Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cecropia (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 7 June 2007 (closed and archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dfrg.msc

Closed as failed to reach consensus by Cecropia 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) at (43/26/8); Scheduled end time 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I nominate Dfrg.msc for administration. I first encountered this guy working hard on WikiProject Strategy Games, and he has always struck me as very helpful, very friendly, a great editor. As well as editing, he also does a great deal of vandal fighting and new page patrol, and has an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He would be great with the tools! G1ggy! Review me! 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: It gives me great pleasure to co-nominate Dfrg.msc for adminship. Dfrg.msc made his first edit in May 2006, since then he has been editing regularly and amassed over 10000 edits, including over 4000 mainspace edits. Dfrg.msc actively participates in WikiProjects, takes part in XFD discussions, deals with vandalism and makes accurate reports to AIV. Dfrg.msc has created many articles such as Rone, Psalm (street artist), Sixten (street artist), to name but a few. He has also uploaded many free and quality images, as can be seen here. Besides, his interactions with other editors have always been found to be very civil, which reveals himself as a friendly and responsible Wikipedian. I firmly believe that his position as a sysop will help keep Wikipedia in good shape. Thank you for your consideration. PeaceNT 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: A pleasure to co-nom Dfrg.msc for adminship. I have seen him everywhere, from WikiProjects to (especially) XfD discussions. I was almost shocked when I saw this nomination and realized that a well-rounded editor like Dfrg.msc was not an administrator yet. He has a clean record, has been very civil, and has made many mainspace and projectspace contributions. His ability to communicate with others, along with his good judgement and contributions will make him an excellent asset as an admin. Sr13 10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept the nominations. Dfrg.msc 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the time I have been a member of Wikipedia, I 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 chance to prove this.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I would be privileged to stand among them. Dfrg.msc 23:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I regularly do RCP and vandalism patrolling. WP:AIAV always seems to be backlogged, and I look forward to helping there. The use of the blocking function and being able to protect pages that are under chronic attack, would be of 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. Wikipedia backlog is an absolute mess, and sysop tools would help me to more effectively cut though it. 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. Dfrg.msc 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My edits are like my children, I can't pick one over the other; but if I had to play favorites... I have worked on 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, which I'm working to get featured. I've also worked extensively with images and created Image:Wikipedia Editor Review.png and Image:DFRAMA.png. Although I am proud of these particular edits, reverting sneaky vandalism or re-instating whole pages can be equally as fulfilling, and just as important for the project. Dfrg.msc 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Oh, yes. Wikipedia is full of conflict, and I've been caught up in it a few times. The more I have worked though, the less conflict I encountered. I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies. Aside from trouble when I was new, I was a member of the AMA and closed three cases. I have gained experience though adversity and I know how to deal with, and better, avoid conflict. I have, and will apply these skills where necessary. Dfrg.msc 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was also an incident with a Spider-Man outfit.....
4. Optional question from Zeibura: You say you wish to help out with the administrative backlogs, which ones in particular?
A: I do. I anticipate I'll be working in: Deletion review, Images on Wikimedia Commons, Images with no copyright tag and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. But work is work, and I think I've proven that I can work anywhere. I think I'll try it all :) Dfrg.msc 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. With regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry mob, do you stand by the comments you made? Do you think that article should still be around? Picaroon (Talk) 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: No, I don't. I'd like to say I knew as much then as I do now, but I can't. I was new and uninformed, and it shows. If participating again, I definitely would have voted for a Re-direct. It's all about co-operation and compromise. Regards, Dfrg.msc 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs):

6. How have you applied your message of co-operation and compromise, and how will you continue to apply them as a sysop? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I try to make it paramount in my actions, with deletion/keeping/support/oppose votes, article disputes, and content disputes. We all can't get what we want straight away, and it takes compromise to move forward. We may have disagreements with each other, but in the end, were all on the same side; the side trying to make Wikipedia better and better. It takes co-operation to build a truly great Wikipedia. I doubt that admin tools would change my outlook in these respects too much. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. As you were a former Esperanzian, how did the whole Esperanza affair affect your views and opinions toward Wikipedia? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was. The fall of Esperanza did effect me, it showed me that we should continually assess what we're doing, and why we're doing it. I was also still new, and it really introduced me to what Wikipedia is not. But most of all, Wikipedia is always changing, and nothing is at a constant, change with it, or be left behind. Fact is, Wikipedia is community, and you'll have to delete much more than Esperanza to stamp it out. I still love it here. Dfrg.msc 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Pomte

8. What does NRV mean, and how is someone supposed to figure this out at TfD?
That's NVR.
A: Hi Pomte, NRV is a term used mainly on Uncylcopedia; but I've seen it used elsewhere. It stands for No Redeeming Value. Finding out what it means? I'm happy to tell you, but whenever you see something and you don't know what it means, say, CSD G5. You just look it up. Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ais523

9. If you came across a relatively new user acting like you did when you were new, what would you do about it? --ais523 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
A: Fortunately, when I was new there were people to help me become what I am today, namely Improv and Tijuana Brass. They helped me and showed me what's right and wrong. They were patient, and understanding of my mistakes. They were firm and warned me when I went wrong. Most of all, the encouraged me, and acted justly, so I wanted to be like them. I resolved to be positive force because of them, and I know how important that guidance is. I have adopted, two users Culverin and Jamo, they both made the same mistakes as I did, as we all did. I have tried to help them like I was helped, I encouraged them to do the right thing. I tried to keep them in line, tell them where they were going wrong, I tried to keep them busy, and focused and to teach them as much as possible. In the future, I will try to act just as Improv and Tijuana Brass did, I strongly believe if you invest time and trust in someone, they can become a great editor. Regards, Dfrg.msc 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Ok, looking through the recent contributions I don't see much amiss. The whole pileon thing below makes me wonder how many admins would get opposed based on silly !votes in XfD's. I don't quite agree with the need to vote or say anything if every point has already been covered in a discussion, but its not harmful in the least. Really how many hoops do canidates need to jump through? This one here looks civil and is already a long term contributor (a full year). I really don't think Dfrg.msc is going to do anything rash with the mop regardless of silly votes. The mop is not supposed to be a big deal folks >.>. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a lot of opposes in this RfA have concerned the candidates action over 6 months (and up to a year) ago, I have raised the issue of "how long ago is too long ago?" here. G1ggy! Review me! 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly encourage everyone to evaluate Dfrg.msc's recent work, not a handful of seemingly immature edits from one year ago. Everyone was a newbie at one time, thus being uninformed and unfamiliar with Wikipedia. In any case, the candidate does improve as time passes by, said improvement can be found in the form of his contributions. Peacent 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including this, and the other bad reverting I noted below in my !vote, and the discourtesy and bad judgement displayed by directly criticising an oppose vote at another venue other than this RfA (where a response of a similar nature here would probably result in a lot of opposes, given previous patterns of RfA's where candidates have snapped back at opposers)? Daniel 07:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel, I beginning to question your motive for such tenacious opposition. If it is something personal I have done, please PM me about it. I am failing to see how two accidental reversions equates to a genuine concern for abuse of Admin tools. We all make mistakes, and it is unfair and unrealistic to expect flawlessness given the volume of edits I have made. My comment was in no way a "snap back at the opposer" and in no way was my reference to the edit a sign of disrespect, or a criticism. I was merely highlighting my personal frustration. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you shouldn't "question my motives" and assume good faith. Ever heard of trying to improve the encyclopedia by giving people all the information to allow them to make the educated choice to protect Wikipedia? Another interesting example I'd like to propose be considered is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist), from earlier this year. You said some strange stuff in this debate, like "Notability is POV", suggesting the debate be speedy closed (when, in all truth, there was no consensus to delete, let alone meeting WP:SK), the comment about being notable to you, accusing people of not having even read the articles, "If these articles are allowed for deletion, then these articles would also merit deletion" (the definition of WP:ILIKEIT), It seems that you are allowing your personal interest to determine what and who is notable (another assumption of bad faith), "you'll find they are more notable and better quality than a huge amount of articles currently on Wikipedia", "I disagree, it shouldn't be that way, the Australian cricket team does not list each of the players on the one page" (ILIKEIT again), etc. Daniel 10:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You assume bad faith in that you suggest the Wikipedia needs "protecting" from me. I refuse to continue to play your game of name-calling. Your negativity and bias reflects badly on both of us. The only further comments I will add are that the quotes from the AfD are taken out of context, and I would advise all those who want "to make the educated choice" read the debate in it's entirety. Regards, Dfrg.msc 05:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Pile on Support! as nominator. Good luck! G1ggy! Review me! 00:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support My pleasure. PeaceNT 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see anything wrong with this user becoming an admin. All the times I have seen him 'round Wikipedia are positive.. --DarkFalls talk 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.[reply]
  3. Support Saw him tonight on MFD, and his argument was rational and policy-based (though I may disagree with it). Has plenty of experience and no problems I know of. Just a curiosity: are you still a member of AMA if AMA is dead? I chuckle when I see users who still have Esperanza userboxes from two years ago. Anyway, time for me to go to sleep. YechielMan 07:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whoa. You sure you haven't been here before? – Chacor 07:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per trustworthy nominators, overall contributions, and my clichéd (but honest) surprise you are not (yet) an admin. Jmlk17 08:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. If he doesn't make admin, I'll climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. That's allowed, right? Right? Neil (►) 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC
  7. Support as co-nom. Sr13 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pile on Support You have earnt it Dfrg. Go for it. Pile it on boyz! Culverin? Talk 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies says it all for me. Good luck. Pedro |  Chat  10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - A Good user and more than capable ..--Cometstyles 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tarragon Support Never fails to make me laugh, which is good. Knows his way around, which is even better. Riana ⁂ 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support Well, Majorly's concerns seem to put me off but apart from that all I can see is godo contributions. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support – Without a doubt; I was sure he already was one. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support sometime in the past, I thought he was one as well. Whsitchy 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. But a more helpful link may be WP:AIV (it's shorter!) Abeg92contribs 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. A great user! The opposition does not convince me. --Mschel 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Neutral Support. Had slight concerns about the candidate's understanding of image copyright policy per fair use images removed from his userspace, and whether he would thus be qualified to work in CAT:DFUI, but as he's shown no particular interest in that backlog, my concerns aren't going to stop me from supporting. Fair use policy is, after all, fiendishly complicated, and stayed clear of by many. Best of luck.
    Changing to strong support in light of this debate and the candidate's response to Q9, which shows to me that he will be very effective at dealing with vandals. We do need more admins like this. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have known Dfrg on your average Wikipedian terms for some time and I see no reason he should not be granted the tools. --tennisman sign here! 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support (edit conflict) Not really impressed with oppose reasons, at least not enough to overturn my previous respect for the user. I love the irony that one of the opposes was a "pile-on," even though one of the reasons for opposing him in the first place was a "pile-on" vote. Rather funny.--Clyde (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as this candidate is sure to increase the life-span of Wikipedia by minimizing head movement and simplifying data access operations. His humour does not seem to indicate a propensity for abuse of the tools.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I've had a lot of contact with Dfrg. He's experienced, friendly, trustworthy and extremely communicative. He may say things that might sound a little bit unorthodox to some users, but it's just his peculiar sense of humor. :-) Húsönd 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Support user. I'm not really concerned by the opposes, except for the Rfa comment. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Dfrg is one of the most inspirational users I know on wikipedia. He is the one who introduced me to it and has since then helped me improve my language skills on wikipedia, the way I go about editing and the way I think about this great encyclopedia. He has helped me meet such users as Editor At Large, Daniel Bryant and Culverin. Wikipedia means a lot to Dfrg and I think he needs this opportunity to show you his full potential. He is a great Editor, Person (great personality, very funny!!!) and is a very respected person in the AMA. Nothing but support, Good Luck Dfrg.msc!! DrizztJamo 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - positives outweigh the issues outilned below.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support From what I have seen you have been a positive and overall really good editor. Mattl2001 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Hey bud. It's been a real long time since I talked to you. ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support there are better reasons to support than there are to oppose. —Anas talk? 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Among the reasons are his willingness to admit errors (Angry Mob) and move on. I see no reason to oppose. JodyB talk 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good user; I remember he helped me a few months ago, quite nice. By the way, I still have Image:BrickFlim.gif linked from my userpage. :) · AndonicO Talk 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. · AndonicO Talk 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support - Dfrg is the one of the best people on Wikipedia. Ryan Got something to say? 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support just like walnuts --Infrangible 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I have seen this user around and found nothing questionalbe in his contributions. Although I respect ais523's detective work, I think what a user does shortly after they arrive at Wikipedia is not always so relevant. When I ran for RfA, I mentioned that I had written many articles, which was true. What I didn't say was that right after I started, I had no idea what "encyclopedic tone" meant and that I had to rewrite many of the article I began or expanded. I'm not really ready to oppose on past behavior unless something tells me it is likely to resurface, and I don't see enough evidence to convince me of that. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, but no matter which way this RfA turns out, you won't don a Spiderman costume and climb the Reichstag... right? Resurgent insurgent 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support with all due respect to the opposers, I think the net effect of his promotion would be positive based on recent behaviour. Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I've thought kind of a lot about this. I have seen Dfrg.msc around and haven't noticed anything wrong. This edit nearly a year ago worries me a bit, but Pascal.Tesson is right: giving Dfrg.msc the tools would most likely have a positive net effect on the encyclopedia. WODUP 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Switch to neutral. WODUP 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support The problems listed happened quite a few months ago, so I will support. I am still concerned, however. Captain panda 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support, much per Captain Panda and Pascal.Tesson. —AldeBaer 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support—arf! 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support very friendly, a great editor.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Neutral per Majorly,Sorry.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. This user clearly deserves the position of admin due to his reliability, dedication and will to help newly starting editors. This user truely imbodies what Wikipedia is about and it would be a crim for him not to be accepted into a admin position. --Darkfox123 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Majorly. Yes, this reason is a joke ... kinda like opposing someone because they don't !vote the same way you do on an RFA. --BigDT 01:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Opposing per someone who feels it necessary to mention an edit count as a bad thing (only 332 edits), who then contradicts themselves calling the nomination "fine" makes me question this user's judgement. I also found this rather unneeded and aggressive. And this selection of TfD comments "Pile on" are inappropriate in my opinion. XfDs aren't a joke, nor is deleting. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – So, you're opposing his adminship based on one vote in an RfA with which you did not agree (any contradiction was on Gutworth's part, not his), twelve seemingly-glib votes in TfDs which were snowballing, and an honest question in response to a statement which seemed to him to be a total non sequitur (it seemed more bewildered than "aggressive" to me)? Just clarifying; it's your !vote and you can do what you want with it. I'm just trying to understand if there's a legitimate concern I should have among those that should prevent him from getting the sysop bit. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Actually the contradiction is on his part because by "per"ing the comment meant he agreed with it. Those TfD comments show trigger-happiness which I don't like the sound of, and finally I found his comment aggressive. He didn't understand, nor did he care to ask. "So is my dog" is rather incivil in my opinion. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too thought the "so is my dog" comment was inappropriate, but to be fair, you didn't exactly put your comment in context (I had to go through all the comments in that RfA to figure out why you said that), and you added a wink, so I assume he meant it in a lighter vein in response to a joke he didn't understand.- TwoOars 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply In response to your quires, a strong edit count strong reflects experience, and I had dialog with Hmwith afterwards. There was nothing wrong with the nomination, it was the candidate I was concerned with. I apologize for my comment, it was intended to be as a light question, and no aggression or incivility was meant. As for my actions on TfD, is not the object of the debate to build consensus? Merely, that is what I was doing, in hopes that an admin may clear them. If I had of though a delete vote was inappropriate for any of them, I would have voted keep. The deletion of a page is to be undertaken with the utmost seriousness, and if I have made you believe that this is not one of my core beliefs, I would ask you to understand me now. Regards, Dfrg.msc 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the "pile-on" comments that bothered me. It's supposed to be a sensible discussion, not a playground fight. Whether or not you wanted them deleted or not, you seemed to be a bit reckless. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates with (for example) no keeps and 2 deletes (plus the nom) are generally deleted; however, providing a confirmation to delete is helpful when determining consensus. Most TFD debates consist of one argument and several concurrings; in these cases, I believe that Dfrg.msc was providing such an agreement. GracenotesT § 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... it's the fact he said "Pile on!". No need for it. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just for clarification, you are opposing me on the basis that a Pile-on (the was no !, just for the record) edit in an AfD debate will result in abuse of admin tools and damage to Wikipedia? Dfrg.msc 06:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dfrg.msc, sorry for the slow response. What I believe is you might be too heavy handed with the delete button. You need to take care and consider things instead of piling on. I think you'll make a great admin one day – take a look at the concerns raised here and follow them, and you'll be an admin before you know it! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pile-on Oppose per Majorly's empirical reasoning. Matthew 12:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! You're the second oppose, and it's already pile-on? :) YechielMan 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I think we should continue this joke in the first support =P G1ggy! Review me! 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he's piling on my comment, so piling on the first support wouldn't work. The comment also refers to my diffs on Dfrg.msc "piling on" TfD votes. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Majorly, I was aware of that. I'd have thought that YechielMan's "LOL!" made it clear that he (and, I) saw the pile on oppose as a joke, and I was just continuing it. It's not a pile on in the sense that you refer to (the one used in TfD). G1ggy! Review me! 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Majorly. Sorry. --Guinnog 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Something felt wrong for me when this nomination came through, so I've looked through the early history of the candidate and tracked it down. In the early days of Dfrg's contributions, there was a lot of "weird talk page edits" [1]: see [2], for instance, which has both User:Carbine and User:Dfrg.msc vandalising a Talk page. This sort of behaviour lead to Dfrg.msc being suspected as a sock puppet of Carbine, but it fell through and the case was deleted (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dfrg.msc, for the admins here who can see deleted history; this is quite worrying). It seems to have been determined that the two users are separate but know each other in real life [3], but it still remains a lingering doubt. There was also a lot of misunderstanding of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET; Dfrg.msc is partially responsible for the whole WP:SPIDER thing (and apparently proud of it), but chose to spam it all over the place [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and probably others; this is a demonstration of the sort of attitude other users had towards Dfrg.msc back then. I'm glad to hear that Dfrg's contributions have improved since, but a start like this is still enough to make me nervous. (Some other worrying things I've found that don't really fit in: this post on Ceyockey's talk, User:Dfrg.msc/test_site (probably harmless but not what I'd expect to find in an admin's userspace), and the fact that many of the recent contribs are vandalfighting/pile-on TfDs; the TfD comments look in particular like an attempt to boost editcount stats rather than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia.) --ais523 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Reply I understand. Looking way back on these edits, I feel ashamed that I made them. I am not, nor was I ever, a sockpuppet of anyone, at anytime. The two people that turned me around are Tijuana Brass and Improv. Ask them, ask them about my actions since, and about my actions then. We all have edits that we made when we were new, that we wish we could hide from, that we are ashamed we have made. The fact it, we can't hide them, only accept them and move on. I have tried to prove myself against those reckless few months, to strive to be a force of good. We all change, and, to be ready for the responsibility that adminship brings, I have changed very much. This is reflected in the mainstay of my edits, and now, because we exist now, I feel I have worked hard and long enough to gain the trust of the Wikipedia community. It is good to look back, but it does not do to dwell on the past. I am insulted that any of my edits would be perceived as just an "attempt to boost editcount stats". As for the test site, I'd very much expect to find some an admin's userspace. I accept these edits, I did make them, but I hope they do not reflect on myself in the here and now. Regards, Dfrg.msc 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good answer to Q9, and the candidate seems to be more mature now than they were once. No vote from me now, and I'll leave the community to decide whether the points I've brought up are enough to sink the RfA. --ais523 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as the points made by ais523 are valid. Although those edits were a long long time ago and the user makes very valuable contributions now, I can not really trust him because these diffs were brought forward by ais523 and not the candidate himself. If Dfrg.msc had come clean (I don't see any mention of this past behaviour except the very vague "Aside from trouble when I was new" in his answer to Q3), it would have been an entirely different matter. And the fact that he was suspected to be a sockpuppet is a matter of serious concern, in light of the recent developments (regarding an admin and his sockpuppet army). Some sort of statement or clarification from Dfrg.msc is in order. - TwoOars 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Please refer to my response to ais523 above. Dfrg.msc 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to oppose because as stated above, my objection was not simply that you made those edits a long while ago. Even I got warned for vandalism when I started out and I will not hold your actions during your wiki-childhood against you. But I was disappointed that you yourself failed to mention these edits or the sockpuppet allegations before the opposers brought it up even if you insist they were patently false. I truly thought you were a really good candidate when I saw this RfA and the only reason I did not support you was because I thought you'd pass easily. But your responses on this RfA have convinced me that you are not ready yet. I do not know what is between Daniel and you but all I see in your responses is sarcasm for what are arguably legitimate objections. In my opinion, policy knowledge is not so important for adminship as handling conflict and criticism well. Then we wouldn't have all the bickering and admins trading insults. And your comments on the RfA Talk page regarding an oppose (before responding to it here), were inappropriate in my opinion. Besides, from those comments I get the impression that you lump all the opposes in to one category: those opposing because of your edits way back then. This is not true; there are many opposes based on your recent edits and your responses during this RfA. But I guess you'll be through in this RfA anyway, so I wish you all the best.:)- TwoOars 18:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your conviction. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per ais523. Candidate did not address past behavior, which rose above the level of typical newbie-confusion. Mophood can wait until these questions are addressed. Xoloz 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I beleive in this RfA Dfrg has addressed his past on numerous occasions. Culverin? Talk 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that ais523 has withdrawn their Oppose, do you still hold your oppose vote? Dfrg.msc 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. When I first saw this nomination, I thought "No way is this user running for adminship", but then I couldn't really remember why I'd think something like that. Having read what ais523 wrote, I remember. I was involved in the blocking of User:F 22, and the name User:Dfrg.msc stuck in my head from that incident. In addition to the concerns brought forward by ais523, I do not feel I can trust you as an administrator, as I remember having a lot of problems with these other users (or at least, not trust you yet). As such, I cannot support this RfA. --Deskana (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Please refer to my response to ais523 above. Dfrg.msc 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it before even writing this vote, but I'm afraid the vote still stands. At present, I cannot support you. This does not mean I will not in the future. --Deskana (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that ais523 has withdrawn their Oppose, do you still hold your oppose vote? Dfrg.msc 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I had the same initial feeling as Deskana (see the neutral section, below), for the exact same reasons as ais523 and Deskana. Futher, this (only yesterday) is confusing - how was that 'vandalism', which is the only reason to use an automated reverter (with an autosummary)? Daniel 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Well, spotted, I apologize for the mistake. However, I must ask Daniel, why did you not rectify the problem upon finding it? We all slip up from time to time, even though our intentions are true. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Concerned by the issues Majorly and ais523 raised. Also by the automated reversion, and the confrontational attitude of the user who says "why did you not rectify the problem upon finding it?" when answering a concern about their actions (even though they apologised for the mistake). TigerShark 10:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: This edit was made to the initial comment after TigerShark's oppose. I have no opinion on either the initial comment or the edit, but felt that this should be noted. Daniel 12:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I am not know for having a confrontational attitude, I both know and respect Daniel, and perhaps my statement has been interpreted wrongly. I have since edited my statement, for more clarity, and to make the meaning of my statement to Daniel clearer and less open to negative interpretation. The last thing I would do is provoke conflict with another editor doing his bit to build consensus. I aplogize for any due confusion, for now on I will make my correspondence crystal clear. Regards, Dfrg.msc 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that ais523 has withdrawn their Oppose, do you still hold your oppose vote? Dfrg.msc 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm a bit concerned about Dfrg.msc's interaction with other users, particularly with regards to "piling on" and his discourse with Daniel during this RfA. As someone who I can envision reverting a lot of vandalism and blocking other users, one needs to possess a certain degree of affability, especially when dealing with new volunteers gaillimhConas tá tú? 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hi Gaillimh, just to clarify, is this an oppose or a comment? You have made it in the oppose section, but your edit summary says "comment". Regards, Dfrg.msc 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! The above is a comment objecting to your candidacy, so sure, it's an "oppose" I guess, if we're categorising these things. Apologies for the confusion and also for my objecting. Nothing personal, of course, I just feel that you could do with a bit more seasoning, so to speak gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. No problem. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Based on the commentary above, does not instill the trust and confidence I would hope for in an administrator. RFerreira 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, both because of ais523's comments and because of Dfrg.msc's own reactions above.HeartofaDog 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that ais523 has withdrawn their Oppose, do you still hold your oppose vote? Dfrg.msc 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look at it again, to be fair, but I've got to say that that was not the only reason I opposed - this sort of thing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist) - which ISN'T ancient history) concerns me a bit: it makes me wonder if you've got enough detachment to keep on an even keel as an admin. But I will think through again. HeartofaDog 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What is wrong with you people! Sure Dfrg went off the rails when he was a newbie but since then he has achieved and done so much to make wikipedia a better place. Instead of looking to the past, lets look to the present and future of Dfrg. Its not a matter of what he did then (over a year ago) but what he has done now and into the future. Look at his edits! 1000's of valuable contribution to better this place. He has clairly redeemed himself for his poor decisions and this just goes to show the level of wiki-dedication from this user to come from then to a great and highly respectabe editor that he is today. I beleive that he deserves full credit for his hard work and he desereves the right to become an administartor on wikipedia. So please dont look at this editors past but look at the good he has done today. Thats my 2 cents, Cheers. Culverin? Talk 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thought this name rung a bell as I was glancing down the list just now, and then I remembered why: [9]. Amusing though that was at the time, I don't think it was intended to be so, and either way it indicates a worrisome lack of maturity. --RobthTalk 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this candidate has attacked the eligability of this comment/!vote, on another page, without actually addressing the person who made it, is extremely bad courtesy and doesn't display good judgement at all. It is very similar to when people start a discussion about you on AN/ANI/other noticeboards, and even more because an RfA candidate during the one-week period is generally expected to show the utmost courtesy and respect for all opinions to their RfA, especially oppose. Daniel 07:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did make a comment in the context that being opposed for a minor edit from a long time ago is a personally frustrating experience. I'm not sure as to how this can be considered an "attack on eligability" (it's eligibility by the way). In no way was my reference to the edit a sign of disrespect, I was merely highlighting my frustration and illustrating my point. Thank you Daniel for your continued interest in my RfA. Regards, Dfrg.msc 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to express your frustration at something someone said, it's generally best to address that person, or at least tell them that a discussion is occuring about something they said. It's general courtesy. I have informed Robth about your expressions of frustration about him, however I'm interested to note that there's no apology or clarification about why you said such a vile thing not too long ago. Daniel 10:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose -- I'm not confident to promote this editor. Happy to reconsider in the future but for now I must oppose, mostly due to the concerns raised above and from my own observations. - Longhair\talk 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per answer to Q8. You would be asked many questions if you were to become an admin. I don't want an admin who will tell the user that they should have looked it up. --After Midnight 0001 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have misinterpreted the question. I have not and never will answer, with "you should have looked it up". The answer was that "I'm happy to tell you (what it means)". I then went on to mention other ways of finding out the answer, to answer the origainal question more completely, by stating: "Whenever you see something and you don't know what it means, say, CSD G5. You just look it up." Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Should one illthought comment really cause so much trouble here? I am sure all of you here at one stage in life have said something that was inappriote at the time. We can all accept mistakes happen sometimes so why should one comment sour this RFA? Culverin? Talk 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Majorly and Ais. BH (Talk) 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that ais523 has withdrawn their Oppose, do you still hold your oppose vote? Dfrg.msc 06:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per my own observations, and those of others highlighted above, I feel this candidate is just too inconsistent at present. I may feel inclined to support further down the track.--cj | talk 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Majorly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Majorly's and Robth's diffs, combined with the combative attitude of dfrg.msc on this RFA (I don't mind pressing for a fuller answer when desirable, but you've questioned more than half of the oppose voters) leads me to oppose. Ral315 » 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I'm sorry, but I have to question this. I respect your oppose per the diffs, but why is it that I cannot ask questions? They allow me to better learn from my mistakes, and provide a broader view to everyone. Regrads, Dfrg.msc 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I don't mind questions (and my comment, for example, is a perfect one to ask for explanation about). The specific rebuttals I take issue with are:
    • Majorly's comment (as written, it sounds like you're saying "just for clarification, your reason for opposing me is stupid?")
    • Deskana's comment (where, Deskana explained that he saw your comment to ais523, and had in his original comment only mentioned ais523 as the vote which jogged his memory as to who you are, you petitioned him to change his vote because ais523 did)
    • Daniel's comment (which you've already said was misinterpreted, and I accept, but the comment, even as explained, still seems like you're putting the blame on him for bringing forth something you did wrong)
    • Daniel's response under Robth's comment (pointing out one's spelling inaccuracy in an area where it's highly irrelevant strikes me as an absolutely annoying behavior; if it were a consistent habit within mainspace edits, that's one thing, but everyone makes typos once in a while.
    And, like I said above, feel free to rebut any of my points; just make sure they're on-point, and not combative. Ral315 » 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ral315, for taking the time. I'm not going to change my edits, but learn from the examples. Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. There are just too many diffs that I see mentioned by Daniel, Majorly, and others that to me show that you are not ready for any extra buttons. This is barely a month-and-a-half ago and shows you need to mature some more.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on this RfA nor I'm voting on it, but the diff you provided was an accidental revert made by the candidate and just about anyone could make a careless mistake like this, just to let you know. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, doesn't seem to be ready yet. Also per answer to Q8 (the answer is not at NRV; where should we look up your terminology?) Kusma (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I have seen enough of this candidate's overly hostile & defensive attitude toward naysayers to say that I do not approve of him. TML 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not my intention. Regards, Dfrg.msc 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose sorry. Per Majorly, ais523, and the continual trolling of the opposers at this forum. Martinp23 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose In general I do prefer not to "oppose" unless I feel strongly. Here it seems to me enough valid points have been raised and by people who's views I consider worth looking at for me to do so - sorry --Herby talk thyme 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per the diffs raised by others and the general attitude the candidate has displayed during this RfA. Cheers, Lanky TALK 17:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose because of hasty edits/reversions such as this which seem to occur a little too often. Dfrg says himself as recently as late April that he needs to learn to revert more carefully. I think a bit more time needs to pass to see whether the learning has taken root. (NB: I'm not accusing Dfrg of anything I haven't done myself! I'm lousy at holding off my trigger finger!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - I recall my interactions with this user a year or so ago - to remind myself have a look at this version of his talk page in July last year [10]. Just mucking around perhaps but not usefully contributing and in fact creating quite a lot of work, spamming people's pages, uploading images that didn't comply, being obstructive ... I don't yet trust this user. I understand people grow up but maybe a year was a little short. I prefer my fellow admins to be reasonably mature--Golden Wattle talk 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, witholding any stance for the moment. As far as I can see you're a good user, but I'm slightly concerned about the link to Wikipedia:Ye olde Badd Giokes and Other Deleetid Nonsense on your user page. Your user page suggests to me that you wrote this, and the deletion log tells us it was deleted under CSD G12 yesterday, so a bit of a worry. I may change my mind if you clarify what happened here. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate did not create the page, but made a total of three edits to it, out of 352 made to the page. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so was this page just a past BJAODN collection? Sorry, that thought only just occured to me because I just saw the MfD. Okay, yep, it was. Now just waiting for answer to Q4. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral (leaning oppose) per Majorly's concerns. Although I'm unconcerned with the XfD comments, I'm a little more worried by the RfA comments provided as diffs by Majorly above. Although "so is my dog" isn't inherently uncivil wording, I think that RfA (since it involves judging a human being) needs to be taken more seriously than other processes on Wikipedia, and comments of that sort should be avoided. Further, I think this candidate's recent RfA votes have showed poor judgments. That isn't enough on its own to merit an oppose, but draws a Neutral from me. WaltonAssistance! 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Dfrg.msc's dedication to the project is to be admired, and I see no qualms in that area, there is a lingering thought in mymind about something, so I'll have to check back through your contributions. Although I agree with the above opposers about their points, I disagree that they are worthy of an oppose, but rather a neutral. This !vote is pending further investigation, but as it stands, it's a neutral per above. Daniel 10:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Questionable past behavior. --Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
    I believe that past behavior is very past behavior, and I ask only that you look at my recent contributions. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per this. I'm also not too impressed with the amount of messages on your talk page from bots about image tagging, non-free images, etc. Your test site concerns me a little bit, not something I would expect from an administrator. Other than that you are great editor. Just not this time, I'm afraid. –Sebi ~ 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, what would change between now and next time? Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry mate, but Daniel and Majorly gives some worrying concerns with their comments. I'll be glad to support in a few month's time though, after the concerns are reached. --Dark Falls talk 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Can somebody tell me what the differance is if he becomes an admin on or in a few months? I dont see how a fews months will change anything, so why not support him now? Culverin? Talk 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does make a difference. In a few months time, dfrg.msc will have much more experience than he has now, and there will be a noticeable difference in quality of edits, when he gains such experience. --Dark Falls talk 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral On the one hand, my interactions with them have been generally positive, but on the other I see some things that suggest they may be tempermentally unsuited and would accidentally escalate a situation through a careless comment. Long-ago vandalism and silliness doesn't bother me as they clearly seem to have reformed, but in very recent comments I see a flippancy that could cause problems in the future. —dgiestc 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changed from support to neutral, per the issues raised by the opposers. · AndonicO Talk 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral from support. A few nagging diffs and some recent developments make me less sure. WODUP 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Changed from support to neutral, per the issues raised by the opposers and the uncivil comment.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:53, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dfrg.msc&oldid=136540265"