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

D.M.N.[edit]

(7/20/12) (Final) -- Withdrawn by candidate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.M.N. (talk · contribs) - Note: This is my fourth attempt at RFA, two of which were under my former username, Davnel03 (talk · contribs). I changed usernames to D.M.N. at the end of November. A short time after the Davnel03 account was created and used for vandalism by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1, and as a result my former account was blocked indefinitely as a compromised account. Please note the edits around the 15th December on the Davnel03 account were not made by me.

I've been on Wikipedia since October 2006, at first editing under an IP, before registering under the "Davnel03" account in late November. I had a bad first few months on Wikipedia, uploading copyright violations and regretably creating sockpuppet accounts. I was blocked indefinitely in April 2007 per WP:LEGAL for legally threatening Yamla (talk · contribs). I retracted my legal threat a few months later, and was given a second chance. I have since become involved with WP:F1, WP:PW and WP:FOOTBALL, and have got a good knowledge of current Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I also, for a short period of time was admin coached by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) who helped be get further knowledge of the guidelines and policies. I tend to get into discussions at WP:ANI and WP:AN and try to help out in difficult situations which arise from time to time. Many opposers at my last RFA seven months ago to renominate in "a few months". I feel now the time is right to have another shot at becoming an administrator. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination immediately - D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous links for clarity:

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: I intend to continue to help out at WP:ANI and WP:AN to assist users where neccessary and to help with ongoing discussions. I hope to keep an eye at WP:UAA, WP:AIV and WP:SSP to help keep backlogs low as sometimes the backlogs do get high and also to block users where necessary. I will however, never use blocks to "cool people down" as Cool Down Blocks should never be used per WP:CDB. I also hope to close deletion debates at WP:AFD/WP:CFD if there is a firm consensus to Keep or Delete articles/categories.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are with both WP:F1 and WP:PW. My main contribution for me was getting December to Dismember (2006) to FA-status, which is one of only a few Featured articles for WP:PW. I've also got many articles to GA-status, including In Your House 1 and One Night Stand (2005). As well as my work with WP:PW, I've done work with WP:F1, such as getting both the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article and the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix articles to GA-status. I also try and help articles avoid speedy-deletion, such as these improvements I made to the Nicolas Todt article to help it avoid Speedy deletion.
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've been in conflicts with several users in the past. My first was with Yamla, which I have outlined above. I accept full responsiblity for my wrongdoing on that occasions, which violated one of Wikipedia's main policies WP:LEGAL. I retracted my legal threat a year ago, and I was immediately unblocked. My second conflict was with Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs). After filing evidence against Cowboycaleb1 to WP:SSP, he was indefinitely blocked. He has since launched sockpuppet accounts against me, as well as personally attacking me via IP addresses. If any users do cause me harm in the future, I will try and speak to them via their talkpage, and if they respond in a uncivil manner, I will ask for opinions from the wider community by starting an ANI post against them.
Optional question from xenocidic
4. A vandalism-only account you blocked indefinitely requests unblocking stating they wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do you do?
A: I would give them a ((Second chance)), requesting that they develop a good, sourced article on their talkpage. Once done, I would unblock the user on the condition that if the vandalise again they will be blocked indefinitely again. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from -- iMatthew T.C.
5. How would you classify a subject as "non-notable"?
A: For each particular WikiProject it depends, as each project sets standards for which a subject is notable, for instance WP:FOOTBALL have a notability guide to tell users what is considered notable and not notable. For me, I'd have to perform Google searches to see if any independent, secondary reliable sources exist for the subject. If it's determined that the subject is not-notable for inclusion into Wikipedia, I would either prod the article, or AFD it. However, if it clearly matches one of the WP:CSD criteria, for instance WP:CSD#G1, I would proceed to speedy-delete the article. If the author, at a later date which to have the article undeleted and moved into his userpage, I will not hesistate to let that happen.
6. Explain the difference between a block and a ban. When should either be issued?
A: A block is temporary and can expire at a set duration. A indefinite block means that the block as such can be open for review at a later date. A block is mostly short-term, but depending on the severity it can be short term, for instance vandalism may only require a one-week block, but sockpuppetry would require an indefinite block. A ban is where the user is banned from editing Wikipedia and is not allowed to edit it, again either for a short-time (two months) or a longer term (one year). This is normally done through community consensus at ANI, or at WP:ARBCOM. A ban should be issued if a user has long-term abused Wikipedia with constant violations of 3RR, edit-warring, image uploads under the wrong license, and creating sockpuppetry account.
7. What is one word that can sum up your experience on Wikipedia?
A.
Optional questions from User:Filll
8. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. I think as a whole, users should encourage calmer enviornments. As a whole, I think if discussions begin to get heated, I think users at the center of the discussion in question should step back and revist the situation as a whole to see if a consensus has formed about the matter in hand. It may also be worth summarizing the key points if discussions get to long or heated. If discussions get heated, sometimes the main point gets lost, hence it would be a good idea to bring it all together with main points summarized. I don't think polls are necessary, as someone may critize another person's oppose leading to another debate/argument. I would be keen instead of polling (after all we don't vote), to instead discussion each of the individual points raised to move on from there. As stated earlier, if discussions do get heated, blocks should never be used as this can only further heat the situation and cause further drama. Of course if personal attacks are being thrown around then that particular user will need to be reminded (not templated) to avoid personally attacking others.
9. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

    Discussion[edit]

    You might want to tweak your opening sentence as that isn't made clear in the opening. Spell it out so that people can see/understand it clearly. it looked as if somebody got access to your old account, not that somebody deliberately created an account with your old name.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Not sure how it could of caused confusion though... D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A seperate thing I've just noticed. Quote from above: If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/D.M.N. before commenting. - a lot of people that are opposing are failing to do that, they are not looking through the contributions from July 2007 to July 2008, they are only taking the bad things into contribution before that, the sockpuppets etc. I think everyone deserves a fair RFA, and this quite frankly is not balanced right. I was told a few months back (December 2007) to wait a few months. I did, and now people are saying they can't trust me. Will any of the opposition ever trust me? The gauge I'm getting is that I will never be trusted on Wikipedia, and that most users will always be looking to see if they can catch me out or if I step in the wrong direction. People should not be basing the opposes on the past, but the recent things that have happened. D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DMN, who are you to tell people the criteria they "should" be using with which to vote in an RfA? Some said not ever, yes, but others said December of 2007 for all of that stuff having gone on is simply much too recent to support for adminship. You don't have to agree with that, but it's not up to you that "people should not be basing the opposes on the past". In fact, what happened in the past is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Furthermore, this RfA is becoming a back-and-forth battleground and I'd reccommend you withdraw at this time. I don't see the current discussions becoming much more productive. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support[edit]
    1. Excellent assistance at SSP, good calls at AIV. Other work is delightful. Rudget (logs) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Great Contributor & very helpfull1362talk 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. He knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. I've known D.M.N. since I started out on Wikipedia, a year ago (next Thursday). Ever since I've known him, he has been nothing but kind and helpful. He has helped me though some rough times and is always on my watchlist editing constructively. I believe D.M.N. really deserves to be an admin, and will NOT abuse his powers...I can guarantee you that. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Support - Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      ?America69 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've rolled back the refactoring someone did to the above comment and in doing so, the commentary that followed. It's clearly just a question mark, perhaps questioning the strange vote rationale by WBOSITG. –xenocidic (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, to clarify my vote (considering it's caused such a fuss), I know DMN from many places on wiki and he has come across civil, helpful and mature. Just from my experience. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Support because he has shown maturity in being able to handle himself in situations as of late. In regards to his talk page, theres the possibility that he was unaware that that would be counted against him. He seems to know what not to do having been there and this shows that since he hasn't made those mistakes again, he is fit for the job. Regarding his vandalism, he has shown in the time since then that he is a mature editor in that he has distanced himself from his misdeeds by doing good things. He does not seem the type to abuse his powers and this shows in how his statement was stated above. All in all, he will make a good administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. At least moral support in that editors can habe been indeffed previously, but made successful and productive returns. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose[edit]
    1. Strong oppose. User, as previously known as Davnel03, has a well documented Wikipedia history including vandalism, legal threats, impersonation of administrators, block evasion, sockpuppeteering and insulting of the mentally ill. However well the user may be appearing to come across now, I can't be certain that this will never happen again. Furthermore, the abuse happened over a long period of time, suggesting that it wasn't merely a moment of madness. I am quite willing to let the user improve the encyclopedia but there is no way I could trust them with the admin tools. Readro (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      All of that was well over a year ago. And the abuse I wouldn't say happened over a long period (depending on what you class as a long period), from about April to June of 2007. Again, I apologise for that what happened last year. D.M.N. (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It might have been a year ago, but it still happened. April? The abuse started in November 2006 and continued until June 2007. This is at least six months of abuse, half of a year, which in my eyes is a long time. I can't trust you with the admin tools. Readro (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose. Your interactions and hastily cleaned up talk page show that the concerns from your last 3 rfa's have not been fully rectified.(Side note: I am sick of having to vote oppose on the Rfa's I vote on, because the ones I support have already snowballed while the ones I oppose have little feeback, sigh).--Finalnight (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I see some extremely immature behavior. Yes, from more than a year ago, but I don't care. I don't believe for a second that people really change that quickly. Friday (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. With the history, it would take a very long time for me to support. --Kbdank71 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Oppose - Reluctant given the history - sorry. An indefinite block is an eye-opener for me. Always will be. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Oppose per Readro and Wisdom89. LittleMountain5 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Strong Oppose To many issues with other accounts, and the leagal threats scare me. And for once, per Kurt. One last comment - immpersonating an admin is not right. I have a lack of trust of this user. America69 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I've never immpersonated an admin. D.M.N. (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes you have. Here. One of your sockpuppets. Readro (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly really cannot remember that, but obviously I did. That was December 2006, 19 months ago. D.M.N. (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Your trying to talk your way out of issues by saying they were months ago worries me even more. I'd expect a different attitude from someone who had genuinely changed. Readro (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I couldn't remember that particular edit, I'm not going to remember one edit from December 2006 compared to the other 12,000+ edits I've made to Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You've missed the point entirely. Readro (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Gotta say no here. Extremely worrying concerns. GlassCobra 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Strong Oppose per legal, Kurt and Friday. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Oppose Sure, you're a great editor, but your contributions to WP:ANI tell me you'd be a terrible admin.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Strong oppose: No way. I, like Friday, feel that people do not change that fast and to be honest the idef block was only issued December of last year, not long enough for me. If there is a candidate for potential abuse its you. Tiptoety talk 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You've misunderstood. Please see my first response to Euryalus (talk · contribs) in the "Neutral" section. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Oppose for the first time, per Kurt. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Oppose - I think it requires more than a year of good editing to make up for six months of blatantly disruptive editing, sockpuppets, copyright violations, and a legal threat to top it all off. No for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, regrettably. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Oppose, a good content-writer but many of his interactions with other editors leave me puzzled. For example, this threat to file a WikiQuette alert and an ANI post because an FAC reviewer didn't answer his request for copy-editing. --Laser brain (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Oppose: Sockpuppeting, impersonating an admin, and legal threats. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Strong oppose. I normally wouldn't pile on here, but there are some seriously disturbing diffs, as well as an indef block here. There's just no way I can trust that you would not misuse the tools. S. Dean Jameson 09:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I take it most of the above would never trust me with the tools. D.M.N. (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Strong Oppose Your long history of acting inappropriately deeply bothers me. My first major issue with you is your history of sockpuppetry. You admit to making socks, and that makes me seriously doubt you're telling the truth about User:Davnel03 being compromised. I believe there's a good chance you vandalized some articles using the Davne account. The second issue I have is that you were indef blocked for legally threatening Yamla. If you were an admin at that time I fear you would of blocked Yamla, which would be abusing the tools. If you were willing cause a fairly major problem for a person by taking legal action against them, then I don't believe you would have a problem with blocking them, which would just be a minor problem. I'm not saying you would block someone in a situation like that, but I do believe there's a chance you would. Also this recent threat indicates you haven't had a big enough change of heart. I'm sorry for being a bit harsh. I do recognize you've done good for the project as well, and I do hope you continue to constructively edit wikipedia. I just don't trust you with the tools.--SJP Chat 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The Davnel03 account in December was not mine, please see this. I cannot believe I'm being accused to actions by a blocked sockpuppet who has been harrasing me for months. Why do you think the Davnel03 userpage and user talk pages are protected? Also see this and this. D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all I didn't say I'm 100% sure you made those edits, and the account wasn't compromised. I just believe there's a fair chance you're not telling the truth. This skepticism is based on my own experiences. Well over a year ago I created a wiki(it's now defunct). One of the people who helped me was ForestH2, who is a banned sockpuppeteer here. He told me that he only made one sock, which he used within the confines of policy, and all the others were made by someone else. For a long while he edited my old wiki constructively, and then he created many socks with which he vandalized. This experience makes me doubt you're telling the truth. I have a question. At the time Davnel03 was infef blocked were you open about having sockpuppets?--SJP Chat 10:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      When I was indefinitely blocked from April to July last year, yes. But in December, that account was not under my control. You can even request a checkuser if you don't believe me. D.M.N. (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you weren't open about it - remember our conversationswhere you strenuously denied that you were Davnel03 only for you to finally admit it on my talkpage and start begging when you realised you might be blocked. Readro (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I remember this. I admitted it straight away. The only account I had no connection too was Lendev who was an obvious troll. I have no relation to that user, same goes for Davnel03 in December. If you don't believe me, request checkuser. D.M.N. (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can't remember then I will provide the evidence when I get home as I don't have a record of it here. However, it's not related to the Landev account, who I also believe was one of your sockpuppets by the way. Here's a thought - if you're not Landev then request a checkuser yourself to exonerate you. Readro (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I never used that account. Anyway, I've left a comment at Alison's talkpage. I haven't left a comment at WP:RFCU as it would be rejected as it is way too old. Again, I firmly know I did not have any connection with that account. It's edits were full of vandalism to the article space. D.M.N. (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Good, I'm glad you have asked someone about it. I am more than happy to apologise to you if it turns out that you had nothing to do with it, but until then you must understand the reasons for my doubts. Readro (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DMN, I wasn't asking if you were open about it when you were blocked for making legal threats. I was asking if you were open about it in December. As for filing a checkuser request, I don't really want to do that. It would cause unneeded drama, which wouldn't really be a good thing. Also, even if the account really was compromised, I wouldn't change my position.--SJP Chat 10:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Besides, I never had any sockpuppets in December, I had them from April to June (when the Davnel03 accoutn was blocked indefinitely for legal threats). D.M.N. (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If the user doesn't remember then I can provide evidence of pre-April sockpuppets later today. Readro (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do. I'm pretty sure I never had any sockpuppets pre-April. IP's don't count, I know I used IP's with my main account for some time. D.M.N. (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't suddenly include a caveat that IPs don't count! You did use IPs, I remember that much, some of which were for vandalism. At the time you really should have declared that you were also using IPs for editing - that's a little bit naughty I think. Readro (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      [1] That's the only IP I've used (the edits on February 6th + 19th were not from me). D.M.N. (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been looking through the edits and this may well be the sockpuppet I have recorded. Considering you were editing as Davnel03 at the time, I had this down as a sockpuppet. Given that you didn't declare on your main page that you were also editing with this IP and received blocks with this account that did not affect Davnel03, I think that my sockpuppet claim stands. [2]. Readro (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on your comments, can I guess that you think I should never be an administrator? D.M.N. (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      What I personally believe is irrelevant, it is for the community to form a consensus on your RfA. I am merely providing facts to allow people to reach an informed decision. Readro (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I know that, but even if I came to RFA again in six months say the end of the year, you'd be straight away posting "Strong oppose" again, which would probably lead to a long-string of opposes. D.M.N. (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly, I can't foresee what my opinion will be at that point in time, but it's hardly my fault that people are opposing you. You alone did the damage, not me. You are now seeing that actions have consequences and I hope that you can learn from this. Readro (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying:-) I now have a much easier time believing your story, and I'll cross out part of my statement for now. If Readro proves you're lying now then I'll unstrike it, but for now that part of my statement is invalid. However, I still have a huge problem with you creating sockpuppets to avoid an indef block, and legally threatening someone. Those are two huge issues for me, and I'm still very uncomfortable with you becoming an admin. I probably won't be against you becoming an admin forever though. I understand you're a human, and humans make mistakes. I myself was blocked in March of 2007 for breaking 3RR, so I would be somewhat hypocritical to hold this against you for life.--SJP Chat 10:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Oppose - I hate doing this, really hate this, because I have met D.M.N through WP:F1 and have interacted with him a number of times. He also gave me my first barnstar. D.M.N comes across as a nice person, and I have enjoyed working with him, most of the time. That is what makes opposing this so hard, and awful, but I have got to do this properly. :'( You see, D.M.N has had a past of rash decisions and behaviour to others which isn't quite what is expected of an administrator. D.M.N didn't mention the fact (as Davnel03) he was involved in a brawl that caused Pyrope to (temporarily) retire from Wikipedia, and the Formula One Wikiproject for which he had worked so hard. See this and this This saddened the whole WP:F1 community. D.M.N has also "retired" from Wikipedia at least twice due to certain goings on, and I doubt this all translates well into becoming an administrator. D.M.N, I'm so sorry at having to do this, because I know you well, but I hope you understand that I have to do my job here right. Sorry, and best wishes, Lradrama 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't call it a "brawl" between me and Pyrope, he proceeded to retire as he was unhappy at the fact that I was unblocked. D.M.N. (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, he didn't like working with you, and your behaviour, whether it was a brawl or not. Listen, I'm sorry mate, I've said all I can say. On Wikipedia, you've got to follow your head, not your heart, in situations like this. Lradrama 11:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Oppose - to clear up misconceptions. When I first met DMN, I had no idea of his problematic past. I wasn't going to support this RfA and it initially had ZERO to do with what happened in 2007. I worked with him a bit on copyediting an article and was quite impressed with his editing skills. A couple of weeks ago, he told me he was considering a run for adminship, then later he got upset with an issue with Tony1 at ANI, he retired, then semi-retired (I think), then unretired, all within the course of maybe an hour or two. What concerns me most about that situations is that it caused a bunch of problems for him in terms of how he was interacting with other editors and how he was making use of ANI. I honestly believed that he learned something from it. However, just a few weeks later, he was right back at ANI with a frivolous, drama-filled post at ANI regarding a similar issue with Tony1. I was confused with this gross misjudgement, seemingly making an obvious mistake twice. Finally, the very fact that he thought this was the time to come to RfA bothered me. I had my eye on him as a potential candidate, but maybe 6 months to a year down the road after he deals with some of these drama-filled issues. DMN deciding to come to RfA despite such recent issues shows me a certain anxiety to get the tools that I am uncomfortable with. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral[edit]
    1. Neutral for the moment. The first place I always look is User:Talk. Your user talk starts with a very unwelcoming and glaring "WILL BE MOVED IMMEDIATELY" message, in bright red. Ironically, the next box is the Jimmy-diff about "we should all be nice and work together." I'm also remembering an ANI thingie, but it's slipping my mind ATM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've removed that bar.... the way it sounds saying it to myself it sounds probably like it's trying to make a point. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Neutral A good editor, but should try not to inflame situations such as this. Epbr123 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ugh. That wasn't the ANI post I was thinking of, but that makes two...I just wish I could remember the other one (I suppose its good that I can't, maybe it wasn't such a big deal). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Neutral - Per your own introduction and the opposes already mentioned. Sorry. You seem like the type of person that might go on a vandalism spree when you get bored of wikipedia and decide you no longer care. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Neutral but will probably support before this gets to SNOW, my personal impressions of DMN have always been positive and I thought he was an admin already. Issues from 1.5 years ago, are non-issues in my book... but I will have to investigate further before actually offering support. Consider this moral support at this time with encouragement to others to investigate before opposing.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Neutral pending the answer of my question, but leaning towards oppose at the moment. You don't start an ANI post "against" someone you start an AN/I post about an incident. –xenocidic (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Neutral- Some good contributions to mainspace, but apparent power hunger, some immature behaviour, an indef block and occasional incivility make me hesitant to support.Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Neutral. (Posting here to stay out of the pile-on in the oppose section.) Dude, you're not ready. Give yourself six months to a year before doing this again. — Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Neutral - on the positive side your mainspace contribution has been excellent, your Wikispace work shows a knowledge of policy and you've worked collaboratively with a range of users on some pretty good articles. On the negative the most recent indef block was in December last year, and the sockpuppetry and legal threat were pretty bad. Everyone makes mistakes, and full marks for sticking around to make up for yours. To shift this to support or oppose, could I ask why you need the admin tools to continue your work, compared to those available to a regular editor? Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarify: I did not have an indefinite block last December. I switched from the account Davnel03 to D.M.N. in late November after requesting a username change through CHU. A few weeks later, a sockpuppet who's been harrasing me for a while Cowboycaleb1 created an account under the Davnel03 moniker last December. Please see this for further information. In other words, the Davnel03 account from the end of November on wards has nothing to do with me. D.M.N. (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. Happy to take your word for it, and I've struck the phrase above. I'd be interested in your comment on the question about use of admin tools - its kind of an expansion on the standard question 1 above. Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a case of without admin tools, I can't do nothing on Wikipedia, because that's plain wrong. Wikipedia is not all about being an administrator, that's not what I strive to be. I want to help out round here, and I come across backlogs every day, for instance at WP:RFPP or WP:AFD. I feel that I would be able to help out in those areas to help clear backlogs where requested, by deleting articles if consensus is to delete. I would also be able to block vandalism accounts for a short period of time if I had the tools to do it. I would also have the ability to protect pages, however, I would never protect pages to gain an editing advantage over users that do not have administrative tools as that could result in drama and the taking away of the tools. If you want further advances on any part of the above, feel free to leave a question above. D.M.N. (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Neutral I believe the candidate should get some more positive contributions online (if only to further distance himself from previous errors in judgment) and reapply by year's end. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Neutral So much mud being flung around I just can't support. Fattyjwoods Push my button 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Can't support unfortunately but also don't want to pile onto the oppose section so I'll stay down here in neutral. I think you've made good progress over the last year and I hope you will continue to grow as a 'pedian but I do think this RfA is premature. Sarah 03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Sorry, not enough to positively support at this time, questions still remain about how you will use the tools. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2008 (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