Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 3 June 2008

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Voice your opinion (talk page) (299/81/17); 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 Misplaced Pages, albeit in the most general of forms.

Formerly Giggy, now Dihydrogen Monoxide, I have followed Alex's development on Misplaced Pages with great interest. He is a surprisingly-well rounded contributor, who has demonstrated experience in many areas of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Modified: LaraLove asked me some great questions here that got me thinking. Now, I know this may not mean much to some, but it is important to me: The thing that was tearing me up, and bubbled over tonight inappropriately was that I felt that people were making judgements on half a picture... a picture that I didn't complete. H2O has made some boneheaded posts on his blog---one of which lead to a user temporarily leaving the project. Now I know they are off-wiki, but they do show a continuation of a pattern that killed his last RfA and since he references real users and links to them, IMHO he makes his blog fair game. I am highly critical of these posts and I've told him so. We also originally had an agreement to wait until August---but that was largely to overcome the objections that hurt his last RfA of running 4 times in a year. To prove that he didn't need the tools, but he wanted to run now at the urging of others.

Do I think H20, deserves to be an Admin? YES. Do I believe he has the skills? YES. He knows more about wikipedia that 95% of the people who have !voted here. To answer the question Lara asked, did I lie in my nom? No. But I did fail to paint the whole picture---which is what was eating me up. I did so because I believe he deserves the tools, despite my personal qualms with his blog posts. My comments from earlier today were more my frustrations at myself, for not painting the complete picture, than they were on H2O. Lara got me to thinking, my nom is still valid---I just needed to complete the picture.---Balloonman 08:21, 1 June 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)

Updated statement from LaraLove

After I dropped my support and eventually switched to oppose on Alex's third RFA, I had serious doubts about whether or not he would regain my trust. His editing following that RFA impressed me. In one-on-one discussions with him since then, I've seen a change in maturity. When I wrote my nom, I had no doubts in him and, even in reading over the opposes during this process, although I have read some legitimate concerns, I believe they are either irrelevant to adminship or of no concern for me because of my personal interactions with him. I have for some time now been in the belief that RFA is about one simple question: Can the candidate be trusted not to abuse the tools? And to that question, even now with the revalation of new information, I believe with no doubt that Yes, Alex can be trusted with the tools. RFA is about discussion and weight of arguments. Opposers are often given the burden of proof. It is expected that they provide evidence to support their arguments. This is not a burden placed on supports, because how does one prove that someone will not abuse the tools? Generally you can't, thus the support section is the default AGF position. In this case, however, in that Alex has earned the support of the community on Commons to be promoted to Bureaucrat, that seems to be proof that he will not abuse the tools.

With that said, I have come to realize that there is another question that we must ask ourselves: Can the candidate be trusted with the sensitive information that admins are privy to? And to that question, in light of the information posted by east718, I am left with serious doubts. Regardless, I do believe that decisions should be made on facts, and that Alex should be given the opportunity to make a statement. He will most likely be offline for several more hours and then the same will be said for me. I will review the information when I return, and I hope that others would give the same consideration. Lara❤Love 16:55, 3 June 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)

Please see my recall criteria at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

1-10

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: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Update; I whipped some up, see User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

11-20

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Or, the alternative two word answer originally requested...:

A block is a preventative measure.

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.

Optional Question from Steve Crossin

15. In what circumstances would you protect a page?

A. I don't feel that stock questions should be asked in requests for adminship. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet and User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Fishing. I am happy to comment on a specific situation if you wish.

Question from HiDrNick

16. In what circumstances, if any, would you block a contributor with over, say, a thousand edits without seeking a demonstration of community consensus first?

Putting aside the comment to Steve's question 15, the most likely reason for a block of a more experienced editor would be a 3RR violation. Again, a more specific situation would be good.

Sorry, I'll be more explicit: would you be willing to block a contributor like User:MONGO or User:Giano II of your own volition, without a discussion to demonstrate consensus to do so beforehand? ➪HiDrNick! 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :) To answer your question...

No. I have expressed support for both of these users in the passed (MONGO in the Tango arbitration case, where my statement argued for Tango's desysopping, and Giano on numerous occasions), so I would consider myself fairly biased on the case.

Putting aside bias and looking from a neutral point of view, no, as blocks of these users (and many other established users) without prior discussion often create unnecessary drama. At the very least, I think someone considering to block them (or someone in a similar boat) should get a few second, third, and fourth opinions at AN first.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question from Efe

17. Hi DM. I saw your comment on The Wiggles's talk page during its FAC. That issue was the revamped lead. Im not comfortable with your reply on this, especially when you emphasized a word there. Good luck with your candidacy man. =) --Efe (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The essence of my comment there was that if I had made a mistake, or inadvertently introduced incorrect info, as a result of my copyedit, then I was happy to revert myself. I deliberately linked to WP:OWN to point that no, it wasn't literally Figureskatingfan's article, but since (s)he probably knew more about it than me I would defer to his/her judgement.

Why do you have to put quotation marks: "your" article.? --Efe (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had said It's your article so you can do what you like. it would have contradicted WP:OWN. The "your" was kinda like when you say !vote in RfAs; it's not actually his article, I'm just deferring to him (same as it's not actually a vote, we just treat it like one sometimes). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. But it could have been better if you did not put that part there. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Question from Irpen

18. Editors Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?

A: As noted above in response to HiDrNick's question, I have in the past defended MONGO and Giano and so wouldn't be blocking them. This could be expanded more to other experienced, and opinionated, editors—I'm of the mindset that blocking them for minor incivility creates more drama than overlooking it will do, especially if this incivility is taking place in a discussion with other well established and thick skinned editors (as opposed to with a newbie). Discussion is almost always more productive than an incivility block, especially in these cases.

I don't plan to hang around AE or AN3 because these places don't interest me.

I certainly did not mean blocks of such editors as Giano or Mongo for their posts outside of the article space. Those have their own dedicated team of watchers looking for an excuse to block for any reason and they will do without your help. I meant more like edits of the generally uncooperative or rude editor who edits unconstructively while not violating 3RR and does not resort to the horrific insults that deserve an instant block. I do think that sometimes blocks for general discuption are warranted. My question is whether you will be prepared to make them. --Irpen 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I would be. That doesn't mean I'll go out looking for incivility block for, but yes, I would be willing to make blocks in the situation described. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

19. Inventiveness Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on editors?

A: I really don't like the way that was done, so no. If this is, say, an ArbCom remedy, then yes I would enforce it if I came across it, but I don't think it a good idea in the majority of cases—certainly not without a community mandate.

20. IRC What's your opinion of IRC? Do you plan to continue using it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? WHat about other channels (or mailing lists) that are secret, private or both. What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel. Please be explain in as much detail as possible.

A: I use IRC, yes. A disclaimer of my usage is available at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Contact. I do intend to join #wikipedia-en-admins, as I think it can be used as a useful tool for its intended purpose. This does not mean I support what has been done in the channel in the past—indeed, I am and have been highly critical of block shopping and the like taking place in there. There's a big difference between saying "127.0.0.1 is at AIV; can I get a second opinion on an appropriate block length?" and saying "Johnny Jones just called me fat. Can someone block him?" (not suggesting or pointing fingers at anyone with the examples; they're just examples). I think this answers your question as to proper/inproper channel use—if not I'm happy to clarify.

I am not currently subscribed to any secret mailing lists (I get Wikien-l, Commons-l, and Wikimediaau-l, sometimes posting on them... see the above wikilink), nor do I intend to join any. IRC is sometimes useful for real time collaboration—secret mailing lists don't have this benefit, so I don't see what good they do.

Please feel free to ask for further information or commentary on specific cases.

First specific question. What makes IRC more fitting to ask for a "second opinion on an appropriate block length" type thing than the wiki-space? --Irpen 07:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not the most appropriate, but the quickest. When dealing with an IP address that's at AIV and still vandalising, it's quicker to ask on IRC and have someone confirm that, say, 24 hours is a good idea, than to post at AN and have to wait a while for any response. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

21-30

Questions from Irpen (cont.)

21. Other off-site. Blogs, external sites, etc. I hear you are all over the places deemed fashionable now. Blogs, external sites, IM (that is in addition to IRC.) Why blog about wikipedia off-wikipedia? Would not it be better to make a post solely related to Misplaced Pages into a userspace or a project space (or a notice board or a VP)? Same on external sites. Should we be able to clean our house from within? If there are reasons why we should not try to address these reasons rather than chat at the external fora saying things banned on-wiki?

A: I was asked something somewhat similar about blogging, and replied here.

I have not posted anything on offwiki sites that I wouldn't be willing to say onwiki—it's all available publicly in any case, and anyone is welcome to reply to it. Thus, I don't look at it as "cleaning out the house from within" because it's not hidden from anyone—it's out in the open for anyone to read and remark upon.

I don't want to go on forever considering the long reply linked to, but I'm happy to expand if you like.

Perhaps I was not clear due to my en-3. I think "cleaning our house from within" is a good thing that we should strive to achieve and if some try to make rules that prevent us from doing that we should modify the rules. This pressure often forces our best editors concerned over the project's well-being to blow the whistle at WR rather than at ANI as those who do it at ANI are threatened by blocks. So, why not post stuff onwiki? Why go elsewhere? And if this is because of policies, why not address them instead? --Irpen 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not your en-3, it's my en-reading-0. I misread that. You're right, the best place to clean the house from is within. The thing is that as you say onwiki criticism can sometimes be taken the wrong way. Some would say there's a chilling effect there—"you tell us we've screwed up too bluntly, and you're gone". I'm not saying it happens often, or indeed, that it happens, but there's the perception of a closed house to criticism. Meanwhile, sites like WR, or blogs, don't enforce things the same way, so those pissed off with stuff around here might find themselves more welcomed there. I know I've felt at times that it's difficult to be critical of a WP matter onwiki compared to WR—the different audience and the different attitude towards critique makes discussion different.

That's not to say that I think all discussion should be on WR. Nor am I saying WR is a wonderful place. There's some really bad stuff that happens there; we all know that. But often, it's a few bad eggs that spoil it... I guess the same could be said, at times, for onwiki critique—there are some who'd rather not hear it. It's sometimes just part of life.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

22. Adminship mill. I coined this term just today, but it seems that this phenomenon is several months old, while currently in the process of being defeated. I believe you have an idea of what it is. Why do you think it became possible? What is to be done to eliminate its recurrence?

A: Quoting from your oppose below, "I will save my comments on the setup of this RfAdm and the adminship mill organized by Tier-2_IRC for another time". I read over this a few times and wasn't sure what to make of it... I think you're referring to IRC folks trying to push each other through RfA (and issue that has been raised in the past) when the candidate doesn't actually "qualify". If I'm on the wrong track, please clarify.

Why did it become possible? Simply because of the popularity of IRC. IRC users are able to talk to a lot of other people, and the topic of RfA could easily come up. My RfA has come up numerous times on IRC in the last few days—it's strange to check the IRC window and find people discussing your progress on WP:100, but it's part of the medium. Since this discussion was considered "on topic", there isn't much I can do about it...

What can be done to eliminate its recurrence? It's difficult. In any community this large there will always be allegations of cabalism and offwiki influence and the like, IRC or not. I think the best thing to do about it is to be honest with ourselves; as the banner at the top of this RfA says (which I think can be removed since Filll has admitted to what happened), if you come to the discussion as a result of IRC, be honest and open about it. The other thing we can do is try and bolster participation from non-IRC folk, to balance things out if you will. But that only addresses the IRC problem—it's not the only place RfAs are discussed (I'm sure this one is being spoken about in other places too). It's a difficult issue with no clear solution.

Again, feel free to ask for more if I've gone off on the wrong track on any of the questions.

I will clarify my comments elsewhere and we return to this question at a later time. --Irpen

I look forward to that. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Undeath

23. Are you willing, if you become an admin, to show deleted content? And if so, would you ever refuse to show it. (explain the latter) Undeath (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon a reasonable request, I'd be happy to abide by what's noted here. So I would refuse to show blatant BLP violations, personal information, copyvios, libel, and the like.

Optional questions from Geometry guy

24. (I think this needs to be asked, so it might as well be by me.) In the light of subsequent events, do you stand by your judgement to seek adminship now when you previously agreed with your admin coach not to stand until August? Geometry guy 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's a tough call and it's all the more difficult without a crystal ball.

On the one hand, I get the feeling much of the opposition here would have come in another two/three months anyway. The infamous GA incident, and probably some immaturity related comments, will probably stick around for a while—I saw someone say I won't live down the GA incident for years, and while I hope that isn't the case, I wouldn't be surprised if someone says "look, he's that guy who passed a GA over IRC" in 2010. That's my fault for doing what I did, and I acknowledge that.

On the other hand, I think that there are some recent things which, given another few months to settle down, could have been looked back on in a different light. Does that make them more or less valid? I'm not in the best position to answer that now, nor do I think I'll be for a while.

RfA is always a tricky beast in this regards. One thing that would be the same regardless of when I ran would be the key question of "do I trust DHMO?". I know what my answer to that question is, but it's not my call, it's the community's, and it would be regardless of when the RfA ran.

I agree that hindsight is 20-20 (and this is also an issue in q. 25), but my questions were not primarily about past or recent incidents, but about whether you think that patience and judgement can help to reduce Wikidrama. I won't comment here beyond this, but I'm making the issues more explicit to give you the opportunity to reply further if you wish. Geometry guy 02:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Patience and judgement... yeah, by Wikidrama's nature they can help reduce it. In that sense it could be argued that leaving this later would have resulted in less of the drama below. That said, I never expected anything like what's happened in the last few days, nor would I wish an RfA like this on anyone. At the same time, I think, as I said above, that due to past events it probably would have ended up somewhat similar in August too. I dunno. I guess we're all waiting for the close with anticipation—I know I am. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

DHMO. As I've said, I'm favourably disposed towards you, and would like to support. But your response to Gguy's question here, and to the very similar one from Ling.Nut below, I find very disappointing. The question, it seems to me, is the extent to which you are able to stick to agreements and prior commitments. Here you write them off as "random arbitrary measures." I'm not impressed by that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The let's-wait-until-August thing had become, in my eyes, somewhat arbitrary. The admin coaching process wasn't achieving the goals we had set out. In that sense, continuing would have caused no gain, and if I could/deserved to pass RfA at the time, then it seemed there was no harm in running.

It would be difficult for me to say that I can stick to agreements and prior commitments when answering a question about the August thing without sounding overly hypocritical. I don't look at every agreement or commitment as something randomly arbitrary—that would be silly. In this case, though, I did. I've been trying to think of way to show that it doesn't hold true to every case, and I don't know. I suppose it's up to you to take my word, or not, or ask another question, or do as you see fit.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

25. In view of the this discussion at the Village Pump, do you have any comments on your action to approve a bot whose apparent intention was to create over a million new stubs? Geometry guy 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my BRFA approval, which was made from a technical perspective only. In that sense, I think it's been agreed that there isn't an issue. I should have asked for more community discussion prior to the approval—not doing so is a mistake I acknowledge, and I'm glad Mr.Z-man did so. But in terms of my action, it was fine from a technical perspective and the discussion there showed no outstanding issues. I will ensure in future BRFAs for such issues that more community discussion has taken place where necessary.

Can I just clarify here (since I suspect DHM is somewhat busy...) - This approval process considers the bot purely from a technical angle ("Will it edit the wrong pages", "Will it crash" etc), not whether the bot actions are desirable. — iridescent 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does not - the approval process is also meant to assess whether the bot is desirable and has community consensus. If BAG members are not doing so, they really need to flag up to bureaucrats that the approval is technical only when asking for a bot to be flagged. WjBscribe 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WJB, in my work with the BAG, and in my dealings with various Bots, it has always been my understanding that BAG only views technical soundness, and that the issue of task-propriety is handled by user comments from any user to the Discussion section of each BRFA. I see nothing in the discussion that indicates a consensus against the propriety of the bot task, and it proved its technical merit. MBisanz 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a little off-topic. I quite accept that a BAG member may conclude from the lack of concerns expressed and their own judgment that a task is desirable and was not commenting on this specific instance. What I wanted to address was Iridescent's comment that the approval process is designed only to approve a bot from a technical perspective - if a BAG member believes a bot to be technically sound but has concerns about the desirability of the task, they should not approve the bot. WjBscribe 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. At the time, and based on the discussion that had taken place in the BRFA, there were no technical or non-technical concerns because there hadn't been enough community discussion. That's where I could have done better; in asking for more community discussion instead of approving. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) I deliberately phrased this question in a way that allowed DHMO to decide whether his judgement was poor or good in this case, without bringing WP:Bot policy into it. However, in view of the discussion generated by the inappropriate intervention of iridescent, I feel obliged to state my view. The policy states very explicitly that "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements above, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." The "requirements above" include: "performs only tasks for which there is consensus".

Approvals based only on technical issues and issues raised in the discussion do not suffice, unless one is invoking WP:IAR for some good reason. I don't find the responses by two administrators and a bureaucrat entirely compelling in this respect: at the very least there is a serious communications problem here. On the other hand DHMO has honestly admitted that he approved the bot prematurely because he failed to establish that there was consensus for this potentially huge task (up to 2 million new stubs!). This is a much better answer, even though it shows a lapse of judgement, as it concurs with what the policy actually says. It seems that he is not alone in making mistakes like this: he might even consider encouraging better practice in applying WP:Bot policy to bot approvals. Geometry guy 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Ling.Nut

26. Would you please define "maturity", in your own words?

Maturity. The ability for one to act rationally in a variety of situations.

I'm not great with definitions, especially in my own words, so feel free to ask for anything more specific.

Specifically, then: How does maturity relate to

1. integrity. Doing what's right.
2. taking your responsibility to the encyclopedia more seriously than the whims of others.
3. treating adminship like a responsibility rather than a clubbish game.
4. the ability to process issues through the proper channels rather than careening off on pointy drama exercises.
5. the ability to shun drama, period.
6. the ability to consider the impact of your actions on others.
7. the ability to resist the urge to impulsively side with one's friends ("clique") and consider the true merit and greater scope of an issue, and the impact on the encyclopedia.
8. above all, to think of the community before you think of yourself. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, more comments below)(Sorry to butt in ahead Lara, but it'd look weird otherwise.) Ling, I think you've answered your question in several of these cases. Maturity is doing what's right even when it's the more difficult option (integrity). It's putting the encyclopedia first even when trying to please others is easier. It's recognising your responsibilities and acting according to them. It's solving problems without creating new ones in the process. You're right; its the ability to shun drama, full stop. It is mature to consider the impacts of your actions on others, to say no to cliques, and to put the community first. Maturity is all these things, and you're 100% correct. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ling, some of these seems rather weighted. Lara❤Love 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The questions are optional. If the tone or content of them reflects badly on me in anyone's mind, then so be it. I am not at all against a little lighthearted frivolity among admins, but I am against admins who take the consequences of their actions as admins lightly. That is at the heart of the matter that my questions are trying to address. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not, and will not, take the consequences of my actions lightly. You have this from me now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that will be appreciated by many - thanks. My interpretation of maturity is - conducting oneself with dignity and representing policy and authority in an appropriate and fair manner; ability to put community concerns over self-centred ones; ability to stand back and evaluate, and ability to discuss and negotiate (or abstain if this is impossible) even when one has strongly held views on a topic. While obviously acting in line with undisclosed sectional interests would not be a good thing, I don't think the question dwelling on this aspect is helpful. Orderinchaos 07:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

27. Would you furthermore be willing to evaluate your own actions in the light of the GA Pass trade scandal on IRC (which is old news), the White Pride incident (which was recent) and your recent blog posts, and any other incidents which others have mentioned as being a source of concern?

The GA incident: I screwed up. I shouldn't have passed the GA with minimal review, I shouldn't have discussed it (agreeing to pass or not isn't completely relevant) on IRC. I shouldn't have tried to do in exchange for a review for me. I shouldn't have raged at Irpen when he did the right thing. In short, I had a really big lapse of judgement. Since then, I've been trying to redeem myself through my ongoing work in the GA process. I've tried to regain the trust of the GA project.

The White Pride incident: It's somewhat difficult to comment on this, because it's a difficult issue for a lot of people. I should have done more background reading on the issues before throwing my unrequested opinion. At the same time, I still defend the spirit, if not the wording, of what I said—of how the_undertow copped it deservingly, and of how Moulton has been treated unfairly. That's not fully relevant to my RfA. The issues of "white pride", "white supremacy", and "racism" are somewhat, and I didn't mean to, or want to, hurt anyone by misreading the meanings of those words. I'm not racist.

Blogging: I suppose the above, as well as my answer to Irpen somewhere else, cover that.

28. Would you explain, in detail (you might be willing to include names of any other parties involved or consulted, if any) the thought process which led you to break your promise to your admin coach about waiting 'til August?

As I said here, I had totally forgotten. Balloonman started that section after Anonymous Dissident asked when it was gonna happen. I suppose as I said there, the August thing was raised to give somewhat of a set timeframe for the coaching process. Thing is, the coaching process wasn't really working... I felt that it was slowly moving towards the stereotyped coaching process I've criticised. At that stage, I felt I was ready, and I felt the timeframe wasn't really doing any good—I'm not a fan of random arbitrary measures.

Optional questions from User:Gnangarra

29 Since a major concern is that editors dont trust you with the tools, I know that you are a crat on Commons, checking your actions (User:Giggy, at around pos 23 on the list) there I see that you have performed just over 1300 actions which include 69 blocks and 1100 odd deletions. How many of those actions have been reversed by the community? Gnangarra 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not many. I don't know of an exact number and it'd take an inordinate amount of time to check every deletion, etc., but going by talk page messages I'd guess somewhere around 20. Most of them would have been reversed by me; if an error is raised I'll fix it with apologies as soon as possible.

Optional questions from Slrubenstein | Talk

30. I am deeply concerned by your response to User:Filll's AGF challenge 2:2.6. This is clearly a ridiculous idea and so any articles about this should be written from a mainstream Western POV ... I know it is multiple choice, but there was an "other" option yet you chose this one and added, "Sort of. The ridiculousness of the theory and the obvious conflict of interest of Islamic sources makes them pretty unreliable, so caution should be taken to make sure the article is actually neutral" I'd appreciate your developing your answer to respond to some specific points:

(1) Do you find acceptable to claim that Misplaced Pages articles should be written from a "Western POV?"

I find it more unacceptable that we should promote a clearly ridiculous fringe theory supported only by a very obviously biased Islamic press.

(2) When you use the word "unreliable," are you saying the media sources are unreliable sources, or the theories are unreliable?

The Islamic sources are unreliable by virtue of promoting this clearly bogus theory.

(3) What do you mean by "obvious conflict of interest of Islamic sources" making them unreliable? I ask this because it is quite common that a person, group, or organization will take a point of view because it further's their interests, and reject the point of view of a person, group, or organization it is in conflict with in part or largely because it is in conflict. Why does this make a view any less notable or reliable?

Yes, I agree with you that it's common. That's why we should use some degree of editorial judgement—in some situations it's OK to use these sources even if the publisher has a conflict of interest. When the source is promoting a crazy theory supported only by its publisher, though, we should use our judgement and realise that this theory shouldn't be given undue weight, even if otherwise OK sources are talking about it.

(4) I would propose that the media in Islamic countries are not reliable sources of information concerning extraterrestrial life, but are reliable sources about views help by people living in Islamic countries. What if an editor argued that the view should be included, not because it is a notable view about extraterrestrial life but because it is a notable view about how people in one country feel about another country?

That is a perfectly valid argument. First of all, I agree with your initial proposition.

If an editor wanted to include this, it could be included in a relevant article... something along the lines of "a view held in by the populous of some Islamic countries is that the US is collaborating with space aliens" is valid. That's pretty different to saying that they actually are, just that some people think they are.

(5) Now, leaving the Islamic media sources aside, you also claim that "The ridiculousness of the theory ... makes them pretty unreliable." I find this hard to square with our NPOV policy. The whole point of NPOV is that something I take very seriously will be considered ridiculous by someone else, so we need other criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Or do you disagree with my interpretation of NPOV? if so, why?

It's not that I think it's ridiculous... it's that the entire world press, with the exception of some Islamic media (which, for whatever reason, may have a reason to want to make the US look bad in the eyes of Islam people), is not taking the seriously. It's somewhat like intelligent design (somewhat)—the fact that some have published serious works supporting it doesn't overlook the fact that the vast majority of scientific press considers it bollocks. Hence we shouldn't give the fringe theory undue weight.

I agree with your interpretation of NPOV; what I'm saying is that there's a difference between "I think John Doe is straight, but editor X thinks he's gay, thus I should ignore editor X's view" and "Every newspaper in the world except for X News (run by John Doe's biggest rival) has called John Doe straight."

(6) What exactly do you mean when you say that the article should actually be neutral? If you mean it should comply with NPOV, isn't this true of all articles? If this is what you meant, it just sounds like a non-answer, at best vague. Or do you mean that the article should not provide any viewpoint - that is it should provide neither the viewpoint of the US Government nor that of Islamic countries? I thought NPOV meant including multiple, even conflicting points of view; I did not think it meant articles should have no point of view. Do you think I am misinterpreting NPOV? If so, how and why?

Yes, articles should present all relevant points of view in accordance with the NPOV policy. In that sense, the article should give more weight/credibility to the "Western POV", and less to that of the Islamic press. "...to make sure the article is actually neutral" was poor phrasing—my point was that we should take care when discussing the Islam POV to ensure that we don't give it undue weight.

(7) If we agree about our interpretation of NPOV, can you provide more of an answer than the assertion that a Misplaced Pages article should be neutral? The question is, how would NPOV be achieved given the facts of this case.

Just to summarise what's said above... we should give the theory a minor mention, and we should treat it as a fringe theory, so we shouldn't give it undue weight. The "Western POV" implies we should give prominence to the overwhelming world view that no, the US aren't collaborating with aliens.

General comments

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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.
• Misplaced Pages: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)

If you are going to make veiled attacks, at least have some discretion. We are all aware of how many times he has been through this. But your pointing that out is probably the only time I would have to say that I actually see why you were hiveminded. You are simply bitter, man. Go play. the_undertow 09:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bitter is ironical, right? In any case you managed to violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and ascribing motives in one swell foop. Nice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:52, 1 June 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 just wanted to say that I think that this RFA broke the 200 Record for RFAs, this one was done in less than 2 days <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:36, 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)

Yeah I don't think anyone contends that wasn't a bad move, although it was sufficiently long ago that the question has to be asked "did the behaviour continue?" The answer appears to be no. While opposes are still possible on other grounds, this one doesn't appear to have legs. Orderinchaos 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if it wasn't for his continued working in the area, it would not be long enough ago. I would normally hold it against him for at least a year. But when he messed up, rather than quit that area of the project, he learned from it and made a concerted effort to redeem himself in that community. That shows a great deal of responsibility/maturity. He has become a valued member of that project---he didn't leave it to time, he made an active effort to redeem himself.---Balloonman 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my support. I wasn't invited here, but have interacted with DHMO in the past, and have had serious disagreements with him on content, but not really on policy (interpretations). When I saw the dicussion on one of the AN boards, I decided to investigate, and believe his use of the mop would be of value to the project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: I urge those who have recently been voting support to seriously reconsider whether they are doing so mainly because they dislike the methods or reasons put forth by some few of those opposing him. The way those people have been doing it can & should be considered elsewhere--the question here, is whether DHMO should get the buttons at this time. DGG (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I hope that regardless of support or oppisition that those expressing such are not basing their expression simply on the manner in which others have stated their expression. This is not to say that you should not contemplate the reasoning of opposition, you should. Beam 23:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm confused DGG. Are you saying that people shouldn't support this candidate? The rational/methods/argumentation of the opposes alwasys ALWAYS carries weight for supporters. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that in the course of this discussion a considerable number of different objections were raised, some in the oppose section, others in various places. Some of these arguments, and some of the actions taken to support them, can reasonably be thought of as divisive and inappropriate, and clearly a number of people are taking them in just this way. It is understandable reaction when confronted by such things, to support the candidate in the presence of what appears to be poorly motivated or supported opposition and unwarranted hostility--I make no bones about saying that this was my initial reaction upon coming to this RfA: I like the candidate and I wanted to support him if I thought I could do so. But I am suggesting that those whom may have voted on this basis, whether to show their dislike for some of the opposition, or because of personal liking for the candidate, might want to rethink on the basis of some of the arguments raised by some of our responsible editors. This reexamination may well support their original conclusion. But checking back on a RfA that takes a course such as this is often a good idea. I know that I intend to do so before the discussion actually closes to see if my own view remains warranted. DGG (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I was initially coming to support, if flippantly: I was frustrated by what I initially regarded as some unreasonable opposes, and thought that DHMO would be a great candidate. Despite the local time (it's late), I decided to try reading through (almost) all of the RfA before commenting (I even read through most of the supports!). I must say, I am quite confused now! Some of the opposes (but not very many) indeed are frustrating; others are quite sensible. Same with the supports. Hmmm.....
• I think, as Gracenotes, said, a net gain is projected; as Bryan said, DHMO has not done anything inappropriate at Commons and would be of great benefit to Misplaced Pages. You'd think that those two qualities would be enough to pass an RfA! But such is life on the English Misplaced Pages. >_>
• Still, though, I agree with Irpen, which surprises me, because I've often found myself in disagreement with them! First (and others commented on this too), the number of RfAs in a short while is concerning. I guess it shouldn't be, but I still find it concerning. But I really find myself agreeing with Irpen's 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) comment; DHMO seems to want adminship a lot. I guess I don't see that as a reason to oppose, at least not this case. But I don't really see it as a reason to support either.
• There are a lot of other comments I would comment on - not because I feel need to let people know I've read the RfA ;), but out of my quixotic desire for RfA to be more of a discussion than a vote - quixotic because I wish it would be, but am somewhat resigned to it being a vote (the sheer massiveness of this particular RfA is, I think, a testament to that).
• Eh, anyways, I would echo Riana and Husond - if you pass this RfA, DHMO (and I hope you do - despite not actually listing my handle in the "support" column), please take it slow! And perhaps consider not spending so much time on Misplaced Pages! Yes, I know that's heresy >_>, but there is so much life to live! Eh, I am totally editorialising now. *sigh* Anyways, that was my rambling comment. Move along now. --Iamunknown 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus not numbers: I've agonised over this for a few days. On the face of it he's a candidate who shows signs of improving, despite some trenchant opposition to his candidacy. On the other hand (and this is something I regard as decisive) unless the candidate can give a satisfactory explanation of the incident described here I believe he is clearly unsuited to adminship at this time. I suggest that he takes the criticism on the chin and works on improving his involvement (which is already in many ways admirable). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Regarding that diff you supplied, I think it would be best to wait until the candidate has had the chance to give his side of the story. As I said below, and in agreement with your statement, this could be very decisive not only on the part of an individual taking part in this RFA, but an issue that may ultimately decide the fate of the RFA itself. We still have just over two days (if I have this right) before the RFA is scheduled to close. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:20, 3 June 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)

   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)

   I hate to break WP:300 (I'm sure only temporarily), but I'm indenting pending DHMO's explanation of the events resulting in East718's oppose, after which I fully expect and hope to unindent. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

3. (ec) Fine, yes. WODUP 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
4. (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)

   Might change depending on response to east evidence below. :( <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)`

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

   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 )} 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. I can no longer offer my support and have no further wish to be apart of this. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Good god yes. SQL 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
6. 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 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. Support - Dureo (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Support Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Decent candidate, has reasonable clue, accepts Monopoly money. east.718 at 06:01, May 29, 2008

12. Yes! --jonny-mt 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Helz yes. Tiptoety 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
14. 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 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
15. 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 ↗ 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support rootology (T) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Big Support - DHMO is a valuable contributor and a major asset to Misplaced Pages, and will only be more so with a mop in hand. – ClockworkSoul 06:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
18. This editor should be an admin. Darkspots (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Followup: I've been keeping an eye on the opposes and omg drama, and I still trust DHMO to do the right thing. These things take on a life of their own, but at the end of the day, he's a solid editor who won't misuse the tools. Darkspots (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
19. 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)
20. Support. For sure. Alex is ready for the role, 100%. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
21. 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)
22. God yes Viridae 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
23. + Much matured. Keegan 06:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. 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)

    Identity confirmed by email. WjBscribe 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

26. 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 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

27. Support, looks like he has everything needed to be a proper admin. SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
28. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
29. 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 Misplaced Pages. hmwithτ 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Based on strong previous personal interaction. I have in the past found myself unable to support DHMO. I believe he now as the relevant experience. Yes there are concerns. But will he abuse or misuse the buttons? I don't believe so. Comment from 29 May 2008 totally refactored in light of the strength of feeling this RFA is producing. Previous firvolous comment removed and useful statement inserted Pedro :  Chat  07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Tarragon $upport. I like your idea's and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Dfrg_msc 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
32. That's hot. One of my favorite contributors. Mike H. Fierce! 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Absolutely 110% overwhelming support! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
34. 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 07:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Support Will make a great admin. nancy 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC) The removal of my !vote is not a comment on H2O but on the process which I believe has been dragged through the mud and then some. Sorry, but I cannot be part of such an unedifiying spectacle. nancy 18:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

35. 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)
36. Support, again. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
37. 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 _Read 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. Dedicated editor and participant who has also contributed quality article content. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Yeah, per that huge heap of text way up the top there :) Daniel (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
40. 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)
41. 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)
42. 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)
43. Support. If I was made an admin, he could be on the board. Good luck Giggy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Support I think H2O is a thoughtful, smart editor who will do well as an admin. Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support- Duh! Mellie ♥ 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
46. 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)
47. Support - No problems I can see. ← κεηηε∂γ 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
48. 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)
49. Über support, per this. --Kakofonous (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
50. 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)
51. 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)
52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Claro que si Spencer 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
54. 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 - 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support. I've traditionally opposed DHMO in the past, but this time I even offered to nominate. Good work G1ggy. :) · AndonicO 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - You can't be any worse than the current lot! --Chris 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. 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; Misplaced Pages 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)
59. Strong and unqualified support. Having worked with Giggy on Commons, I have no hesitation about trusting him here. Durova 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
60. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Suporthas 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)

    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)

61. Strong Support. This is one of the users I have strong respect for. AVand_contribs 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support I've seen this guy everywhere and he'll make a great admin. --CapitalR (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    As much as DHMO is a good user, as much as I think he should be an admin, quite frankly, this RFA is joke, this makes the RFA process on the whole look a shambles, and it reflects on others badly. If there is canvassing, then I personally think this RFA should be emergency closed as it does not reflect on the true feelings of this community. The actions of one of the nominations, is quite frankly, shocking. TBH, if I was DHMO, I would expect a full apologise for the betrayl from that individual. I will, if DHMO goes for it in the future, Support DHMO as he is undoubtedly a great, superb future, and I wish him the best of luck in the future. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

63. Support - A duh support. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - I'd put something witty here, but all the good stuff's already been said. ffm 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
65. Strong Support. Of course. Malinaccier P. (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - 'nuff said. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support, definitely.  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
69. EC Support you're a great guy :-) CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
70. Is the line for "Indiana Jones"? Oh, wrong line. In any event, Support! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
71. 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)

72. Didn't beat the nom support. --Kbdank71 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
73. 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)
74. 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)
75. 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)
76. Support hang on, since when have you not been an admin? :D Happy‑melon 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
77. 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 13:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
78. 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)

79. Support You're not an admin? Pff... Qb | 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
80. 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)
81. 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)

82. 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)
83. 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) Update- note that I got my vote in before the drama, and that I'm not involved, for which I am deeply grateful. Neither my position nor my reasoning have changed. I hope people will take another look at how Misplaced Pages is and isn't successful at flattening heirarchy; as Einstein might say, it should be as flat as possible, but no flatter. That is, if the first step up that requires community acknowledgement and support is a step that might or might not be available to someone as important to Misplaced Pages as Alex, then you're pretty much guaranteeing explosive battles. Humans generally require some kind of appropriate acknowledgement of "belonging" without having to pass so many tests. But this is just food for thought, and not a comment on this RfA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
84. 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 /1 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
85. 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)
86. 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)
87. Support a leader in Commons and Wikimedia. Vishnava _talk 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
88. 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  15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Switch to strong support, based on dignity and aplomb with which has handled the most contentious RFA I've been involved with and in the way he has answered questions and responded to criticism. Opposers have fairly called into question his maturity. His handling of this RfA shows he has come further than I would have thought possible. 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)

90. Support - Resistance is futile, Lol. Your deeply needed, I see you everywhere and to be honest I already thought you were an Admin. Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
91. About fucking time. dorftrottel (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    DHMO is not Danny, so this RfA looks like the typical crat, chat, fail candidate. Abandon all hope, soon they will be lording it over here and that settles that. dorftrottel (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

92. 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)

    WP:100 ! -- TinuCherian - 04:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

93. Support 101 =
94. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
95. 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)
96. Support. →Christian.И 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
97. 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.delanoyanalyse 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - Indeed, maturity is a wonderful thing. Sean William @ 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
99. Support Been waiting a long time for this one. No reservations whatsoever. Thingg 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
100. 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 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
101. 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)
102. 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 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
103. Weak Support due to reflections on talk page.Balloonman (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
104. Support I think that he will do a good job..Modernist (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
105. Support Not persuaded by opposes, believe he will be an asset with the tools. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
106. 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 ~ Evidence 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
107. Support Antonio Lopez 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
108. 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)
109. support —DerHexer (Talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
110. Support (EC x116). What's left to say? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
111. Support - It's about time. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
112. Obviously- Yes please! Give him the the mop already.Perfect Proposal 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

     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 Misplaced Pages. 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) I must withdraw at this time from this immoral farce. Perhaps with some reflection I can come back and support. Sorry, EJF (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

113. Support DM3 is one of those editors where I always believed he already was an admin. No concerns from me. – sgeureka 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
114. 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 Misplaced Pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

     Support Nothing but good interactions with him. Honestly thought he was an admin already. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC) While I wholeheartedly support the user, I cannot support the joke that this RfA has become, so I'm removing my vote. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Moving to Oppose

115. 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 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
116. 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)
117. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
118. Support - Seen this user around and believe him to be very helpful. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
119. Support - Worthy user who will not abuse the tools. Zenlax 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
120. Support - About time, too. - Mtmelendez 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
121. Support —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
122. 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)
123. 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)

124. Support per pretty much everyone else; Alex will make an excellent admin. —paranomia 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
125. Al Tally 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
126. 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)

     Given the extraordinary circumstances of this RfA, I'd been reconsidering whether it was, well, healthy for DHMO, and if it had the potential to lead him down the wrong path. I see above, though, that given the stunning twists and turns of the past hour, he has taken a step to reassure the community that he's aware of at least some of the concerns expressed in the oppose votes. He has now posted his terms of recall in advance of there being any reason to recall him, and I take that as a good sign he's getting it. Risker (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

127. 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)
128. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Nousernamesleft 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

     The opposers have made many valid points, and I feel the need to elaborate on my comment - I'm going to be as honest and frank as possible here; please don't be offended if I criticize your oppose. The most worrying point is the one about hasty comments at FAC by Sandy and Tony. It's the only one I fully agree with, but somehow I don't think it's quite enough to oppose; DHMO wouldn't judge consensus in AfDs hastily, I'm sure; he probably just unfortunately gives the act of giving his own opinion less consideration. Next to consider is the blog postings - Ling.Nut called them childish finger pointing, others criticized them as uninformed overreactions, as well as being overly temperamental. Frankly, I agree with the spirit of his "Disgusted" post; in fact, I posted a comment to it that I somewhat regret now, as it was a reaction of my own quick temper. Could DHMO have been more tactful? Yes, and he should probably try to curb his emotions, think twice before posting something (as should I!). He probably also should have researched more thoroughly before posting, but the spirit of his post wasn't incorrect, and it most definitely wasn't "childish finger pointing". Also, it should be noted that DHMO did not leave following that blog post - there's at least one oppose based on that mistaken conception. Next thing's next - the CWii posting admittedly was childish finger pointing. It brought into question my judgment of him, but the way he handled it after the outburst was excellent; Cwii himself supports this nomination. As I said, DHMO needs to stop being impulsive - however, I don't think he would let such outbursts affect the more serious on-wiki issues of judging consensus and blocking users. After the blogging concerns comes that of his involvement with the BRC - "social networking aspects". One oppose remarks that he supports cabals - I'm not sure where they got that idea, frankly. For his excellent and well-thought out views (in my humble opinion), I would read this. Next comes the charge of "corruption" in the GA process - frankly, I unilaterally condemn him on that, and had I been active at the time that he did that, I would have requested he leave the GA project, but he's proved me wrong - "more than redeemed himself" in the words of another supporter. Lastly, there's being too proud of his FAs - this, frankly, I regard as utterly ridiculous for reasons that have been stated by others better than I ever could. Nousernamesleft 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     Oh, and I forgot my by far most important point. Adminship, today, is a big deal, as many protest in response to WP:DEAL. But it shouldn't be. Please, try to judge DHMO by his virtues and faults as if he were just your run-of-the-mill uncontroversial candidate (by uncontroversial, I mean a candidate which doesn't attract the attention of so many people), and try to keep the drama and incivility out of this RfA. Nousernamesleft 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     I presume you are referring to Rockpocket's oppose with regards to "cabals". He stated that DHMO was promoting "the divisive concept of cabals". I believe he was referring to real, POV-pushing, tag-teaming cabals rather than toy Myspace "cabals". I also don't think that he was suggesting that DHMO supports cabals in any shape or form, simply that DHMO believes and is spreading the idea that POV-pushers are controlling content. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     Ah, that makesm ore sense. My opinion on that is already in my above comment. Nousernamesleft 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

129. Definite support Especially with two great trustworthy and fair co-nominators adding their bit - but mainly because it's about time now.--VS 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
130. 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)
131. 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)
132. Support - Very helpful editor, I see no judgment worries otherwise. - Merzbow (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
133. Support Yes, H20 will be an excellent admin. Firm command of policy and an excellent mediator. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
134. 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)
135. 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)
136. 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 () 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
137. 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)
138. Ultra strong support. Sceptre 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
139. 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)
140. STRONGEST POSSIBLE 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. After viewing who exactly is opposing DM, I've weighted my type of support accordingly. Wizardman 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
141. 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)
142. Support What is there else to say LegoKTM 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
143. 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)
144. 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)
145. 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)
146. Support of course. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
147. 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)
148. 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)
149. Support Weak 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)

     Even though some of the supporters are dropping out because of the mockery of process that this RfA has become, I would still like to express my support for Giggy at this time for handling this by and large with a great deal of dignity. I do not believe that just because he has aroused the wrath of a group of editors that will stoop to any underhanded tactic necessary to see their goals achieved does not mean he should suffer, or be penalized, and not receive the tools that are due to him. While there are certainly some valid opposes here (lingering maturity concerns, etc.) these are put to shame by the clique of people currently attempting to emasculate Giggy for his supposed connection with some sort of shadowy "cabal of racists." Aside from being one of the most ludicrous excuses for opposing a candidate that I've ever seen, this sort of desperate accusation has absolutely no basis in fact. I have also seen the evidence that east718 has brought up regarding disclosure of personal information. However, I cannot ignore the fact that this was in retaliation to some of the most voracious canvassing by opposers that the RfA process has ever seen, more than likely. I have discussed it with Wikipedians whom I respect, and I do not believe that it should derail this RfA at this time. However, Giggy does of course need to know that this behavior, and any sort like it, has to be absolutely ironed out if he is going to make a decent admin.

     To sum up, I'd like to echo Nousernamesleft, who puts this all exceedingly well. Yes, Giggy needs try to curb his emotions and think twice before posting something; but we're all human, and I know that I personally am not one to judge others for quick tempers. He also counters these occasional outbursts with well thought out posts that are both logical and inspiring, like his help in rewording a guideline in the "Myspace cabal" RfC, located here. Giggy's had a few conflicts with well-known users during his time here, namely Majorly and Bishonen. However, I find it very telling and a testament to Giggy's good spirit and willingness to let bygones be bygones that the two of them still in the ranks of the supporters at the time of this writing. Adminship should not be a big deal, period. It is a true shame that RfA has become little more than a place to air petty grievances and unsubstantiated rumors at the behest of the good of the project. GlassCobra 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

150. 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)
151. Support because I'm eternally grateful :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     The way DHMO has conducted himself during this stressful RFA shows he can handle the responsibilty of having the Admin. tools. - Epousesquecido (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

152. 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)
153. Definitely. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
154. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

155. Support Excellent editor. Excellent GA reviewer. I have no problems with this RfA. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
156. Haemo (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
157. Not much left to say Support. Oh! I forgot to mention this short, but excellent essay. —Travis 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
158. 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)
159. 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 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
160. Support He is certainly a strong editor and I see no problems. — Wenli  04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
161. 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)
162. Support No doubt in my mind that DHMO has always and will continue to improve Misplaced Pages more then most editors, and surely to a greater extent if granted adminship. Drewcifer (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
163. Support You mean he's not an admin already? Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 05:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
164. 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)
165. Support Good interactions with this user, will be a solid administrator. « Gonzo fan2007<;/font> (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
166. Support- And I bet this will be a WP:200. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
167. 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)
168. Support due to candidates reaction to canvassing by the opposers. Jacina (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
169. Support Good asset, I hope a certain cabal is quaking in fear. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
170. 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 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
171. Support - Seen lots of good contributions from this user in several areas of the encyclopedia VegaDark (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Support -- ahh what hasnt already been said...... what they all said Gnangarra 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)withdrawning from this RfA as its fast becoming a farce, yet I trust and support DHMO with the mop. This RfA has passed from being a review of DMHO and whether we can trust him to act reasonibly to forumn for people to exercise extremist views. Additionally to many opinions are not necessarily the result of informed opinion but rather the result of email canvassing. This RfA is showing why there are problems with the RfA process, not matter how seriously we tout WP:BLP we cant expect people to believe we actually follow it, while we willing treat members of our own community with such distain. I read below many accusations of corruption, racism yet where are the citations, even respected editors are throw inuendo around telling people trust me just look back in various archives its all there. Gnangarra 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

172. By the way, thanks for your commitment to the project.--Yamanbaiia 08:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
173. 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)
174. Support — I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, you'll certainly make a good administrator. Regards, CycloneNimrod 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
175. Support. He will be an excellent admin. Axl (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
176. 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\ 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
177. Trusted, solid article contributor, competent, experienced, and good nomination statements. You have my support. Anthøny 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Support on the power of the nomination statements and answers to the questions Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I supported on the basis of the nom statements. Now I'm confused as to where at least one of them stands. Not going to move to another column - just going to withdraw form this process Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

178. Support: Nobody I think is an admin is! The user can be trusted with the tools, in my opinion...... Dendodge .. Talk 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
179. Support No reason to believe he would be anything other than a great admin. Chrislk02 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
180. 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)
181. 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)

     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)

     Removing support until the email controversy is cleared up. RMHED (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

182. Support, will not abuse the tools. Also offering moral support due to apparent Oppose canvassing by the ID Wikiproject people. Kelly 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
183. Support, trusted already with extra tools on commons and the multiple FA's etc show his commitment to the project. -- Marcsin | 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
184. Support Reliable user. Speed CG 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
185. Herculean Support This is long since past due. Both an incredible writer and one of the most clueful editors I have ever seen when it comes to the common-sense interpretation of policy. If he wouldn't make an excellent candidate for adminship, then NOBODY would. Trusilver 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
186. He knows what he's doing, he does it well, and he generally goes around making Misplaced Pages a better place. I enthusiastically support. Don't let the mop change you, DHMO. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
187. Support Although I am not terribly pleased with power accumulating in the hands of specific persons (it seems like everywhere I turn it's the same group of people) I have seen enough of this editor's work to build trust in him or her. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
188. Support Absolutely unreal that oppposers are concerned about Misplaced Pages cliques when the oppose section reads like a family tree. This candidate is willing to get his hands dirty, and take the heat for it. He's going to be a great admin. the_undertow 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     WP:200 ! -- TinuCherian - 04:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     Hmm... a family tree. Can't say it's every day that I see SlimVirgin, SandyGeorgia, Moreschi, Neil, Swatjester, Orangemarlin, and B on the same side of an issue. Though some of their interactions do remind me of elements of my family tree... MastCell  18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Quite the correct observation; I don't usually find myself among that particular "family tree". Further, my concerns are based on hard data anyone can verify by simply viewing the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Indeed. My last interaction with SlimVirgin was...ah...perhaps the sort of thing you do get in really dysfunctional families (four-letter words, ANI drama, and kickbans from wikien-l). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     My intent was not to make a blanket statement, as I must apologize for my cursory review. 7 opposes from affiliates of Wikiproject ID, and 0 supports just made me curious. It's not the accountant in me looking at patterns, it's probably just the paranoia that goes along with my side-job of being a white supremacist. Nothing to see here. the_undertow 08:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

189. Support A great editor who can be trusted. He's always willing to help out and has lot's of experience. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
190. Support I tried for the 200 mark, but was busy at the time. At least I'm your 201 supporter Giggy. I've interacted with this guy, and he is amazing he might have a bad history, but he sure have changed from that. I belive 100% he won't abuse the tools. WP:200 --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
191. Epic Support, this editor has a clue and is able to think critically. Two attributes which are definitely needed now more than ever. DHMO is articulate, civil, and has a strong understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. His article work is outstanding! There is no reason this editor should be denied the tools, in my humble opinion. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
192. Support, no trust issues here. A great editor and will make a great Admin. EyeSerene 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Revisiting this, I was initially reconsidering my support (based on Balloonman's comments more than anything else). However, this would have been be unfair to DHMO, as my interactions with him have been invariably positive and he has given me no reason to doubt his trustworthiness. We all make mistakes, and DHMO has shown he can learn from them... and of course adminship is no big deal and the tools can always be revoked. The question I ask myself is, will DHMO harm Misplaced Pages - and I believe the answer is emphatically "no". There will be so many suspicious editors watching his every move, if this RfA does pass, that I really don't envy him :P EyeSerene 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

193. Support - Adding a rationale. This RfA is probably the most stressful event that DHMO will encounter in his time on Misplaced Pages, and I think he has been dealing with it admirably well. I'm sure he has taken on board the constructive criticism (a minority of the total) written in the oppose section. I think some folks, particularly those who do not frequent RfA and only arrive in the midst of great controversy, mistakenly treat this as though we were electing a head of state. We're discussing someone who wants to be an administrator, here, not governor of planet Earth. He may not be perfect, but who among us is? None of the opposers are without flaws, and the administrators among those who are the most harshly critical should take comfort in the likely fact that their own RfAs had far less scrutiny. For those who have not yet experienced an RfA but who may wish to, consider whether even you meet your arbitrary standards. Avruch 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
194. Support. He has made a lot of constructive edits at Misplaced Pages. The Prince (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
195. Support. No issues with trust or doubts about maturity here. Plenty of experience as well.--Dycedarg ж 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
196. Support Kwsn (Ni!) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
197. Support - Of course! SchfiftyThree 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     Support, conscientious editor. Some of the opposes by respected users such as KillerChihuahua and Raymond Arritt are a little worrying, but overall I think the positive outweighs the negative by a large margin. Other opposes make claims that are rather difficult to verify. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

     I'll hold off on this until the discussion about the e-mail to east718 is sorted out. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

198. Thoroughly prepared at this point; I'm not sure that all the points which have been raised in opposition are really related to adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
199. Support. Excellent editor; will make a good administrator. Of the opposes, only SandyGeorgia's and Neil's seem to bear any weight. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
200. Support. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
201. Such a Strong Support that you could probably break down the Great Wall of China with it If I had to pick one person out of all the 6 million or so users here to be an administrator, it'd be Deskana. But, if he wasn't available, DHMO would be my first choice. Is Dihydrogen Monoxide trustworthy? I say Yes indeedy!. None of the opposes really worry me enough to sway my opinion on this one. Also, we need more admins with funny user names.--Koji†Dude 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
202. Support I couldn't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said; and that means a lot. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
203. Support a great contributor. Polly (Parrot) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
204. Support Ziggy Sawdust 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
205. Support per Crum375. I do suggest you take some of the actual criticism into consideration. OK? I knew you thought that it was OK! Thanks! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

     Support - Alex? Snap. And if you want a real reason, none of the opposes impress me and it'd be tough for 200+ people to be wrong. Alex Muller 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

206. Support - I see him around all the time. Thought he was an admin already! SBHarris 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
207. Support. Worked with and around this user as far as I can remember, seen him around etc. and only have seen him as a user who would make a good admin. Just for the record, I feel that since I've been editing closely to him, that if canvassing would happen, I would be one of those who would receive this supposed email, and I didn't. I also have some suggestions for the user: sounding as un-offensive as possible, stay clear of the drama which people are talking about. I'm not saying you do like drama on Misplaced Pages, but just remember, at the end of the day, it's no big deal and there's no need to get worked up. Good luck. Jack?! 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
208. Support, a well recognized name :) -- lucasbfr 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
209. Strong support. A consistent contributor who is widely experienced in all aspects of WP. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
210. Support. No concerns. Well-rounded editor who has gone above and beyond to support this project. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
211. Support. I opposed thrice previously, but more recently formed the view that past concerns had been largely resolved. Tony's comment is real by the way, but I'm sure you'll take that on board. Good luck. Moondyne 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Per CCG/171. miranda 02:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

212. Support. Some people are never satisfied – he is clearly able, has improved in many respects since past requests for adminship, and probably gained all the desiderata ten times over in that time. —Animum (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
213. To spite the opposition. MessedRocker (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Please don't undermine the candidate and the process by spiting the opposition. That's ridiculous. Not to mention insulting to those who made good faith opposes. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     "Undermine" does not even begin what I want to do with the Requests for Adminship process. As for DHMO, I apologize to him and his supporters for undermining him, as well as the people who had legitimate opposition (I'm not going to bother to count that, though I do think there'd be at least one legitimate oppose vote). Ridiculous? I find getting caught up in the politics of a reference website's administration is more worthy of ridicule. MessedRocker (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

214. Support. The "white pride" issue is entirely irrelevant - DMHO is one of our most seasoned, mature mainspace editors, and he didn't get that way by POV pushing and using his authority to boss people around - he knows to discuss article changes on the basis of their merit, not the personal viewpoints of the editors suggesting those changes. We would do well to do the same, and evaluate administrators on the basis of their ability to use the tools to contribute effectively. Although I am concerned that DMHO's explanation of the Moulton affair is oversimplified and personal, this is best read as an isolated emotional reaction to a very unpleasant incident that hurt people he cared about - and the important thing is that this didn't translate into tool abuse or POINT editing (the unblock was independently justifiable). It doesn't matter how much "drama" an admin causes, as long as it doesn't lead to tool abuse. As for those who are prepared to chalk these support votes up to "social networking," I've never met the guy. Dcoetzee 03:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
215. Support He works very hard to uphold policy, guidelines and the prevailing thought.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
216. Support - no reason he shouldn't be.   jj137 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
217. Strong support Alex a very good editor. I find no reason to oppose him. Good luck! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
218. Support - Shudde 05:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
219. Support: I see this user around a lot... and have had no issues with him in the past. Plus, I was under the assumption he had the mop long ago! seicer | talk | contribs 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
220. Support - I have only ever had good dealings with H2O and believe he is fit for the job. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
221. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
222. Strongly support, good editor, and I have not seen anything concerning. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
223. Absolutely. Giggy has always been most kind and helpful and supportive to me every single time we interacted. Certainly a first-rate candidate for adminship. I trust he'll use the tools responsibly and wisely if given them. No reservation at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
224. Support. I have not had a problem with this user, and thought he already was an admin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
225. Strong support Xenus (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
226. Support. A few of the oppose reasons do give me pause, but he's made so many very good contributions to the encyclopedia and the maturity concern raised appears to me to be more of a case of caring about the encyclopedia too much! I can't call that a reason for me to oppose - I trust him to use the tools for the good of Misplaced Pages. ~ mazca 10:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
227. Support. I trust this user. Grab a mop! You deserve it.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
228. Strong support I trust DHMO :) -- Cobi 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
229. Support: But of course! I was going to insert a picture of a mop - but it wouldn't look too good. Good Luck! The Helpful One 11:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
230. Support Whites have been marginalized on Misplaced Pages for far too long. Discombobulator (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Discombobulator: I find this statement unacceptable and divisive and would ask that you remove it. - Epousesquecido (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Wow, I strongly ask Discombobulator to retract his comments and apologize. OhanaUnited 14:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Discombobulator, your comment is unacceptable. Please remove your comment. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Oi! Perhaps the most irrelevant, potentially disruptive/contraproductive, and worst thought out "support" I've ever seen. If this is a "joke" support, then please refactor as it is decidedly unfunny . Not getting into a politcal debate here, but-- dam ye Gads! Dlohcierekim 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Unacceptable and ridiculous... yeah it is. But not really any more ridiculous and unacceptable than the opposes who are doing so for no other reason than because the candidate states he is proud of being white. How is refusing to support a qualified candidate who doesn't think, act and share the same beliefs you do any less bigoted than supporting for the same reasons? Trusilver 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     I seem to have missed the statement made by this candidate where he states he is proud to be white. Is there a cite? - Epousesquecido (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Sorry, that was a poor statement on my part - oversimplifying that which really shouldn't be oversimplified. The point of contention is on his blog in which he noted that White Pride and White Supremacy are distinctly different things. Trusilver 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Yes, thank you, the candidate stated that the terms were "distinct" "according to our (Misplaced Pages) articles on the two terms". I don't see racism in that statement, but would recommend that the candidate read the articles in more depth and that all editors tread lightly when speaking about this sensitive subject. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

231. Support. I'd say we'd give him a chance... doesn't all his work on the encyclopedia outweigh the rationales to oppose? -- Mentisock 12:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
232. Support Specifically, in LaraLove's co-Nom the point that the candidate is a Bureaucrat over at Commons - the most process orientated Wiki of the group. It also indicates that the desire for the tools is a reflection on the desire to use them appropriately, which has been granted elsewhere. The concerns raised by the opposers are not sufficient for me to not entrust the candidate with the mop, as the concerns relate to incidents which have been addressed since then. While it is apparent that some people are incapable of change, it is not in this instance the candidate that falls foul of that inability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     Commons is absolutely NOT "the most process orientated(sic) Wiki"... Rather, it is the most mellow one of the bunch. Just ask anyone. Please refactor at once or I will be forced to file a 24309/m Mellow insufficiency report (with attachment 24309/j-23: slanderous crosswiki statements, and 24309/saa supporting affidavit detailing your perfidity) on you at Commons. Don't say you weren't warned. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     "I'm just crazy about acne... and acne's just crazy 'bout me... They call me Mellow Yellow (quite rightly!)" - Donovan via Jasper Carrot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

     • Re-affirmation I have been following the discussions, and revelations, and pondering my original decision. I still consider my reasons for supporting as valid, since the use of the tools in other places appears fine - and properly detached from personal opinion and bias - and I have only this and the personal opinions of my WP colleagues to go by. I feel that there is still enough good faith prevelant to support the candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
233. Support It seems that he has learnt a lot since those incidents, and he won't actually unblock without consensus even if he disagress. Also, it is necessary to have admins that know how to write good articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
234. Support His mainspace contributions are nothing but superb and he has clearly come a long way since the incidents of eight months ago. I feel that he will too learn from recent incidents and they, in turn, will only make him both better editor and a better admin (assuming this Rfa passes of course :)) AngelOfSadness talk 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
235. Support before the file gets too large for my browser. I've had disagreements with him in the past, but only in content disuptes, not in terms of what he would be doing with the mop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
236. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
237. 'Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
238. Support. I've seen this user about, and never been left with a concern about his ability to wield the mop. Resolute 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
239. Of course! -- Kim van der Linde 18:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
240. Support. Great article writer and generally seems like a decent guy who would use the admin tools responsibly --Tombomp (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
241. Support have run into him a few time and never had a problem. Give him the mop!!! Zginder 2008-05-31T20:13Z (UTC)
242. Support I've seen his work and it is excellent. We need admins who really know how to write good articles.--Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
243. Pile-on Support Above all, this user is an article writer. Everybody shouldn't kill such a well meaning user with blasts from the past. We all make mistakes, and let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm an Editorofthewiki 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
244. Support Hardly needed now, but I give it gladly on the basis of DHM's merits, which are considerable. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
245. Support Passes my standards. Gizza 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
246. Support I see no evidence to suggest he will abuse the tools. Making your way to creating WP:300. Alexfusco 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
247. He's not an admin yet? Let's rectify that. Strong Support. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
248. Net gain projected. Gracenotes § 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
249. Support With a name like H20, he's got to be good. But in all seriousness, every time I run across this user I always think, "hmm, I wonder if he's an admin yet?" Good luck, man! L'Aquatique 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
250. Support Will be a big help to the project with the tools. --NewbyG (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
251. Support Why isn't he an admin already? --Charitwo 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
252. Support, should be an effective admin who won't misuse or abuse the tools. --Rory096 05:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
253. Support, I guess this is my first visit to RfA, but it could hardly be for a better user. DHMO has expressed outstanding contributions to the project, especially in regards to his FAs and GAs, which anybody would be proud of. I've always been impressed with his friendly demeanour on Misplaced Pages, which I feel makes it a better place to edit. Ashnard _Talk 07:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
254. Support given his track record in other projects. Hopefully he has learned his lessons from the past. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
255. Support per answer to my question and others. Great candidate. Undeath (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
256. Support wikipediacially still over precocious, still quite naive in parts, and somewhat everywhere there and there - the doubts I'd allow - in view the amount of questions and opposers obviously creating concern - so hopefully sufficient to keep him on the leash when he gets the reigns - and if he does survive the next few days - I would heartily endorse comments by Orderinchaos in the neutral zone below - and feel that in view of issues that have arisen - that iadvice given by experienced editors on both sides must be taken on board in good spirit - yes is not enough - it is with a but. SatuSuro 08:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
257. 272nd Support! Somebody changing votes might alter my number, but I was the original 272. So what? That's the one that breaks the record -- that's what. Anyway, I've been waiting to do that because DHMO has proven to be one conscientious helpful person whom I sincerely believe will put the tools to good use. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
258. Support! — Athaenara ✉ 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     Support per AGF. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

259. Support per past experiences with this user, I believe he would be a valuable admin. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
260. SupportWell balanced user, actually appreciates that BAG members are not over and above the community, this can only bode well for any and all admin decisions (watch him ban me this week). MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
261. Strong Support I am pleased to pile-on my support for DHMO's RfA. This user is active in producing content and shows maturity and interaction skills that I am certain will result in fair, balanced use of the tools. I wonder if he will leave thank-you messages for everone who participates? If so, we might not see him doing anything else for weeks, hehehee. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
262. Support - This candidate, who can be called many names including Alex/H₂O/Water/Dihydrogen Monoxide/Giggy/G1ggy will I am sure make a good admin on the English Misplaced Pages. Has good experience, and in my opinion has the right attitude. Has a good record on Commons as far as I can see as an admin, and I am sure will soon have one as a bureaucrat too - his promotion there certainly indicating a strong difference of opinion of him between projects. I have carefully reviewed the thoughts of the opposition and I can conclude that they do not concern me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
263. Support. I understand the opposition which some feel due to maturity concerns stemming from the candidate's tendency to become involved in drama. I think this is a legitimate concern and one which the candidate needs to consider. I also think the timing of this nomination could have been a little better. However, I do not see the tools as making this problem any worse, I think in general it would have a calming effect. Considering that, and the fact that everything else indicates the candidate will be an excellent administrator, I see no reason to not support. The mainspace contributions are obvious and palpable, but as others have pointed out the candidate also does a lot of work behind the scenes and is in touch with the community at-large. Best of luck, SorryGuy  Talk  17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
264. Support Tovian (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
265. Support. It is my opinion that DHMO is a worthy candidate for adminship. I admit that concerns expressed in the Oppose section regarding maturity have left me with doubts; however, DHMO exhibits a clear willingness to both learn from and apologise for his mistakes, and that kind of humility is precisely what is needed in any administrative position. Pythian Habenero (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
266. Strong Support I trust DHMO with the mop. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
267. Support Though still a relatively new user i have been impressed with DHMO's contributions and found his "troubled wiki history" surprising when compared to the user i am familiar with today. I believe admin powers would enable DHMO to continue his excellent work on other parts of wikipedia currently unavailable to him. The only thing i fear is that DHMO may continue to improve wikipedia to the detriment of his personal life. However, this is hardly a reason to oppose as long as he occasionally takes time off. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
268. Support - Although the concerns of the opposers give me some pause, I have seen this user doing enough good work around here to support him.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
269. Support. Fleetflame 00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
270. Support, per Daniel (talk · contribs) and some excellent contributions in many varied areas of this project. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
271. Support. Without a doubt: Very intelligent, extremely nice, and totally stable when talking with editors. The only negative side is that he will probably not review GA articles as much as he does now, but don't let that stop anyone from giving him what he truly deserves.--andreasegde (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
272. Support. Why not? Celarnor 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
273. Shocked-you're-not-an-admin-yet Support I see you absolutely everyone, and you have done nothing but great things everywhere you go. It shouldn't have taken this long for you to get the mop. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
274. Support Able to ge tthe job done. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
275. Support - I have come across this user a number of times and each of those encounters was enough to tell me that, yes, this user will be a great admin. Indeed, I thought he already was one! Lradrama 09:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
276. Support - a while back (quite a while) I was not sure about this user & did not support his Commons RfA. Afterwards I posted on his talk page stating that I regretted not supporting him after watching his work. I've just supported his RfB there & again watching his behaviour I have no doubts at all that this user can (& should) be trusted with the rights here --Herby 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
277. Support While things like White Pride bother me (all pride is bothersome!) and off-wiki blogging makes me suspect an ulterior motive in becoming an administrator, I've seen this editor around in various places (I lurk!) and feel that, on the balance, he/she is as reasonable a person as any of us are or can be. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 13:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
278. Support On the occasions I've had to work with DHMO, he has been pleasant and very helpful. I feel that he can do well as an admin here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
279. Strong SupportThis user has contributed a lot to Wikipediia.Do not see any scope for misuse after careful consideration.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
280. Support I don't recall this user ever having inappropriately used the adminship and bureaucrat tools on Commons and think he would be of great benefit to Misplaced Pages. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
281. Support (ec) Personal interaction over various wikimedia projects with this user leave me comfortable in trusting that this user will neither abuse the tools nor violate consensus notwithstanding personal opinion. Wiki does not need mindless automata; wiki needs people who can think, argue, and debate logically and convincingly, YET simultaneously conform to the final consensus, policy, and guideline where applicable. I may disagree with DH2O's opinions on various issues, but I trust that he will act appropriately and above reproach as a sysop here, as he does on other projects. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
282. Support, has already established a good record of using the tools appropriately at Commons, I don't anticipate any problems here. --MPerel 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
283. Strong support - user has been active in admins' areas for a good long while, very helpful and polite as well. Seems to have sound views, ideals and judgement... good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
284. Support. This user is all over the place, in fact pretty much everywhere. Wait, DHMO is not an admin? Wow, I'm shocked! ~AH1 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
285. Support - has continued to improve over the last year, and giving him the extra buttons now will be a net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
286. Support - What I have seen of this editor's actions in the past have been nothing but positive. Support per WP:WTHN Jsmith86 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
287. Support - per noms and opposes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) full disclosure, i learned of this rfa from the comments of folks at request for arbitration. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
288. Support - seems like he'd make a fine admin. --Toffile (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
289. Support (see my original neutral below for clarification). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
290. Support. I think Alex has taken this whole RfA very well, dispite the events that have happened thus far. I'm not sure if this RfA will pass, or what will happen as a result of its closure either way, but I'd like to support this request while not merely assuming he is ready, but with the knowledge of how an admin should act and I believe this discussion itself displays such evidence. Good luck. — _Maggot 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
291. Pile On Support!. Dihy is a great user, very charismatic. He makes you feel welcome, and has no problem dealing with conflict! Good luck to him with this campaign. I think you really do deserve adminship. Drizzt Jamo 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

     WoW ! WP:300 ! -- TinuCherian - 05:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

292. Support - should make a good admin. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
293. Carefully considered switch from neutral I've been thinking a lot about this one. On the one hand, there are a fair number of concerns raised by the opposers. I was also a little underwhelmed (maybe I was just whelmed) by H20's responses to my questions... and I thought they were gimmes. But I can't help but reflect that I believe in this user's good faith approach and obvious passion for the Project. I have no doubt that while he'll probably make the odd cock up, (Lord knows, I do) he will not misuse his admin tools. And that's really what we're supposed to be assessing. We don't look for perfection in candidates. Which is just as well, as we'd have precious few admins. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
294. I've watched this RfA closely over the last few days, and the amount of drama included herein is rather staggering (on both sides). My personal opinion can only be, why the hell not? DHMO has handled the concerns addressed here remarkably well, even as both supporters and opposers have drifted into incivility. The maturity concerns are certainly worth looking into; however, I see no problem there. Most of all, I don't believe that DHMO will, either accidentally or intentionally, misuse the tools. I therefore see no reason to deprive him of adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
295. Support - how could I live without you? BJ 11:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
296. Support - h2o with the mop will be an asset to the project. -- Mark Chovain 11:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
297. Support. DHMO has vastly improved over the past few months. He's been doing admin (and now 'crat) work over at Commons, and I feel that that experience will help him use the tools wisely here. He's obviously dedicated to the project, and, honestly, I think that he will be an asset. Keilana| 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
298. Support - I don't see anything that concerns me that he will misuse the administrative tools. PGWG (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
299. Support - per WP:AGF. I know it might seem like a weak reason but really, I read the opposes and did my homework and I did not see anything to lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. Gtstricky 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

     WP:300 :D Tiptoety 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)