The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dfrg.msc[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) at (91/0/2); Scheduled to end 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) - I am here, once again, to nominate Nick for adminship. Those who have been around for a while will recall that I nominated him (in conjunction with PeaceNT and Sr13 (now Singularity)) in May, and there was no consensus to promote. I will not dwell on the past - doing so is one of things that’s holding the project, and especially the RfA procedure, back these days - I will instead attempt to again justify why Nick is more than prepared for adminship, and why his promotion would have a positive impact on the project.

I am sure many editors have heard my views on the relationship, or lack thereof, between significant mainspace contributions and adminship. One of the many flaws of that philosophy, in my eyes, is that it is very easy to write multiple good articles, and achieve multiple DYK listings, without having to partake in, or resolve, any significant conflicts, the kind of conflicts you would have to deal with if you undertook such areas of adminship. As an example, I took Starlight (song) from start class to GA class in a matter of weeks, and in that time its talk page was only edited by me adding ((GAC)), and by a GA reviewer passing it. I don’t recall the talk page being edited since then. However, if I was to use that article in my Q2 answer in an RfA (not me, my RfAs are never a good precedent, but imagine if a generic candidate did), I would receive much less “mainspace needed” opposition. Especially considering that in my other four good articles, only two of them have actually undergone any serious, content related discussion - in both cases after the article was granted GA status. I could answer Q2 with “5 GAs” and be praised for mainspace work, without ever having actually solved a dispute, dealt with a POV pusher, etc.

Nick is not in the position I allude to above - he has a grand total of 0 GAs, 0 DYKs, and 0 featured items. However, as I just explained, this will have 0 impact on his ability to be an effective administrator. For the record, Nick has gnomed on multiple articles (recently, he’s been doing a bit on Parliament House, Canberra), so he has improved articles and bettered the encyclopaedia (a generic and totally unrelated to adminship standard that several users nonetheless undertake). He has uploaded many images, both to enwiki, and to commons, and has thus bettered the project and its articles through the imagery he has contributed.

Nick is an avid vandalfighter, and has been active in the vandalfighting arena for over a year. One would expect some editors who vandalfight for so long to either burn out, or to improve even more - Nick is surely the latter, and I’m sure there are many articles which are better for his vandalfighting efforts.

I’m sure many people will see the name “Dfrg.msc” and think many things, some relating to immaturity, others relating to a sometimes unorthodox sense of humour, and a few relating to “anti-encyclopaedic behaviour.” I challenge those who think these things to either show proof, or else show how they are a bad thing. How is the project damaged by a sense of humour? If anything, it strengthens it. To give another example, when Wikipedia reached 2,000,000 articles, it was Nick who sent celebratory messages to countless users’ talk pages. I personally was already aware of the upcoming milestone, as it had been promoted on IRC (and as a result, I was newpage watching trying to prevent it :P), but as we are all aware, not everyone uses IRC. I’m sure those that don’t, and thus those who weren’t aware of the milestone, would’ve appreciated Nick’s hilarious message (my favourite element was this image), and thus their moral would have been raised. News flash guys - high moral = positive contributions...and guess whose fault doing the high moral was?

If nothing else in this nomination has given you any reason to support Nick, in your eyes, I at least urge you to consider the fact that we really, really, need more admins willing to edit naked. When the going gets tough, when the vandalism gets strong, when every article has an image of a penis on it, it won’t be some guy in a cape who saves the day. I’ve sat here for about five minutes trying to word the next sentence, but I just can’t do it in a way that won’t get me blocked. I’m sure you know what I’m trying to imply. Vote for Nick. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this (beautiful) nomination. Dfrg.msc 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the time I have been a member of Wikipedia, I feel have a developed a use for admin tools, and enough experience to use them correctly. I hope have earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, and would thank you for giving me a chance to prove it.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I would be privileged to stand among them.

- Dfrg.msc 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Fighting vandalism would be tha primary use. I regularly do RCP and vandalism patrolling. WP:AIAV always seems to be backlogged, and I still look forward to helping there. The use of the blocking function and being able to protect pages (and images) that are under chronic attack, would bring a great advantage to my vandal fighting efforts. I believe that every tool available to combat vandalism should be implemented, compassion and tolerance among them. I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them, especially TFD. I'd also like to help out with the Administrative backlog. A few users have come to me under the impression that I was a sysop, and it's situations like those that Admin tools would also show their value.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created and built articles like Rone, created and worked hard on every page in the Melbourne graffiti artists category, become coordinator and breathed life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti and have completely built Portal:Graffiti, and Portal:Warhammer. I've also worked extensively with images with over 100 image uploads and created Image:Wikipedia Editor Review.png and Image:DFRAMA.png (now unused). Although I am proud of these particular edits, reverting sneaky and dangerous vandalism, re-instating whole pages and support my fellow editors can be equally as fulfilling, and just as important for the project.
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: Yes. My early behavior led to myself being suspected as a sock puppet of User:Carbine. For the admins here who can see deleted history: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dfrg.msc. Early edits and confusion have dragged me down as have early talk page edits. I accept these edits, I did make them, but I hope they do not reflect on myself in the here and now. Since then, I feel I have proved myself against those reckless few months, to strive to be a force of good. All of the edits were made over a year ago, and I would ask you to consider me for what I am now. I do make mistakes, I'm a human first and a editor second. I make and admit to my mistakes, and learn from them. The more I have worked though, the less conflict I encountered. I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies. I was a member of the AMA and closed four cases. I have gained experience though adversity and I know how to deal with, and better, avoid conflict. I have, and will always, apply these skills where necessary.
Completely optional question from CO
4. Do you intend to help with the image backlog on CAT:CSD? If yes, do you have a good understand of image licensing and policy?
A. Truthfully, no, I don't. I made a few mistakes when I was new with image uploads, and there are some pretty tricky elements with image licensing. I don't upload anything anymore unless I made it, but I have a an adequate understanding of the policy, and if I were asked to help out I'm sure I could do so. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Eye of the Mind
5. It seems to via this, that your level of editing has dropped steadily per month since January of this year. This is not a area of concern, but I was curious if there is a particular reason for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye of the Mind (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Thanks for the question, it's no problem. Well, from when I really stared editing, my count was about 420 a month, then (because I had some time off) editing really spiked from 2006/11 - 2007/2 and it's just been dropping back to normal, except for 2007/9 (where I was making up for all that "time off" :). Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Marlith T/C
6 What do you dream Wikipedia will be in the future? Will you fight to create a blessed world where the blood of vandals is the wine that we raise in our toasts?
A. For eleven hundred years I have fought and I have seen the darkness of our galaxy... I have seen all the evil the galaxy harbours, and I have slain them. I have seen what you must see, I have fought what you must fight, and I have slain what you must slay... Righteousness is your shield, Faith your armor and Roll-back your weapon. Ours is to be an empire of worlds, not merely of castes or nations, or races or peoples. To simply control the worlds which we claim as our own will not be enough – we must control the paths between them also, or be divided, and so fail. Dfrg.msc 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)
7. What place do you believe humor and sarcasm has on Wikipedia?
A. Well, obviously, there is a time and place (like in the above question), and it's true that work is better when you're smiling. Humor can be uplifting, sarcasm can be constructive. However, there are many matters on Wikipedia that do deserve to be taken very seriously. At first, I was - not so good (see my early edits :), but I believe, that, after more than a year, I can make a distinction. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly optional question from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
8. If you could be invisible, or fly, which would you choose, and why?
A. This is the hardest question. Ok, so "I must confess my love for Wiki-tables - DB"
Task Invisible Flying
Fighting Crime Could be done pretty well, tripping people up, foiling schemes ect. Combined with some sweet military gear (or Rocks) - the best for upholding justice.
Old Ladies Cross the Street I'm not sure Invisibility would be used best here. She'd probably have a heart attack. Maximum Efficiency, quick and easy. Although, she'd probably have a heart attack.
Picking Up Chicks Nowhere near as good as Flying, better in "Other Areas" Oh, yeah! "Hey baby, I'll take you higher than you've ever been". Excuse me while I kiss the sky.
"Other Areas" Ahhhh... yea. Di-Hi knows what I'm talking about... There's practicality nothing you can't do at 10,000 feet.
Making Money At a higher risk, you would make far more. At a lower risk, you would make an adequate amount.
Stopping the Spread of Communism Stealing their Lunch, thus draining their power Ride the Bomb - and Live! Ye-haw!
Violating WP:NCR "There's someone up there!" "Who is it?" "Well.. I don't know" Why climb when you can fly! Whoosh!
As you can see from this very scientific table, I would choose Flying over invisibility, for the reasons above. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Piotrus

9. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Probably not. Once you have become a an administrator it is your responsibility to stay sharp, effective, and not fall into complacency. I would gladly undergo a re-nomination if it was generally felt that it is necessary, but it would be better if someone just told me to pick up my act. Dfrg.msc 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support- From the start of my editing days right up till my peak and my lows, Nick has supported and helped me along as my wiki-father! He's a very helpful and smart contribution to the Wikipedia Admin team in my opinion! Good Luck Dfrg.Msc! Drizzt Jamo 06:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination. @pple complain 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I was about to oppose... but you're an Aussie so I can't do that... :p --DarkFalls talk 09:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A very good user. I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support fine candidate. —Anas talk? 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, it is an awesome nomination. Past issues, yes, but a lot to like. Deiz talk 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. He has learnt and improved, and you can't say that of everyone. Sam Blacketer 11:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Has done good work. Recurring dreams 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per work on WP:NCR. Neil ム 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seen this user around, no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Talk 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support i though he was already a admin; still great user give em' the mop -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've come across dfrg.msc on multiple occasions, and I see no reason to oppose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Yay. RuneWiki777 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - fine candidate. Addhoc 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - review of contribs shows no red flags, overall solid contributor. Ronnotel 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I supported his first one, and I have not seen any problems develop since then. --Mark (Mschel) 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I've seen this guy's work and it's always been impressive. A dedicated and civil user who knows what he's doing. Useight 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support Community trust is a large part of a RfA, and I feel you have obtained through not only your proficient contributions to Wikipedia, but also your significant role in Wikipedia Community. Dfrg.msc deserves the mop by now! Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per Sam Blacketer. --JayHenry 15:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support just like last time. --tennisman 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yep. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Have noticed your edits over the last year or so. An impressive contributor. And I love the example of a mistake in Q3. All in all, a good candidate. --Dweller 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This editor is a good editor. From my personal experiences. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Seems like a good user. Acalamari 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support though I'm not sure what DHMO meant when he talked about Dfrg.msc's name. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. the_undertow talk 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Jmlk17 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm quite pleased that you are honest with your answers, and you have improved a lot since your previous RfA. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems like a good chap. He should find adminship useful, no doubt. – Aillema 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Honest. Carbon Monoxide 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. This user has huge amount of community trust, and abuse of admin tools is unforeseeable. Great user all around; support. O2 (息 • 吹) 22:16, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
  35. Support --Hirohisat 紅葉 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support As per JayHenry and Track is good with nearly 5000 mainspace edits and over 7000 edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Absolutely. Neranei (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. You've grown, mate. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. In my experience Dfrg.msc is a strong editor. No reason to believe he would abuse the tools. Rockpocket 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per substantially everything above. Qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support John254 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - No big deal. --Eye of the Mind 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - I trust Dfrg. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support I'm popping out of semi-wiki-break to post my strong support for Dfrg. He passed all my admin related tests with flying colours during our admin coaching sessions and exhibits a knowledge of policy and maturity to be a fine admin. Like all of us he's not perfect, but can I can say with 100% certainty he can be trusted with the tools. Fine candidate :) Glen 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support trustworthy, experience. No reasons to oppose. Good luck. Carlosguitar 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support ((subst:thoughtyouwereonecliche)). Pedro :  Chat  07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Super-ultra-über Tarragon Support ~ Riana ⁂ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Pile on Support In Dfrg.msc we trust. Culverin? 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, looks ok --Herby talk thyme 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The candidate appears to be a good, trustworthy contributor. Majoreditor 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak support. Unfamiliar with this user until now, but his huge number of edits, vandal-fighting (with scars to prove it), and trustworthy supporters lead me in that direction. Wanting to close debates honestly is one reason I wanted to be a sysop. Bearian 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - great candidate. Such a lot has been achieved. Keep up the awesome work! Lradrama 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Why not? Sounds good to me Dustihowe 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - will use tools wisely. Carlossuarez46 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support A good candidate. -Lemonflash(O_o) 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Definitely! jonathan (talk — contribs) 22:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support He has much expierence and can be trusted well with the mop. Marlith T/C 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Quite impressed with your edits, especially to Portal:Graffiti.--WriterListener 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. The sensible approach of the candidate towards the real, hidden point of my concerns and his decisive statement to dismiss all doubt convince me. Now I'm certain, 'Nick' can be trusted with a mop, a cigar or whatever. Accordingly, I switch my vote to Support. Congratulations! Gray62 02:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Will not abuse powers. Good luck. --Banana 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Will the candidate be celebrating the outcome of this RfA anywhere near the Reichstag? Oh, and I support. Resurgent insurgent 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I opposed last time but the reasons I stated then are no longer relevant. So no reason to oppose now. And people in bathrobes can't be very dangerous anyway. I think. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Certainly a user who will not abuse the tools, I believe Dfrg.msc should have been a sysop quite a while ago. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Experienced editor. utcursch | talk 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support and insert witty (and humorous) comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per answers to questions 6 and 7. Lara❤Love 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Axolotl 1,230% support. The Rambling Man 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support because I was absolutely convinced you were an admin already, and because of your answer to question 6. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support and a poster of Gandalf. Húsönd 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support — I see no indication this user will use the tools in anything but a mature and intelligent manner. --Haemo 04:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Absolutely. I've been waiting for this nom for a while now -- Dfrg.msc has nothing but great things to offer Wikipedia. Give this man the mop! Tijuana Brass 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Why the hell not? Appears to be a suitable candidate. Concerns raised in the previous RFA have been satisfactorily resolved. Melsaran (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Miranda 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support — Well duh. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Pile-on support. east.718 at 03:03, 10/12/2007
  77. Strong Support' – as before. — madman bum and angel 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. As far as I can tell, this editor seems committed to expanding and improving our project (I even like his user page!). Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. I'm impressed with his answers to the questions. Should do fine. --Kbdank71 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. This time it is deserved. i've seen good stuff from this person. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per answer to Q.9, and lack of evidence that tools would be abused. LessHeard vanU 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Its all been said. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Same reasons as last time. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I am exceedingly impressed with Dfrg's work with the various portals, to the point of being in awe of his coding expertise. I personally believe that a sense of humor is a great thing, and while I realize some people may think "fun" and "humor" are not appropriate for Wikipedia, the fact is that as a giant community of editors from all over the world, with different viewpoints and cultures, many conflicts are bound to arise. Humor and fun can both diffuse situations, and also help heal rifts caused by conflict. I don't think that Wikipedia is any worse for those who choose to "whistle while they work", so to speak, and I honestly think that it makes people laugh, which is a great thing when working on a serious project. Nick's use of humor via question 8 is a perfect example of this: While answering what may be seen as a completely nonsensical question that has no bearing on this RfA, Nick shows his special talent in table-making and formatting. Formatting is a big part of many areas on Wikipedia, and without editors such as Nick, awesome portals like the Graffiti portal may not be as eye-catching. On to other areas: I've run into Dfrg many times while doing Recent Changes patrol, and I've always considered him to be a great patroller, using proper warnings, reporting when appropriate, and understanding policy and guidelines. As with all editors, early mistakes have been a learning experience, and I really have no doubt that Nick would use caution in areas he was unfamiliar with, and request assistance from other administrators should the need arise. While I do understand the reservations Piotrus brings up about adding oneself to the recall category, I also think that the community has a pretty good system in place to review questionable actions by administrators, and resolution can be done via these methods. I have no doubt that Dfrg will be a great addition to the current Administration team, and I look forward to congratulating him in a few days. (The preceding comments are brought to you by Ariel Verbosity© ™ ) Ariel♥Gold 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Support? That seemed more like a co-Nom... well argued, anyhow. LessHeard vanU 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, wow, I agree. Thankyou, that's pretty amazing! I'll talk to you when this is over. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hee hee, well, I truly believe that just as oppose opinions normally have extended reasoning, the same holds for supports, as they too can benefit from an explanation for the opinion, and nearly always whenever I support or oppose, I give a thorough reasoning for my opinions. I honestly haven't ever spoken with Nick before, just have seen him around, but I still feel it is helpful to explain why I support this request. I think most people know when they see my edit to an RfA, they're in for a long read, lol. Sorry! Ariel♥Gold 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Orane (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Impressive and hard working user. umdrums (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Surely, superb and mature editor. Very witty, also. PeaceNT 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - seems OK. Concerns raised by previous RfA seem to have been addressed. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Thinks ClueBot is awesome. I think the community will benefit from sysopping Dfrg.msc. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Last-Minute Support. The candidate looks like they will use the tools with great knowledge and support. — E talkbots 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Dfrg.msc nominates a candidate named 'Nick', but afaics 'Nick' never accepted the nomination. I'm only a n00b, but I'm sure there are some rules somewhere that say this is verboten. Also, I'm a very seriously concerned that Wikipedia could be "damaged by a sense of humour"! Gray62 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. Dfrg.msg is Nick. Nick is Dfrg.msg. There are no rules prohibiting this, considering that it is extremely clear who Nick is. Also note that humour is often considered a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help! A.D. needs some rescue breathing! :D Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] This isn't a self-nom. Nick is Dfrg.msc's real name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really, one and the same? Hmm, then how can this be not a self-nom???Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, is it not? Marlith T/C 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination? I'm not sure. Nothing against humour, but how am I supposed to know who 'Nick' is???Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick a.k.a Dfrg.msg was nominated by Dihydrogen Monoxide. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, A.D., of course you're right. Not a self-nom. That 'Nick' constantly mentioned confused me. The joke's on me. Sry! Gray62 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, don't feed the troll. 86.29.44.23 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy yummy...Gray62 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creep... 86.29.44.23 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, imho evidence enough that users don't appreciate "a sense of humour". I would be interested in the candidates' opinion on this now! Gray62 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Righty - from what I can discern, (???) Dihydrogen Monoxide nominated me and I accepted the nomination. I am not Dihydrogen Monoxide, I am Nick (Dfrg.msc). I agree a sense of humor has it's place and I'll always try to "lighten the mood", although I am prone to large periods of unwavering seriousness. Is this a serious Oppose?
An I did not engage in sexual intercourse with that woman </Clinton>. Dfrg.msc 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sensible approach of the candidate towards the real, hidden point of my concerns and his decisive statement to dismiss all doubt convince me. Now I'm certain, 'Nick' can be trusted with a mop, a cigar or whatever. Accordingly, I switch my vote to 'Support'. Congratulations! Gray62 02:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My change to 'Support' (above) somehow got lost in the diting here. Saved it from history. Let all votes be counted! :-) Gray62 10:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr, I really need some holidays. Or new glasses. I checked the diff, and couldn't find the above posting anymore, but now I see some nice guy moved it into the 'Support' section. Sry for messing this up! Note to the brave votecounters: Don't get confused, I only have one vote, of course. Gray62 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New requirement. ALL RFAs must have pictures in order to confirm validity of the identity concerning the user running and his nominee. :-P Miranda 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, plus candidates must wear nothing but a dressing gown, a cheesy grin and a thumbs up. :) Dfrg.msc 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to strong support per candidate's meeting my bathrobe criteria. the_undertow talk 06:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the bathrobe cabal? Oh, I so want in! ~ Riana ⁂ 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, The Undertow. It's early in the morning and you make me see that!?!?! I might have to get a bathrobe shot of SonOfPedro (his is Bob The Builder) Can he then join the cabal too.....? 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bathrobe Cabal is by no means exclusive, however, you must: #1: Own a Bathrobe (verify with picture), #2: Have your thumb in an upright and locked position. - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that your apparel qualifies as a bathrobe and is not a Smoking jacket or other inappropriate attire. the_undertow talk 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, end it with - TRANSMISSION ENDS - it's much cooler. We're supposed to be a Cabal! :) - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got to get in on this. Where's my digital camera? This is probably the coolest RfA ever! J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I need an answer to this question: Is this an RfA for dfrg.msc (aka Dihydrogen Monoxide, Alex Nick) or the recruiting place for a semi-nude bathrobe cabal? And please don't say both... <looks at H2O expectantly> --DarkFalls talk 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Actually, this RfA is 71/0. I think we're allowed to have some fun now. (Also, I still can't find my camera. I wonder how my parents will feel about me posting bathrobe pics) J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Twas the season...
Nice indent curve up there. It is both, the undertow is making pamphlets. Yeah, I agree. Why not get a picture of them in their bathrobes? - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wake up at 10, so I can't really see them in their bathrobes before they get to work. I could get my dog in a bathrobe. I'll have a bit of a problem with the thumbs up. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your lucky, I wake up at 7:30, I can;'t find my elbow 'till 8;00. You could just "force" you dog into a costume, like I did. Dfrg.msc 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. "I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them" - upon review of some comments in XfD's made by the candidate around a month ago, I fear that the candidate does not understand the concept of consensus through discussion, and (more concerning) WP:ATA. However, on the whole, I believe that Dfrg.msc could be a good administrator with some more reading and use of caution if/when he is made +sysop, so I won't oppose. Daniel 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATA is an essay <aussie>mate</aussie>. I think the benefits outweigh the concerns. Carbon Monoxide 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point being? It clearly outlines how consensus works in AfD discussions. Daniel 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I came here expecting to support but then read this passage in the nomination: "I’m sure many people will see the name “Dfrg.msc” and think many things, some relating to immaturity, others relating to a sometimes unorthodox sense of humour, and a few relating to “anti-encyclopaedic behaviour." Oddly, I think none of those things but the fact the nominator believes one might gives me pause for thought, so I will investigate further before making up my mind. WjBscribe 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a reference to comments (mainly opposition comments) in his previous RfA. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    mmm, OK. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NeutralOppose. Unfortunate, but I consider willingness to add oneself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and obligatory quality of all administrators. We are servants, and it should be easy to hold us accountable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would gladly undergo a re-nomination or re-confirmation - and be fully accountable to my edits, however, I'm sure that simply adding my name to category does not ensure any accountability, that can only happen within myself. Admins should be held to a higher standard, and treated as such, I just don't see the need for the category. Dfrg.msc 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't need a big stick to be waved in their faces if their choices do not go down well with a group of editors, which is what recall is. I support the removal of sysop tools should the community feel that they have been abused (see this discussion), but not for "dissatisfaction". LessHeard vanU 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, woah. Isn't the whole point of AOR the fact that it's voluntary? Out of 1000+ sysops we have a little over a hundred in the category - would you have opposed 90% of the current lot? I am in the category but I agree that it doesn't make me feel more accountable for my actions. Involuntary admin recall has been repeatedly shot down by the community, whether for the right reasons or not, but I see no reason to force that on Dfrg here. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to neutral. This is not a policy indeed, and considering the overwhelming support by many estabilished editors, I trust dfrg.msc will be a good admin. Nonetheless I strongly believe that recall procedure should be made into a policy for the good of Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category