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

Oppose

1. Oppose. Has shown exceedingly poor judgment over a long period of time. Points raised in the previous RfA include
   • His creation of the essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars, advocating the use of warning templates to communication with established Wikipedians;
   • His publication on-wiki of chatlogs containing private material;
   • A concern that he is not here to build the encyclopedia, but rather to do whatever it takes to make admin; a concern that I think accurate in light of the fact that he quit Wikipedia after his last nomination, and has only recently returned, and his threat to quit if this next RfA doesn't get up, on the now-deleted User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy;
   • His stated opinion that adminship should only be granted to editors who engage primarily in vandal-fighting and cleanup, and should be withheld from those editors who primarily contribute encyclopedic content;
   • His characterisation of my opposition on grounds of the previous point, as a bad faith vengeance vote.
   • Misjudgments in his work closing AfDs, including a speedy-keep close after only a single !vote had been cast, and the reversion of a SNOW close that was shortly afterwards reclosed by a bureaucrat;
   • His nomination of Gampalagudem for deletion;
   • The fact that half his reports to AIV were being rejected as not yet requiring intervention;
   • This comment.

   I haven't done the math, but bearing in mind the fact that he left the project after his last RfA failed, and has only recently returned, I should say it is way, way, way too soon to expect us to ignore all the concerns previously voiced. Personally, it will take a couple of years of faultless work before I'm convinced that this candidate has developed the maturity and good judgment necessary to being a good administrator. Hesperian 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   A note regarding his name change and wikibreak: Please see comment of mine below about the name change. As far as his break, he was only gone for a week, so I wouldn't really classify that as "he left the project [...] and has only recently returned." LaraLove 06:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Responses in the order of Hesperian's comments:

   • I have since revoked the opinions stated in TTR, and I no longer believe that the be the best way to solve disputes.
   • I haven't posted any chatlogs on wiki since that one...there's not much else I can say about that.
   • I don't recall threatening to quit as a result of an RfA "not getting up"...it may have been a joke, I doubt I would seriously say something like that.
   • I stand by that - encyclopediac content is valued highly by all editors, including myself, but I still don't believe that it is necessary for one to be an effective administrator.
   • It certainly looked like one at the time, considering all your comments were in reference to an RfA you had supported and I had opposed. I'm not saying it was (now), but that was the impression it gave.
   • Can you show me this speedy keep error? As for the RfA closure reversion - it was initially reverted by Chaser (if I recall correctly), and I reverted to his version - does that make him a bad admin?
   • One incorrect AfD nomination and countless correct ones...
   • I haven't made a great deal of AIV reports since then, but all of them have resulted in blocks.
   • The context of the Jmlk17 comment shows I don't actually think he's retarded. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There's not much here I feel the need to respond to, but I must respond to the last. The problem with your comment is that by using the term retard as an insult, whether joking or not, you participate in the vilification of those who actually suffer from mental retardation. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate - your comment was insensitive rather than malicious. But that doesn't make it any less offensive. Hesperian 11:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No offence, Hesperian, but this seems to be political correctness gone mad. (Possibly this is a cultural thing - in the UK, the term is used as a general term of abuse/humorous insult among kids, and has little to do with actual mental retardation; I assume it's similar in Australia.) Walton^One 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]

   I wasn't using the term "retard" as an insult - once again, reading through the context shows that this clearly isn't the case. Also, I missed your last paragraph in your initial oppose comment, but I'll respond to it here - I was away for a day or 2 after the last RfA, then edited for the whole month of August (plus or minus a few days) - on the 29th of August I was forced to leave the project, and I returned on the 9th of September. I did not "leave the project after my last RfA failed, and only recently returned" (slight paraphrase of your comment). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. H₂O/Giggy is a great editor, but requesting an RfA just a coupla weeks after returning under a new username? That speaks of poor judgement to me. I also personally was confused by all the drama associated with the leaving - if you were going to return under a new username, why not just tell people? Little things like those, as well as concerning actions brought up in previous RfAs, smack of an unpredictable nature and an unwillingness to think matters through sufficiently before undertaking them, and kinda take the edge off the enthusiastic support I would have hoped to give here. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Quick comment regarding his leaving and returning under a new user name: It is totally unrelated to his previous RfA. It was over a personal, real-life issue. Advertising the name change would have defeated the purpose. He didn't hide it, he carried over his edits, so it's not as if it were a shady sort of move. That should not be an issue here. I believe votes should be based the same as they would had his name not changed. We all know who he is, and the edit history is the same. LaraLove 06:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I must second what Lara has said here - the renaming issue was a real life personal thing, nothing to do with me randomly wanting to change my identity. If it was up to me, I'd still be Giggy, but that wasn't feasible at the time (and it would be silly to change back now). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Um, if it was a "real life personal thing", then how come your WP:CHU request cited "wiki-stalking"? Hesperian 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I really don't understand why people can't just let this go as personal. Someone he knows in real life was giving him shit in real life about his Wikipedia-ing. He had to change his name to get this person off his back. This person now thinks he has "retired", and considering everything with that account is either deleted or protected, there is no connection between that name and his new one if the old one is the only known name to look for. Hopefully I've not said more than he wanted to be known, but good gawd... seriously, leave him alone about the name change already... he's been through enough drama with that. LaraLove 12:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh no, the cabal! :) I understand Giggy having personal problems and even changing his username, but I don't like the idea of requesting a name change and immediately skipping over to RfA. You want me to be absolutely frank? It looks like trying to evade a reputation built up under previous usernames for the purpose of increasing your chances of success. I've seen this done at least once before, so I know that people do do it. I would much prefer to see a few months of solid work under this username before running again. Anyway... my other concerns still very much stand. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, that cabal is everywhere :) Frankly, if I wanted to evade any reputation built up as Giggy/G1ggy, I wouldn't have gotten a rename - I would have re-registered. But I didn't, and a glance through my contribs/wannabe_kate shows very clearly who I am/was. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Consider this a strong oppose in light of this - your cynicism has no place here. You're on RfA, expect to be scrutinised. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose. Unusually high requirements for support votes in other RfAs tell me that this user has no understanding of adminship. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see how they are "unusually high" - multiple editors share my opinions on the granting of the mop and bucket to article-only editors. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry to butt in, but how does that make sense with what you said above? "A: In essence, yes it is. I still don't see the need for a user who spends the majority (say > 90%) of his time working on articles to get the tools, considering he'll barely use them. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)". Just wondering if you could clarify. 86.137.127.139 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He's saying that he doesn't think editors who spends 90% of their time working on articles need the tools and that multiple others agree with him on that. His wording "multiple eidtors share my opinions on the granting of the mop and bucket to article-only editors" is a bit confusing, I suppose. It should probably state "not granting". I think I'm understanding that right. LaraLove 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Basically I will oppose any candidate who has previously opposed RfAs stating that the only reason for their oppose is that the candidate has failed to show a need for the tools. To me, this demonstrates basic failure to understand adminship. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "only reason" - Time for a diff! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Found none with exactly one reason ("need for the tools"), but here's one (albeit from May) without any stated reason, incidentally on an RfA that went on to succeed. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I vaguely remember that not being a "need for the tools" oppose, and as you said, it was in May... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

   I'm surprised to see this from you, since you tend to be one of the most sensible and trustworthy RfA voters. Nonetheless, I must point out that he has over 7000 edits, not 700. So he isn't being hypocritical. And as demonstrated in Q2, he doesn't just make automated anti-vandal edits, he also writes articles. Walton^One 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think he means at the time of Giggy's first RfA... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, I misunderstood. I still don't agree with the oppose, but I respect Rspeer's opinion. Walton^One 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, sorry that was unclear -- I'll elaborate on that point. In his first RfA, DHMO (G1ggy) had 631 edits. I looked past his edit count to his contributions (and didn't like what I saw). His crapload of edits since then does nothing to impress me. He seems to be doing exactly what he thinks he needs to do to become an admin (vandal fighting, RfA and AfD voting, a bit of article editing for those other people who are interested in articles, and building up a clique). He has not, on the other hand, shown maturity, perspective, or experience with difficult situations. He seems to want people to be given adminship as a prize for a high score, particularly himself, but I'm not awarding him that prize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Walton, a person's RfA voting record has nothing to with sensibility or trustworthiness. People can vote whichever way they please. Also, since when do people have to be consistent in their voting record? Sometimes they like a candidate, sometimes they don't. They don't have to stick to a strict voting regiment. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   True, and I didn't mean to imply that those who disagree with me are somehow untrustworthy (far from it). I only meant that, having encountered Rspeer a lot at RfA, he generally makes sensible and well-reasoned comments that I usually agree with. In this case, I don't agree with him, but I still respect his opinion and his judgment. Walton^One 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Um, false actually. To clear up a misconception some people seem to entertain: RFA is not an anonymous vote. It is a form of consensus finding. Your name is explicitly tied to your opinion, and your opinion is explicitly kept on record. Like in all consensus systems, if you make an ass of yourself and others, then this will have consequences for you down the road. And on wikipedia, your behavior is documented forever. :-/ --Kim Bruning 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think what is being said is that user's are free to vote based on their own criteria for adminship, which can change over time or from candidate to candidate. Not that such voting is anonymous. LaraLove 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Flat no, and probably make that a "never". Quite apart from everyone else's points, I seem to remember deleting some stuff from his userspace that basically amounted to harassment of other Wikipedians. In general, I'm lef unimpressed. Moreschi ^Talk 10:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The only thing you ever deleted from his userspace was User:Giggy/Australian Cabal/Tag, which said (if Google's cache is right): This page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal. Welcome to Australia. That seems more of a joke than harassment of Wikipedians to me. Melsaran (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It also contained instructions to tag other peoples' user pages with it - which some people understood to be incitement to vandalise. Hesperian 11:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Ick – I was going to support when I read question six, I then read question seven... I became slightly confused. I then read the oppose reasons and I have concluded that this user does not have my full trust. Matthew 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - to some extent because of what I see as too much "socializing" to the extent of forming cliques, but mostly per some of what Hesperian said, and much of what Riana, RyanGerbil and Rspeer said. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - I still have concerns from the last RFA and concur with those expressed above by Riana and others. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak Oppose Yes, you're a great editor. But I sense that becoming an admin is a big deal for you and I have to wonder whether the maturity is there to handle it. Also, I'd be more comfortable if you hadn't deleted WP:Template the regulars, but left it in place with an explanation of how your thoughts had changed about the issue. It tends to fit the pattern of evasion mentioned above by Riana. Ronnotel 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong oppose I really like Giggy/H2O/whatever, but he is, in my mind, totally unsuitable for this, I've found. I told him the other day in his editor review not to request for a while (along with other editors) - did he listen to this? Nope. Not only that, he has self nominated, so he purposely ignored our reviews. This request will probably fail - if you had just waited a little while longer, perhaps you'd have done better. And I don't like the idea you seem really, really desperated to be an admin. You're a great editor, but not yet admin quality. Sorry. * Aillema 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you waving your finger at the user for disobeying you? He 'purposely ignored' your reviews? I think you have taken his self-nomination as a personal disregard for him following any and all advice you have given. I'd rather see his RfA 'fail,' as you put it, as an editor who is intellectually independent, then see a successful administrator in 2 months time that resulted from blind obedience. the_undertow ^talk 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'm so sorry - I totally missed your comment in the editor review. I'm not sure how much it would have influenced me if I hadn't, but there you go... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong Oppose per your answer to Q7, posting private chatlogs (I know you apologised but it just so scandalous I still cannot believe it) and Ronnotel's summation immediately above. —Moondyne 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Oppose per Moondyne. Thinking people who write articles shouldn't be admins is a killer. This is an encyclopedia. Any admin who wisely uses tools is a plus to wikipedia.Sumoeagle179 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you saying that admins shouldn't have been editors to begin with? I'm sorry, I read your statement about three times and it came across that you're saying that admins shouldn't be article or page writers? That to me sounds rather silly. Just my opinion, but I think the best admins are the ones who're balanced and have experienced all ends of the stick. I believe Alex (aka Giggy, H2O etc) fits that criteria, more than myself, despite being a self-professed egomaniac who's nine years Alex's senior. --linca^linca 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's what H₂O is saying. Backsigns 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sumoeagle179's statement is quite clear to me. He/she is paraphrasing the candidates view that "people who write articles shouldn't be admins".[1] which was reconfirmed in the answer to Q7. —Moondyne 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CLARIFY--I am saying it's great that admins have strong editing backgrounds. I'm opposed to the candidates idea that people who mostly edit articles would make weak/poor admins. Does this help?Sumoeagle179 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't say that. He only said that they were unlikely to really need the admin tools, and therefore that the tools should be primarily given to users who focus on maintenance work. I don't totally agree with him, but it's a legitimate point of view, and not a sufficient reason to oppose IMO. Walton^One 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never said that people who write articles shouldn't be admins. I write articles, yet I think I'd be an OK admin. I think people who do nothing but write articles would have little use with the admin tools See also my comments on the talk page of this RfA. Also, while we're on the topic of Melburnian's RfA, I'd like to point out that several highly respected admins opposed it - does that make them bad admins? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anybody ever said that you would make a bad admin because you opposed Melburnian's RfA? No they have not. Hesperian 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So why all the opposition per that comment? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After all the discussion on this point, are you still unable to comprehend that you have been opposed in good faith, for good faith reasons? You were opposed for that comment, not because your comment was itself an oppose, not because people are out for revenge, not because you thought Melburnian lacked experience. You were opposed because of your stated opinion that editors who primarily contribute article content should not be promoted to administrator, lest they be overwhelmed by the workload. People have taken plenty of angles in response to this: my angle was that it revealed a lack of understanding of the adminship role; others took a WP:DOESN'TNEEDTHETOOLS angle; someone else claimed that this revealed hypocrisy. Evidently it is pretty easy to not like what you said. Yet you persist in the belief that you are opposed simply because you opposed Melburnian, a low-profile editor whom most people here wouldn't know from a bar of soap, and who has himself not expressed an opinion on you. Of all the reasons you shouldn't be admin, your insistence on finding a bad faith characterisation of this opposition is the most disturbing. Hesperian 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Strong Oppose You stress your article-building activities on Wikipedia, but in previous RfAs, you have opposed users because they spend much of their time doing article work. In the same respect, couldn't that be said about you, also? The wording on Melburnian's RfA confused me a little, so please clarify any mistakes in my opposition. Also, the diff pointed out by TRE is a bit troubling. Like you have said before, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Failing an RfA should not make you lose faith of the project. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have stressed that only writing articles isn't going to improve a candidate's use of the mop and bucket - I have nothing against a balance of articles and maintenance, which is where I see myself. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14. I'm probably going to commit suicide after this, but oppose. I really wish you would have waited a little more time before requesting adminship to work on solving the concerns raised in your previous request. The comments above and speedy deletion requets like this one convince me that you're not ready for admin rights. "people who write articles shouldn't be admins"; What the fuck is that? We're an encyclopedia; the point of admins is to help maintain it. How are they supposed to do that if they have no mainspace experience? Truly sorry, man. /goes to jump off a building.--Agüeybaná 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agueybana, that's not funny. CO₂ 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, please. I'm sure you know I wasn't even remotely thinking of doing that in real life. I just said that to represent the sense of regret I have to oppose such a fine editor. --Agüeybaná 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought that was hilarious. LaraLove 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joking about suicide is far from hilarious. CO₂ 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, joking about awarding yourself a fake "CO's Day" award isn't particularly hilarious, either. ( [2] ) Sebi _[talk] 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and this discussion has nothing to do with Giggy's RfA. I suggest that you take it elsewhere. Also Agüeybaná, please refrain from swearing. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (<--)Spebi, content not contributor please. CO: I agree with you, it isn't funny, but again, the context shows it wasn't serious (heck, we could all learn a bit from that). Eddie (formally Eddie, but whatever...) - "people who write articles shouldn't be admins" - Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. I have to agree that this attitude about editing articles and being an admin is over the top.Rlevse 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But does his opinion about RfA necessarily disqualify him from being a good admin? He does have a record of article-building. Walton^One 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose. Obsession about getting adminship is bad enough in its own right. His past RfA's, the latest a very recent, showed too many problems with the editor and no indication that the editor has improved in such short time. --Irpen 20:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong Oppose Per pretty much everything above. He seems obsessed with achieving adminship and he seems to be a hypocrite. Wikipediarules2221 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:NPA 131.94.22.243 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, calling people "hypocrites" is not nice. --Agüeybaná 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dealt with worse in this RfA and across the wiki - even if it's not mentioned in Q3... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose reluctantly but decidedly. Sorry, like several others I assume, I came here unprejudiced and ready to support. But reading through the oppose section reveals rather serious concerns, and rspeer and others made good points why not to support this candidacy. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. The advice at your editor review, to wait longer between adminship requests, probably should have been taken under more careful consideration. I share many of the concerns above, and to add to the list, I'm unhappy with the behavior here and here. I understand these are your friends; do you understand the concerns about this behavior? I wouldn't have opposed for cliquishness alone, but on top of everything else it's just another red flag. --JayHenry 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not clear on what behaviour concerns you...could you please elaborate? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My concerns echo this. In addition, I just don't understand many of the comments you make because there are so many inside jokes and I'm not on the inside. What on earth does your comment here mean? --JayHenry 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think "clique" was a mistyping of "cliche" there. Personally, I'd say "thought you already were" trails a poor third behind "doesn't need the tools" and "not enough Wikipedia space edits", but from the context I'd guess that's what he's trying to say — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The infamous clique #1...don't tell me everyone's forgotten it. It is indeed "I thought you already were an admin" - which is a good thing, not a bad thing. As for this - I could hardly avoid considering I was the first nominator (not a co-nom), and created the RfA page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be better understood if you avoid the malapropism. A "cliché" is something that's said too often, while a "clique" is an exclusive group of friends, which is a fairly undesirable thing to have on RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eek, sorry about my spelling. I meant cliché - definitely not clique :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not just one typo, it's many other issues. But I still have no idea what a "Sif transclude" is. I still don't understand what you are talking about in The Random Editor's RFA. And as for cliques, I can't tell if you are just oblivious to this concern, or actually think that such behavior is somehow beneficial to the project. You've only really been here since April and this is already your third RFA. What's the rush? --JayHenry 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose. I don't care how many administrative acts an admin performs; I do care about the quality of those acts. Someone who thinks an admin does not need to be an editor and, conversely, an editor does not need to be an admin, IMO should not be an admin and perhaps shouldn't be an editor here either. --Una Smith 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this RfAs talk page. LaraLove 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that sounds a bit harsh, Una Smith. It sounds like you're showing him the doors to leave Wikipedia, don't you think? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. I can see how what I wrote could be read as a hint for H2O to leave. Hinting is not my style. Anyway, on content, I oppose: more quality, less quantity. --Una Smith 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose As Walton points out, one's views on a wikipolitical issue should generally not be held against a candidate. In this case, however, I'm afraid it also says a lot about the kind of admin H2O would be. The disconnect between editors and administrators is a problem I can't trust H2O to help with. In particular, this diff is hard for me to forget. I also share some of the concerns above, in particular about the perceived over-eagerness to become an admin. Pascal.Tesson 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose - I really don't like the user's rationale in regard to question #9 - You don't get to decide what's notable or not, the community decides. You violated the core of what AfD is. Sure the arguments about the article being written poorly should've been given less weight seeing as we delete articles based on notability, but the consensus was too split in the mentioned AfD and it was a bad move closing it yourself. Generally, I think when an AfD is that close, an admin should make the final ruling. It would have saved you a lot of opposes, and if you were an experienced editor, in my eye you would've been able to see that coming - I would have steered well clear. This coupled with the fact that your previous RfA was only a short time ago, it makes me think you're not an editor who thinks things through - You obviously knew that nominating yourself so close to your last RfA would bring opposes (Based on the comment Hesperian pointed out), yet you still decided to go ahead anyway. This does not give me confidence in your judgement. Your edits are sound and I think one day, far down the track, you'll make a fine admin. However, while you might benifit if you're granted the tools now, I don't think Wikipedia will benifit, so that'll have to be an oppose from me. Regards, Spawn Man 12:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Per the doubts expressed by users above. Too many question marks here for me to give the thumbs-up. --Folantin 12:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. It's a shame since i like the user and almost nominated him last go around. What a difference a month makes I guess. I was going to support, but I looked at what's happened with him and all the circumstances, and there's no way I can support. He leaves August 28th after being fed up with here apparently, yet wants adminship less than a month later? I'm reluctant to give it to him as a result. But this in itself isn't a reason to oppose, so I decided to read the questions. And wow, what I saw surprised me. Questions 6 and 7 conflict themselves. you say that you primarily contribute articles and would rather do that instead of admin work, yet you say that primarily article writers shouldn't be admins? Very confusing. All this would probably knock me down to a neutral though. But after reading what you did with that one AfD, that kinda takes the cake. If an admin were to make that close with that decision it would've been awfully iffy in itself. For a user to close it is basically going against the policy - we trust admins to close them over editors for a reason. That and I disagree with the rationale of your decision, it seems like you let your beliefs get in the way. If the article is crap, why not eete it and let it get a fresh start? Terrible decision there. You did something similar in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Guerrero as well. Although in that one I would've kept it myself, it's better if editors do not close ones that could be argued either of 2 or 3 ways. But really, if you want to work on articles still, taht's fine, go to that. But do I trust you with the tools based on what I've seen. Alas, I do not. Wizardman 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify one point, I left on the 28th of August because I was being stalked offline. Nothing against you guys. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright then. That's a sufficient explanation for that point at least. Wizardman 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose Of the 58 users that this person reported to WP:AIV, 17 of then were removed without blocking. This shows a lack of understanding of when a block should be applied. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose I really like you, H2O, but I just don't think that you will make the best admin right now. Suddenly leaving Wikipedia apparantly because of a failed RfA and then without warning, returning to Wikipedia (which I am glad you did) and then almost immediately making a request for adminship just worries me and strikes me that you are a little moody. That is definitely not what I like to see in an admin. In addition, it has been quite soon since your last RfA and I don't think that you have answered to what the oppposers suggested. Sorry, but I really have to oppose here. Captain panda 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah...I didn't leave because I was pissed off with Wikipedia...I left because I was being stalked in real life. Oops, said too much >_> Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh. My mistake. Sorry about that. I still think it is best that I oppose, however. Captain panda 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. This user seems to have an unhealthy lust for adminship. Plus, I don't like the drama surrounding him in regards to leaving and name changing (we have enough dramatic admins coming and going as it is). Also, "Of these, my proudest work is Starlight (song), as it was the GA which contained the least collaboration" is bothersome because Wikipedia happens to be a wiki, which happens to be based on collaboration. -- John Reaves 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose - as per Hesperian & John Reaves Xdenizen 07:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per concerns and points raised by 1==2 and rspeer. Neil ム 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Make that strong oppose per childish bickering with oppose votes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R 2. Neil ム 11:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose sadly, this user undermines their excellent work with occasional horrible lapses of judgement. This ([3]) shocked the pants off me. Sorry, can't trust you right now, no matter how much I'd like to. --Dweller 10:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Struck. Moved to neutral. --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a joke; it was a response to this. Acalamari 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose, mainly per Riana and the username change/timing issue she describes, but it's also topped off by a little thing I saw today: this haughty reproach. You expect...wow. Does being "the GA reviewer" make you the king or something? That majestic tone is not something I want to hear from an admin. I'm also rather concerned by judgment issues arising from your rating that article as a GA—not that that is, as such, a weighty part of my oppose reason. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
31. Your answer to questions six and eight contradict each other: you say you'll only help at backlogs when you have writer's block, yet say that you'd make a good admin because you'd lower backlogs.^{Struck out because this was answered satisfactorily in question #12} Also, question seven wasn't satisfactorily answered, IMHO. Bishonen's link above worries me as well... · AndonicO ^Talk 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, also about question eight, as an admin you have to be prepared to make incorrect desicions, as well as correct ones. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I'll try to add them all at the same time next time. ;) I forgot to mention Until (1 == 2)'s reason, about your AIV reports. · AndonicO ^Talk 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

32. Weak Strong oppose - I'm sorry. I don't feel comfortable right now, given some of the evidence above - Alison ^❤ 01:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I just saw this conversation in its entirety, re. the link from Bish above. No, sorry. This is not what being an admin is about - Alison ^❤ 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

33. Oppose - I think it is vital that admins understand the encyclopaedia side of the wikipedia. To me one of those things is understanding the purpose of redlinks in the right place. DHMO recently went through and removed redlinks from the List of Austrlaian Rivers [4]. The edit was easily reverted but what worries me is the judgment call that led to the edit in the first instance: it indicates to me that s/he is not ready just yet. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose. Bishonen's diff is very troubling. When someone recreates an article you deleted, are you going to tell them off in the same way? -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. per Amarkov, Golden Wattle, the inappropriate non-admin closing and other issues. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose as per Bish, and Riana, sorry. Dureo 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong Oppose per User_talk:Irpen#GAR_is_that-a-way.21. If the editor accept a gentleman's agreement: I will make a GA review for your POV article - you would make a review for mine, then what to expect from when he will be an admin? I block your opponent - you block mine? I close your AfD - you close mine? Admins should act on merits not on connections Alex Bakharev 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Oppose. I have seen multiple recent comments where the candidate is fanning the flames rather than attempting to calm a situation. This is not the type of behavior I wish to see in a candidate. Chaz ^Beckett 09:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving from oppose to strong oppose after seeing sarcastic responses in this RfA, especially Q #12. The only thing such behavior is accomplishing is hurting his chances in future RfAs. I realize it's probably very frustrating, but definitely not admin material now or in the near future. Chaz ^Beckett 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

39. Oppose per Alex Bakharev, Bish and Riana. And my own personal observations make me concerned about maturity. Sarah 14:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose per ChazBeckett's reasoning. 17Drew 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose - name changes, RfA density is too high for my liking, a grand total of two edits to AIV. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be incorrect: he has 48. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&limit=2000&action=history - I see one in this history. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One in the past four days. For his "grand total", he has 48 (including those as G1ggy and Giggy). · AndonicO ^Talk 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, regarding the recent name change, it's already been explained several times why he has that new name. Acalamari 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything in the questions or statements, where were you referring to? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look in some of the supports, and also at some of the responses to other opposes. I will provide diffs if necessary, but as you'll read, the name change was for real-life issues rather than a sudden want of a new name. Acalamari 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

42. NeutralOppose: I was going to sit this one out, but I've just seen this user's comment in response to Amarkov over on R's RfA and it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence they'll not make a bad situation on Wikipedia worse with an inopportune comment. The allegations of a deal over the GA make me uncomfortable especially as I was asked by a user to investigate GA status being removed by Irpen. I had a quick look over the article and on the surface, it looks decent enough, but upon closer inspection, it's really not very good. Using the word "pundit" and all it entails in the introduction just isn't cricket, I'm afraid.Nick 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. I came here to support, but the issues pointed out by Riana are are really not what I'd like to see in admin (excluding the real-life issue). Oppose especially per answer to question 12...that was pretty out of line. — Malcolm (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose. Wilful disruption of the GA process is not acceptable, even if some practice it regularly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong oppose Because of GA approval for a deleted and re-created POV fork (see the deletion discussion here:[5])--Dojarca 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose, as per the post that Bishonen bought up and the fact that sarcasm doesn't become an admin. - Francis Tyers · 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong oppose per Bishonen and many others. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral – While I think H₂0 has what it takes to be an admin, the comments by the opposers and some of your old subpages leave me too dubious to support. —[[Animum | talk]] 13:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - DM has done some great things so I won't oppose, but this concerns me. It essentially was a break message after his failed RFA stating he would return if he still had faith in the project. Sorry, but that makes me think you might be prone to do something drastic or maybe just leave, if things didn't go your way. Sorry. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I fail to see how this makes him unsuitable to be an administrator TRE... this is entirely volunteer. CO₂ 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   My response is simple. Dedication is key. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral I cannot in good faith oppose or support H20. Dihydrogen, you seem to take the office of adminship a bit too seriously. The mop isn't that big of a deal. Personally, I think that you might make a good Admin, but such comments (like your answer to Q7) greatly confuse and bewilder me. In my opinion, it is always better to be a Wikipedian who is not an admin but greatly contributes to the encyclopedia than a mop who spends all his time doing his administrative duties. What first drew me to Wikipedia was the knowledge to be found here and the fact that anyone could contribute to the articles. After a while here, I too got caught up in the administrative duties, spending all my time scouring RFA, AIV, FPC, SPEEDY, etc. Eventually, I took a step back and realized that what is truly enjoyable (for me, anyway) was the process of contributing to the articles rather than dealing with the administrative tasks. Administrators, I believe, should be Wikipedians who enjoy contributing knowledge to the encyclopedia and improving the quality of articles rather than ones who enjoy doing administrative duties. You, it seems, do not wish to contribute to the articles but rather to the administrative stuff that seems to be running rampant now on Wikipedia. And, while that's somewhat good also (in it's own way), you don't need a mop to do that. --Sharkface217 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm going to have to agree about the fact that you've done really great things, however the oppose comments are making me be on the fence here. There's TTR that's making catching some eyebrows, and then there's the urge for admin tools as to not write articles. I'm really concerned about all this, so I can't do much but be neutral. —O (说 • 喝) 00:47, 23 September 2007 (GMT)
5. Neutral leaning to oppose that in turn leans to moral support, sorry. I have DM in good regard, but I can't support his RfA at this time. I share some of the concerns expressed by the opposers, particularly Riana. DM should perhaps try to rebuild a solid, stable participation in this project before attempting a new RfA. Húsönd 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Regretfull Neutral I can't in faith oppose, but I certainly cannot support. This editor is a stunning and hard worker, who I respect a great deal, and who nominated me for RfA twice. But, although I understand about school holidays etc., the timing of this RfA is poor - i.e. far too soon. If anything though DHMO should be strongly applauded for one thing. If anyone thought RfA was a clique of "mates" all trying to get each other adminship then this one has done the damage to that concept. I'm trully sorry mate, but I hope you understand. Pedro |  Chat  08:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral leaning to support. I've reviewed Giggy at least once, and I understand how he works on Wikipedia and what he's trying to do. It's unfortunate that some extraneous issues, such as the quirky username change, are obscuring the substantive content of his contributions. From personal experience, I oppose on principle the "not now, not ever" approach - a few months will do much to allay the concerns here, and I will almost certainly support the next request if I'm still watching RFA a few months from now. Shalom ^Hello 13:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reluctant neutral, I would like to have supported this nomination. The apparent contradiction in the user's answers - particularly 6 and 7 - is extremely difficult to reconcile. While it's no reason to oppose, the timing of certain events (the short-term Wikibreak and then the name change) do create a rather questionable image of what's going on, and the candidate should have done more to be open about their reasons and motivations prior to someone else calling them out on it. It is important for administrators to not only be honest, but to be forthcoming as well. Anyway, a little more time before this nom and a little more preperation would have made it easier to support .. unfortunately I just can't do that right now :( ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral - So glad there was a good reason for that diff. I have concerns over you; too great to support, but happy to move from outright oppose. Good luck whatever. --Dweller 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral - Awaiting answer to question 15. Considering 90% of my contributions are to the GA project and improving the quality of it, this is quite disturbing for me to see... and I must admit that I am shocked by it. However, one can never get the full story from a lone diff, so I await an explanation/clarification before I make my decision to support/oppose. LaraLove 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Lara. Did you see this by the way? Not poking at you with your question at all, but the candidate has already denied making any form of deal within his contributions to Wikipedia (as opposed to his "contributions" to IRC). Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, Pedro. I had not seen that, however, I'm not satisfied. The request to show proof of the accusation looked promising, but then the denial of explicit permission to publicly post any such archive shot it to hell. (Considering it happened on, I assume, a Wikipedia IRC channel, do the same rules apply here concerning "private conversations" considering their is no assumed right to privacy in such a channel?) Some explanation as to what was said and what was meant is what I'm looking for. I'd also like to see the article nominated at GAR to get an idea of the quality according to several reviewers. I see issues in scanning it. LaraLove 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral - There appears to be a bit of a beat up over this GA approval thing over IRC. I've seen the logs, and from what I can see, there was absolutely no collusion, just a good faith request for articles to be reviewed followed by a good faith acceptance of the offer. There is no relationship between Dihydrogen Monoxide and Digwuren, just two random individual who's path crossed. I don't think there are any privacy issues if I give a summary of the chat:

• At 01:18:37, Dihydrogen Monoxide broadcasts an offer to review a random article for GA, explaining he's in the mood.
• At 01:28:49, Digwaren takes up the offer and mentions Denial of Soviet occupation, which which he had previously nominated for GA review in the usual process. Dihydrogen Monoxide presumably took a glance at it, and indicated he would recommend changes, and put the article on hold while the changes get reviewed.
• At 01:40:35, Dihydrogen Monoxide indicated he'd left improvement suggestions on the talkpage, and presumedly, around that time, completed the formal passing procedure.

It's rather sad that Dihydrogen Monoxide ends up being smeared by those who have an personal issue with Digwuren. Martintg 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]