commons, </joke> Majorly presents some serious concerns. I know I'm not one to talk about immaturity, but whatev... --Agüeybaná 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'm quite impressed with the 'pedia building. But I'm still concerned that your cliquishness will cloud your judgment. Just last week you rudely attacked another editor for opposing EVula's RfB and accused Cecropia of assuming bad faith by asking questions. I understand that these discussions do get frustrating but comments like "Grow up Nick. You've opposed, you've had someone prove you wrong and give a long list of reasons why that's the case. Restating your case will do nothing for you - give us a real argument, withdraw your oppose, or leave us alone" are completely unacceptable. Look, I disagreed with Nick too, but nobody proved his opinion wrong, and you can't treat people like this. You're nice to your WikiFriends, but you have to start being nice to the rest of us too. We're all in this together. Also maybe slow down a bit? Four RfAs in 8-9 months as a contributor? --JayHenry (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong oppose. Although Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best article writer's I've come across, I agree with Majorly. Qst 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Changed to Sadly Oppose - While looking through some of Miranda's concern and Majorly's add-on, it seems that you have a hard time differentiating between humor and secondly "Per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly (admin only)"..Chatlogs publishing is so so wrong :| and also this since you leaked private info/conversation and thus can not really be trusted..soory..but you are a Great Guy and Crikey I would love to have you as an admin, but your immaturity takes the better of you..Cometstyles 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Regretful oppose I was neutral in H20's last RFA. My comment from the last RFA was this:

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

    There is always this to worry about. And this. And this. And this, which I feel is representative of how an admin should never act. There's also the fact that this is your fourth RFA or so in less than a year, although some might charge that it was cleverly disguised as your second due to the fact that you had two previous RFAs under different names. All of this being said, I think H20 is a good editor who just takes Misplaced Pages a bit too seriously. Your acceptance of this RFA, your 4th in under a year!, gives me the impression that you are actively and recklessly aiming for the title of administrator. And remember, the mop isn't that big of a deal. I suggest you keep your temper in check, be less involved in cliques, and take a break from bi-monthly RFAs. This being said, I really am sorry that I have to oppose on this issue. Unfortunately, it is my view and the view of many others that you are not ready for the tools at this time. --Sharkface217 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. The concerns expressed above lead me to believe that this user tends to develop a fortress mentality that is not conducive to being a good administrator. east.718 at 23:39, December 28, 2007
  15. Sadly I've supported your RFA's in the past, but I can't per the comments and concerns raised by Jayhenry, and Majorly. Dureo (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose. At first, I thought I was the only unlucky person to experience breach of privacy from DMHO. Little did I know that other editors, such as Majorly, also experienced similiar problems. This issue was shown on my unsuccessful RfA. In here,, DMHO said " since you got my MSN details onwiki, it's an onwiki matter for me". Let me remind you, DMHO, I emailed you (using Misplaced Pages's email user function) when I discovered you're about to leave Misplaced Pages through your userpage. I did not obtain your email/MSN unless you replied back. You personally requested me to add you on MSN to discuss about why you're leaving (DMHO, check it out yourself, you send it on September 5, 2007 at 12:52:22 AM). I admit I was wrong when I changed my MSN nickname to the RfA link, but isn't that so-called canvassing the same thing as posting a notice on my userpage announcing that I'm going through an RfA? To sum things up, I feel very unconfident that when you become admin because you'll be able to access a lot of personal information when your previous records counts against you. OhanaUnited 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. I wouldn't trust him as an administrator. He seems unstable and has an unhealthy air of rogueness about him. John Reaves 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Unfortunately, too liable to give into the temptation to say things he knows perfectly well he shouldn't. DGG (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. I might have let the whole Majorly log posting incident go as old news, if he had not brought it up again during the RFA last month. --After Midnight 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - I respect the nominators greatly, and his contributions to the project are admirable. But through my personal experiences with him I really don't think he's mature enough to use the tools wisely. krimpet✽ 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose → JayHenry's & Majorly's arguments, mainly. I do value privacy offwiki, and I don't want a user who appears to disregard privacy so much to access deleted revisions. Also, we've got completely different view of adminship . And I do not like Bishonen's evidence at Digwuren's rfar. Snowolf 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have since taken back the comments on Melburnian's RfA. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Good. Snowolf 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Don't really trust him enough. --Folantin (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Per Majorly, and in spite of Walton's support rationale. Posting bits of private communication (and repeatedly) is a total deal-breaker; total as in never. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:01, December 29, 2007
    As a sidenote, I feel I should add that I'm utterly unimpressed with Miranda's comments here. I almost supported out of spite for her purely personal, non-rationale opposition. Also, I think rspeer's oppose from DMHO's last RfA still holds true. Where is Kurt Weber when you need him? I dorftrottel I talk I 14:04, December 29, 2007
Neutral
  1. Neutral and Abstaining I want to support, I see a lot of good qualities in this contributor, but his comments at random editor, and other previous WP:CIVIL violations concern me greatly. I don't feel I can support right now, but I don't oppose either. If we don't see any more comments like that for a few months, I will be more willing to give my full support. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I also want to support, but for the same reason as Mr Sensless, I must abstain. Good luck though, Dihydrogen Monoxide! S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I was coming here to support, but the issues raised in the opposes, the fact that many of the opposes come from editors and admins I respect a lot, and the attacks on people who oppose force me to remain neutral here. While I don't think he'd delete the main page or indef block those he is in conflict with, Misplaced Pages has enough tension and conflict with adding another possible source. Jeffpw (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral DHMO is a great editor, and I see him around all the time, be it on my watchlist, beating me to reverts, and whatnot. However, the issues brought up on the opposes above, plus on his last RfA, make me too uneasy to support; I guess I'm just getting mixed messages. Master of Puppets 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I must echo all of the above neutrals: I see this user around often and am always impressed by the amount and quality of his work. I have even wondered why he is not an admin. However, reviewing the opposes above, I understand. This user has not shown the level of maturity or level-headedness that I expect in an admin. As said above, I have no doubt that this user would never abuse the tools. I can not, however, be so sure he would never misuse them. SorryGuy  Talk  22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I couldn't be more neutral, which is sad. DM's a valued user with plenty of experience for the admin tools, but I must echo some of the concerns raised by the opposers, especially DM's temperament. Húsönd 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - I want to support, and came here to support, but after reviewing (for over 1 hour) the issues raised by the opposes, I cannot give my support at this time. The other users who are neutral also echo my sentiments. -MBK004 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I'm not sure I want Alex to have the tools, but I am sure that he's an excellent article writer and, in general, a good, good person. There are some damning examples of misjudgement above, but my personal liking of DHMO stop me from getting in the way of his success by adding another oppose. After all, I'm not sure I want him to have the tools, but that means that I'm also not sure I want him to lack them. -- Mike (Kicking222) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)