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

Dlohcierekim[edit]

Final (72/5/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to nominate a familiar name to many of us. Dlohcierekim has been a Wikipedian for 20 months now (well actually two years due to the operation of another account as detailed by henrik in his joint nomination below), making over 15,000 solid edits from this account and admins will be able to verify a good many more that have been deleted via the WP:CSD process. So, the rationale:

Article Writing

Page Patrol

Project Input

House Keeping

All, I believe that nothing but good can come by allowing Dlohcierekim access to administrative tools. I hope that the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Henrik. Since Pedro has done such an excellent job of describing Dlohcierekim, I find myself with little to add. However, after running into Dlohcierekim, I was struck by what a kind, friendly, helpful Wikipedian he and can only wish we had more people like him. He is consistently polite, calm and is always willing to stop to listen to other editors, all invaluable traits in an administrator.

Dlohcierekim has openly operated two accounts since March 2006, due to concerns about his first account being too easily recognizable to do regular vandal patrolling. As User:Mikereichold, he has helped improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida, especially Largo, Florida, while the contributions of User:Dlohcierekim are mentioned above. By the time he found his way to WP:CHU he already had sizable contributions using both accounts, and unfortunately WP:REAT is inactive. In total, he has over 20000 edits, 170 AIV reports, plenty of article building to his credit, all well distributed over the namespaces.

With over 20000 edits in many diverse areas and two years of participation he certainly has the experience. I think Dlohcierekim will make an excellent administrator and I am surprised he isn't one already. I hope you too will find him suitable. henrik•talk 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you. I accept the nomination. As I say in my answers to the questions, I'm mostly a Wikignome who has spent a lot of time reverting unconstructive edits and reviewing new pages. I can benefit the project with the admin tools. I'm overwhelmed by the support of my nominators. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional statement

I need at to explain the Wikibreaks. The first in June 2006 was when my ferret was very ill, and I was too tied up emotionally with that for anything else. The second was very protracted and due to a combination of problems. To cross post from Pedro's talk, "I was busy in real life, which made it hard to find time. Then my computer broke down, making it hard to edit from home. I was limited to editing from my employer's computers at work and the Largo Library's computers. I had changed my monobook.js, and whenever I tried to log on an Iexplorer browsered computer, it locked up. (Something I doubt the library's IT people appreciated at the time.) So I wound up using my alternate account to check its watchlist when I could get to the library and use the one there. Which dropped me to about 20 edits a month on that account and none on this one. In August, I had the time to address my computer problems and got mine going again. Then I realized I could fix my monobook.js with my alternate user. With this account working again, my wiki addiction took over and I started editing again at my previous rate."

Welcoming I've made a lot of edits welcoming new users. This is not just to be friendly or say "howdy". I believe laying a welcome template on a new user helps them enter the collegial community of Wikipeida. It reminds new users that we are a community with expectations of its members in terms of editing and behavior to one another. Sometimes, the only pillar new users understand is BE BOLD, and they manage to MISPLACE BEANS without being told not to. Also, I know from experience that if it's necessary to coach a new user, a welcome template softens the blow. I hate laying a your page is gonna be deleted message on someone without giving them some idea of what guidelines to follow. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largo and who's asking any way. I did not realize how strong my WP:COI / WP:NPOV issues were when I added some of that. I might as well make a statement renouncing any perceived ownership of the article and urge others with a clearer view to edit it instead. It's sometimes sticky when a nom has two accounts. The Dlohcierekim account is for the tools. The Mikereichold account is mostly a convenience because I don't need to change the watchlist. Not that Dlohcierkim has been much of a screen/identity protector. At least four other editors have seen through it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghit thing I've reread Eddie's oppose, and he seems to be saying that I think the number of Google hits corrresponds to notability. I'm sorry if that is the impression some have gotten. Generally, when I cite Google hits, I'm saying that I went through these and did not find evidence of notability. It is an invitation for another set of eyes to find what I missed. And I do change my opinion if evidence for or against deletion is found. As Pedro says, that is part of my rationale. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the use of User:Dlohcierekim/standards, these are how I explain my supports at RfA. They are not used to oppose. They are a rough guide to when I am likely to support. I can and do support noms based on seeing things, despite edit counts and other criteria, that make me feel safe. Contrarily, if a user shows something that causes me a qualm, I will oppose or simply not partake either way despite edit count or time with the project. I look for reasons to support a nom, not oppose. I don't think it's unrealistic to say I am likely to support if a nom has been here 3 months and has 3000 edits. Not in the face of some other opposes I've seen. I also don't think it is onerous to be more likely to support a candidate with less time or a lower edit count and who has done some of these other thing such as mediation, multi wiki's, all the rest. Mediation commitee and FA are big pluses with me. If you read further you will see that I believe that adminship is no big deal. Hope that helps. <moved from water's oppose to here> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 25 November 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: My main use for the tools would be in speedy deletion and WP:AIV. The bulk of my edits are in Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and reviewing Special:Newpages. I have a particular horror for defamation pages, and I always regret not being able to delete them on sight. Most of the time I RCPatrol, I find a few warnings will stop the unconstructive edits. I would rather add one more warning and hope the unconstructive editor takes the hint-- vandalism is futile. But I've also known the frustration of watching while the vandalism continued and I could only try to keep up reverting it. I have comparably less experience with WP:AFD and PRODS and would move more slowly there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm not much of an article writer, mostly a wikignome and stub creator. As Pedro says, I like to have verifiable sources. I was very new when I expanded Largo, Florida, but that spun off Timeline of Largo history. I had read about the Great Gale of 1848 while researching the Largo article. So I dug up all I could find and created the Great Gale stub. More recently, I enjoyed digging up info on Anton Giulio Bragaglia, which had come over as a machine mangled translation of an article on the Italian Wikipedia and William J. Simmons (educator). I thought I'd created that one, but then I found it was already here, so I merged my info into the pre-exisiting article and made mine a redirect. Compared to what others have done, these seem pretty minor to me.
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: I'm afraid I've not engaged in any serious conflicts. Conflict usually arises from me reverting an edit that looks unconstructive to me. I try to remain open to reason and to stick to my understanding of policy in my responses. If the other editor can show me that I was in error, then I apologize for wasting their time. With real differences of opinion, I know to seek an unbiased third party, seek consensus on the talk page, or to set up an RFC. Basically, I seek to avoid conflict whenever I can, and I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. If anything is going to stress me on Wikpedia, it's probably a situation that needs input from other editors, and I don't mind seeking it.
Addendum I was actually in a recent conflict, though not over editing. Still, it shows what I'm trying to say. Meant to add this before transclusion, but things did not go as planned. The thing that will anger me the quickest is when someone refactors my comments to make it look like I said something I did not. Which is what happened with User talk:Jiggerdude. One can follow the conversation by running through the difs. He refactored my comments to say a lot more than I did. I reverted and warned him about that. He again put words in my mouth. By this time I'd lost all patience, so I asked at AN/I that he be stopped from editing his talk page. Not much of a conflict, but there it is. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. What do you want Wikipedia to be in three years from now?Marlith T/C 00:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Err, haven't thought about that much. I'm winging it on the fly. I want it to continue to be a congenial place to edit, firstly. Beyond that, to grab the quote form Mr. Wales from off the top of my userpage, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." So, I would like to see the Encyclopedia be more accurate and more full of information. Whenever possible, I would like to see more verifiable information and less innuendo or rumor. Sometimes it's hard to dig out verifiable information, but I always feel good when I locate a source. I would like it to be the first place people turn to for encyclopedic information. And as hard as it's becoming with pay walls going up around so much information, those pay walls make our goal all the more important. It's hard to make it such a storehouse of knowledge without running the risk of it becoming too indiscriminate, or containing insignificant information, or full of stuff that's just plain wrong. And I think the conflicts over what to include and what to exclude is the major source of discord within the project. But it's worth trying. If we all look beyond our differences toward that goal, we will achieve it or make one impressive try. Nothing else I've ever done has so felt worth doing. That includes my job, and all the other fluff at the top of my user page. Hope this is satisfactory. It makes sense to me at the time of writing. To sum up, more sourced information at greater depth on more subjects. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5 Do you intend to continue to use two usernames, with neither page actually linked to the alternate account? DGG (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hmm, that had been my intent, but as I've said, this username has not been much of a screen for my real identity. Thinking about it now, I figure I might as well at least restore the acknowledgement on Mikereichold. Probably might as well put the link on this username to, for the sake of openness. My original concern was off-wiki consequences to on-wiki vandal fighting. Never had a problem, so I was overcautious at the time. (I'm thinking this through as I type.) So, yes, I might as well link the two. Mikereichold is still useful so I should keep it, not retire it. To answer the question, no. I'll link them. I know there have been problems on the project with sockpuppetry and secret accounts in the past, and my intent when I came to Wikipedia was to be transparent. That's why I started with my real name in the first place. Thanks for asking. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also made a number of edits with this IP User:65.35.168.248. It was my IP before I got Mikereichold, and there have been times when I edited without logging in first. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AND, I can use Mikereichold in places (work, the Library) where I would not want to risk compromise of my admin account. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might have forgotten, but you did link the accounts Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim together on May 9, 2006.[1] -- Jreferee t/c 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed the link from Mikereichold to Dlohcierekim after The Crazy Russian called me "Mike" on the "Dloh" talk page. Not to hide the two accounts (I always did say "this is an alternate user.") but to protect my real world identity. Too many people here read backwards to make a simple reversal like that effective, though. Oh, well. No one's egged my house yet, so I guess I'm OK. , Dlohcierekim 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6 In view of the concerns raised about some of your AfD posts, would you be willing to spend at least a week contributing to each of the listings at WP:DRV before closing any AfDs? You've contributed to Wikipedia for almost two years and I think hanging out with the DRV crew for a week should assuage any concerns in the XfD area. -- Jreferee t/c 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Great idea. Yes. That would probably be the best way to learn more. Maybe more than a week. I'm in no hurry to close AfD's. Thank you. Dlohcierekim 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not clear enough when I said that I plan to "go slow" with AfD's. I'm comfortable with CSD and blocking vandals and know enough to get a second opinion if I have a doubt. AfD is something I would do only if there was a real need and only if I felt certain that I was closing correctly. DRV participation-- more as an observer at first-- would help me work on any weak areas. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Of course. I've had this page watchlisted for a while.--chaser - t 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A strong all-round candidate who can clearly be trusted with the mop. BencherliteTalk 14:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. An excellent editor (and candidate), whom I have seen around Wikipedia regularly over the previous few months. Good luck, —Qst 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The usual "I thought he was already" response. DS (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Of course. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support As per my nomination statement. Pedro :  Chat  15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Having reviewed Special:Contributions/Dlohcierekim, I see plenty of deletion discussion participation, counter-vandalism edits and WP:AIV reports, WP:AN/I-and-related-boards participation, and all the other stuff we see in our best candidates. The trust factor is there, and I don't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! Anthøny 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Has a need for the tools and will use them responsibly. Epbr123 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - no doubt. Great user. What I find amazing: nearly 2500 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and nearly 8000 user talk edits. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that many for anyone in a while.   jj137 (Talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (edit-conflicted) Nominator support! I think I said it all in my co-nom. henrik•talk 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support: I trust this user will make a great admin., and has clearly demonstrated knowledge of our policies and guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I have seen only good things from Dlohcierekim and believe that I will see only good things as an admin. Captain panda 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, of course. This experienced, hard working user will make a fine addition to the administrative body. Furthermore, we need more admins with unpronounceable usernames. Húsönd 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support! Good luck! *MindstormsKid* 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems to be doing good work. I'd prefer it if not all edit summaries were marked as "minor" but this is, ah, a minor point. Pigman☿ 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. bibliomaniac15 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Another case of RfA cliche #1 -- this promotion should have happened ages ago. Xoloz (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strongest Support - as per (was going to be) co-nom. One of the best candidates in ages, and I hope everone else sees that! :) - Rudget.talk 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes, definitely, I trust Dlohcierekim's judgement. :) Spebi 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Jmlk17 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Wasn't one already? Let's remedy that! -MBK004 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - good track record. As noted below, needs to brush up on AfD criteria just a bit. No biggie, though, and everything else is in order. Not BITEy either, and that's important in an admin - Alison ❤ 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - seems to have good judgment and priorities, and I think the AfD thing will be easy enough to improve. I think he'll be a good addition to the team. (Though, please, Dlohcierekim, go right now and turn off the thing that's marking every edit as minor, as it makes it hard to parse your contribs. I think you can fix it under the "preferences" menu.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Done. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. User has not been perfect at AfD, but then again, everyone makes mistakes. Good luck! Lankiveil (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Thought-you-were-already Support Good luck! GlassCobra 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Contribs suggest a hard-working and mop-ready admin. And from what I've seen of Dlohcierekim, judgement appears to be spot on. (The ghit thing seems to be more or less addressed, in that it's been acknowledged as an area for improvement). --Bfigura (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good luck!--Oxymoron83 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I am confident that this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I see nothing that would worry me here, --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I have seen this user contribute in a wide variety of ways, always with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart; a hard-working intelligent individual who will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I thought he was an admin already. His signature pops up everywhere, it seems. :) Maser (Talk!) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support This user is very active all around the encyclopedia and has over a year of experience. This user shall not abuse the tools. Marlith T/C 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, excellent user who does good work all over the place. I trust the user would not speedy delete articles just based on GHits. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Seen you around, good luck. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very experienced, and the oppose diffs give me no reason to think that the candidate is untrustworthy in any way. VanTucky talk 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I quite like the smiley in your sig. And you seem like a nice and dedicated user whom will not abuse the tools. All the best, ScarianTalk 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. My observations of this user have been positive. Acalamari 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support A sensible editor who will do well as an admin. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A very good guy. I have seen him around for along time, I had thought at several points that he was already an admin. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Experienced, reasonable and civil. Actually, has had enough experience a year ago. Kusma (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. It's news to me that Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim are one and the same. I looked, and did find one discussion from 2006 May in which the use of two accounts may have been deceiving. With search engines no longer indexing many project pages, I can't say for sure if this has happened other times, but I doubt it. In all of the other pages that I was able to find containing both signatures, the two accounts were either used in separate discussions, or in such a way that it was obvious that they had the same operator. That one mishap is not going stop me from supporting this request because it was probably an accident, because it was a long time ago, because Mike has shown he understands sockpuppety rules (here, on his user page, and here), and because I'm sure he is going to be more careful in future. Looking through the history of the two accounts, it is clear that he is trustworthy, skilled, and has more than enough experience for the job. ×Meegs 12:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my. Must have forgotten I was logged in on the one and then came back as the other. Sorry. That was unintentional. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good luck! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Having run into the nom at various points of the project and having been favorably impressed when I've done so, I was a bit taken aback to find opposes placed here by editors whose opinions I very much respect. Because of that, I've spent considerable time examining his contributions just to be sure that I could stand by my impression, and I've come away convinced. While I can certainly agree with the opposers that it would be more beneficial to discuss what kinds of google hits are coming up in AfDs, by the nom's own statements (here and here) he seems to understand the challenges of using Google to confirm or deny notability in AfDs. Moreover, I like the evidence I see here and here that he is not only putting some thought into his AfD opinions, but monitoring the conversations and re-evaluating based on later input. I do not agree with every opinion he has ever put forth at an AfD, but I respect his familiarity with policy and his obvious desire to work towards consensus. With respect specifically to DGG's impression that "Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here" may be an admission of lack of familiarity with policy, I interpret the nom's statement to admit lack of familiarity rather with Russian politics. WP:BIO does indicate that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone". His decision to bring the subject to AfD rather than nominate it for PROD suggests an awareness that wider review might be beneficial, and assertions of notability in the article as he found it and in the source provided are slim enough that his uncertainty about notability seems understandable. (That said, in such a case I might suggest tagging notability concerns and broaching the subject on the talk page of the article or a related wikiproject. But I'm not naturally bold, and, even there, what I see suggests to me familiarity with policy & desire to seek consensus.) I do not believe the nom would misuse the tools, through willfulness or lack of awareness, but feel pretty confident that he would continue as he seems accustomed to do in working devotedly and cooperatively to improve the encyclopedia. I would, however, second Dorftrottel's suggestion that he drop the smiley from his sig. I love emoticons, but fear using them automatically can lead an admin to trouble. :) Not too long ago, I got a very irate note from an editor who felt my use of the language from Template:Nothanks-web was condescending. A lot of admin work leads to ruffled feathers, and minimizing those = a good thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For everyone wondering, I was the one who nominated Moonriddengirl for admin. If I may toot my own horn here for such foresight, beep beep! -- Jreferee t/c 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. This user is not perfect and admits his mistakes. As Moonriddengirl says directly above me, he seeks consensus, which is good. I'm satisfied by his explanation of his position on search engine results and notability. He's been here a while and seems to know what he's doing. I'm pretty sure that the net effect of his adminship would be good, so I must support. WODUP 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support :) Neil ☎ 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support as a user who knows the rules and when to bend them. Very active in WP community discussions. Meets all of my standards, which also happens to be his. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support very good user who is also friendly. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. He's got everything going for him in my eyes. Experience, post count... I have no worries for him. Support, baby! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per answer to question number 4 above - great answer. You obviously have your head on your shoulders where it belongs, and you are an asset to Wikipedia. I haven't had any of my wiki-paths cross with you as of yet (at least I don't think so), but I hope I will! Don't let the new mop (if you in fact receive it) drag you down - I say keep the smile in your signature. Keeper | 76 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support seen him around and he's most definitely a force for good, and would be an asset to the admin corps. Bolding usernames in replies is at least more sensible than copy-and-pasting the recipient's entire sig in the reply (not too few people do that!) Pegasus «C¦T» 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support easy one to support - a thoughtful and sensible candidate who appears able to be and treat others as individuals. MLA (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've had very positive interactions with nominee at AfD and elsewhere, and now that their two accounts are fully disclosed I have no reservations whatsoever. — Satori Son 13:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - The last thing we need is an admin who is misusing alternate accounts. I reviewed the 22,414 combined edits (including deleted edits) of Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim going back to December 2005. I found very few edits to the same pages by both accounts and nothing that would indicate a misuse of the alternate accounts. Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location, but has promised above to use the two accounts in remote locations. I'm listing what I found so others can draw their own conclusions. (1) Overlapping uses: In the November 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination), !voted as Mikereichold[2], but identified that signature as a mistake and switched it to Dlohcierekim [3]. A sock puppet and/or someone with the intention of misusing alternate accounts is not going to make such a correction. Used both accounts to comment in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC[4][5][6][7], but not to participate twice in that RfA. In RfA publicity, participated in the discussion as both Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim, but it does not appear to give the impression of two separate users supporting each other. In the September 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amire80, you used the Dlohcierekim account to !vote[8] and used both the Dlohcierekim account and the Mikereichold account to make corrections.[9][10] [11]. In the September 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penwhale, used both accounts[12][13][14][15][16][17] On one day, !voted in Colonization of Mercury AfD as Mikereichold and the next day !voted in Colonization of Mars AfD as Dlohcierekim. (2) Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location: (A) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:32, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:35, 24 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 19:43, 24 Sep 2007; (B) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:33, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:45, 27 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 13:51, 27 Sep 2007, (C) Dlohcierekim 04:36, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 04:44, 29 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 22:38, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 22:43, 29 Sep 2007; (D) Dlohcierekim 22:29, 2 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 22:59, 2 Oct 2007, (E) Dlohcierekim 15:23, 4 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 15:35, 4 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:40, 4 Oct 2007; (F) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 12 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 13:17, 12 Oct 2007, (G) Mikereichold 17:26, 23 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 17:59, 23 Oct 2007; (H) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 25 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 03:47, 25 Oct 2007, (I) Mikereichold 21:44, 9 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 21:54, 9 Nov 2007; (J) Dlohcierekim 03:48, 14 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 04:22, 14 Nov 2007, (K) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 15 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 20:44, 15 Nov 2007; (L) Mikereichold 02:37, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 02:39, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:45, 16 Nov 2007[18], Mikereichold 16:08, 16 Nov 2007[19]; (M) Dlohcierekim 16:36, 20 Nov 2007[20], Mikereichold 16:43, 20 Nov 2007[21], Dlohcierekim 16:44, 20 Nov 2007[22] -- Jreferee t/c 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support seems to know what he is talking about.Balloonman (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Good answers, looks like a good editor likely to be equally as good with admin tools. --Strothra (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Been around long enough to get it, I hope. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - An outstanding editor. I'll trust them as an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Yes Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - All the best Khukri 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Per Pedro's nomination statement--WriterListener (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, good editor - I think he'll wield the mop well. Dreadstar † 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - no concerns, and needs the tools. That's enough for me. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support seems to know policy, won't abuse tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No red flags here. нмŵוτнτ 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support `'Míkka>t 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Sure. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak oppose Probably a pointless oppose, but I feel this user does not understand disputes and does not understand the idea that adminship is no big deal. CO 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please expand on that, CO, as it would help in whether I should oppose or support. Jack?! 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — apart from agreeing to some extent with CO, I see that you use number of GHits as a rationale for deletion a lot. For example, here you said, "only 29 Google hits" and didn't even bother to search for refs, even when the subject was obviously notable. This also happened here, here, and here, to name a few recent occasions. I also see some unproductive comments, such as this. Sorry, but having a lot of GHits doesn't always make you notable, and having no hits doesn't make you non-notable. I'm afraid I don't entirely trust your knowledge of our deletion policies. Again, sorry. --Agüeybaná (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Agüeybaná. Constructive comments so thank you. Just a point, but did you did note that on the first and second diffs you presented here, that although the candidate cited Google hits, he backed this up with results from, respectiveley, Reuters and Amazon.com? He may indeed have used Google hits as part of his rationale on those AFD entries but it's a bit harsh to say that was his only rationale when the diffs say otherwise. Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those are are ongoing RfA'sAFD's. I plan to revisit those, and will certainly change to keep if I see compelling evidence of meeting respective notability and verifiability. I plan to go slow with WP:AFD in any event. As to not understanding disputes, I'll provide a recent example of a recently stressfull situation tomorrow or tonight. Like I said above, I seek a third onpinon or take it to WP:AN/I. Haven't set up an RFC yet. As to "no big deal," I've used it so often as a support rationale it's on my standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Agüeybaná's AFD concerns. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Agüeybaná. Also (this is not the reason I oppose, but I mention it since things like this give me the creeps): The smiley in your sig, please get rid of it. Heart icons are bad enough, but a smiley is a big no-no for an admin. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:54, November 24, 2007
With all dueto respect, dorftrottel, I'm not an admin yet. If enough of the community agrees with the oppose reasons, won't be for some time. With the exception of a few, like the problem editor in section 3, I edit Wikipedia with a smile on my face. I would hate to indef block anyone, but if it gets to that point, they aren't even going to notice the smiley face. And look at the many people that have there their day brightened by it. I greet, help, and have discourse with far more people than I report at AIV or AN/I. I'm sorry it creeps you out, but Wikipedia probably needs more smiles, not fewer. Unless I get a real outpouring of negative comment, I plan to keep the :). Thanks for your feedback on the other. I'll endeavor to be more careful in how I say things. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in its right place. I daresay my own userpage has one or two potentially funny things on it, but that's where it stays. Your opinion that Wikipedia needs "more smiles, not fewer" betrays a doubtful indifference in your judgment as to when and where a smile is useful, helpful, honest, appropriate, and/or wanted. Having a smiley in your sig sorta reminds me of plastered-on TV smiles, and those are exactly the kind we do not need, for they devalue the occasional real smile. I'd like to further amend my oppose with deepened doubts due to additional minor things like bolding of usernames in replies (it shouldn't be necessary to ask you not to) or the fact that when you correct e.g. the grammar in your own posts, you always strike the original rather than just correcting it. To me, when combined with all of the rest, this last demonstrates an over-carefulness and -correctness which I personally associate with over-eagerness to get the tools. Or maybe rather "admin status"? Sorry, clearly not, at least not yet.I dorftrottel I talk I 15:27, November 25, 2007
  1. I'm a bit perplexed, so could you elaborate as to why you associate carefulness and accuracy with over-eagnerness for the admin tools? Assuming that these two notions could result in such a conclusion seems to be a non sequitur. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Over-carefulness and over-accuracycorrectness indicate what I see as an unfavourable lack of WP:DGAF; nobody should edit and behave so as to become an admin. I'm aware this is a weak sequitur at best, but I tried to express my own perception as best I could. While the community seems disproportionately concerned with easier-to-grasp issues like e.g. incivility, a more general impression and intution always play into my judgment on a user's suitability for the tools. This led me to support most of the time, but recently I tried to more carefully examine candidates, going beyond superficial aspects like edit count or policy violations. However, you're right that this isn't exactly strong reasoning. May switch based on further development. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:50, November 26, 2007
Thanks, I never heard of WP:DGAF before. I will embrace it as my own. I promise to incorporate this in my editing if I have not done so already. , Dlohcierekim 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I wish I'd known about this before I answered Q 3. Though I would have put in different terms, this pretty well sums up how I feel toward conflict. Though maybe I said some of it in Q 4. As for the negative parts of DGAF, there just is no version of The Truth that I am so committed to that I would revert war or wheel war over. Discussion, clarification and the elimination of misunderstanding, without doing anyone the violence of trying to force them to change their opinion. Yup, glad you brought it up. , Dlohcierekim 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you already were, and am now feeling somewhat relieved that you aren't. Annoying signature. Equally annoying habit of bolding usernames (please don't bold mine when you reply to this). Arbitrary standards, some of which are unrealistic for non admins (honestly, how many are on medcab/OTRS?). Ghits. Per nom. Maybe next time. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC) As several issues have been addressed by the candidate, I'll sit this out. By the way, there's a comma lying around randomly in your sig ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think you're interpreting his standards page correctly. As I read that page, he is listing examples of what would be beneficial, not enumerating requirements for support. As for the rest, your reasons are of course your prerogative, but the bolding usernames and sig comments seems like minor issues, unrelated to the central question of an RFA: Can this user be trusted with admin tools? For example, have you tried asking the candidate to stop bolding usernames? henrik•talk 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, these are how I explain my supports at RfA. They are not used to oppose. They are a rough guide to when I am likely to support. I can and do support noms based on seeing things, despite edit counts and other criteria, that make me feel safe. Contrarily, if a user shows something that causes me a qualm, I will oppose or simply not partake either way despite edit count or time with the project. I look for reasons to support a nom, not oppose. I don't think it's unrealistic to say I am likely to support if a nom has been here 3 months and has 3000 edits. Not in the face of some other opposes I've seen. I also don't think it is onerous to be more likely to support a candidate with less time or a lower edit count and who has done some of these other thing such as mediation, multi wiki's, all the rest. Mediation commitee and FA are big pluses with me. If you read further you will see that I believe that adminship is no big deal. Hope that helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason? BencherliteTalk 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    something just bot right in what I am hearingJeanenawhitney (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose There's no one killer reason to oppose for me, but it's the sum of a lot of little things which, while not problematic of themselves, add up to someone who is either not conversant with wikipedia norms or chooses not to conform. The alternative username, bolding usernames, username with smiley, deleting based on GHits, marking all edits as minor are all little niggles. AKAF (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust you are aware that the candidate has changed his signature to remove the smiley[23], fully linked his accounts[24], explained the GHits[25] and removed the preference setting which marked all hits as minor[26]? henrik•talk 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all within the course of this RFA, when the penalty for not doing them is not being adminned. Honestly, I'm wondering if he couldn't get this stuff done in the first 2 years of editing, how is he going to keep himself in line once he has the mop. My feeling is that admins need to be able to stay in control when in heated discussions, and so need to have a significant amount of independant self-assesment. There's too many little things to say that this editor isn't at that point yet.AKAF (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well everyone's entitled to there oppose rationale. If a user's intuition tells them to oppose, then they should do so. I believe the collective wisdom of consensus is greater than our wisdom as individuals. If consensus is to give me the mop, so be it. If such consensus does not emerge, so be it. Trust to consensus. Trust the crats to gauge consensus. Dlohcierekim 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's "intuition" in as much as it is a combination of small effects. For instance, I can admire how you have attempted to instruct the bureaucrats to ignore my optinion in drawing their consensus. For instance, discarding my opinion because you feel that it's just "intuition" agrees well with your regarding RFDs as unimportant based on Ghits. I'm not opposing because you marked some edits as minor, I'm opposing because your MO has remained consistent and then changed drastically during this RFA, which indicates to me both a lack of self-criticism and a tendancy to be easily pushed by external forces, neither of which are suitable attributes for an admin.AKAF (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AKAF! I was saying that I respect your oppose reason and that you have a right to it. Your assertion that I was instructing the crats to disregard your vote shows that we are on different wavelengths. I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted my response. Thanks for clarifying and making more concrete your oppose rationale. While I disagree with it to some degree, I will certainly want to watch out for the faults you have pointed out. Thanks again. Dlohcierekim 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, got a bit too hot under the collar. Looks like you'll pass though, so good luck. AKAF (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral changed to Neutral per Moonriddengirl's arugment above DGG (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC) .Oppose I do not think you have quite enough understanding of policy, as admitted by your comment in a recent AfD brought only a few days ago: "Nom withdrawn in the face of overwhelming keeps. Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here. Thanks y'all for showing me the error of my way" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Babayev. I hope to support next time, as I think you are learning. DGG (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DGG. Rest assured if this passes, my primary use is going to be clearing out CSD and blocking vandals. I will go very slowly with AfD and will look to the more experienced for guidance. Struck jabber. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I definitely will be phrasing my AfD rationales better.Struck jabber Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 25 November 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