Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DAFMM


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

DAFMM
Final: (1/7/0); prematurely closed by PeterSymonds on 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) per WP:SNOW.

Nomination
– I joined Wikipedia faithfully on 19th September 2008. Since then I have thoroughly and passionatley enjoyed my editing here. I have created articles on Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars and have just recently tidied up a page a Oleron. I am a expierenced editor in 14 Wikimania sites and contribute to 18 Wikiprojects. Since my joining I have made over 3,180 edits accross these sites. Please leave any questions for me on this talk page. Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept my nomination. Thanks. DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.

Questions for the candidate
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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I wish to help new users out on Wikipedia and to provide support for users who do not have enough time to build new pages. When I first joined Wikipedia I would have found this support very useful. I have already contributed to this with my sockpuppet HandyTips.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In my opinion I have helped the article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald with my research and findings that I have published. Aswell as this I found my over hyperlinking on Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars very resourceful. Some of my more rational and poor edits were caused by lack of expierence after first joining.


 * 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 have carried on with the edits that I thought were correct for the article until otherwise proven. There are many examples of this.

General comments

 * Links for USERNAME:
 * Edit summary usage for DAFMM can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Strong Support. Where does it say that I can't not support myself?! DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.
 * The community made it clear here that voting for yourself is a bad idea. Cheers,  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 14:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be made clear that you are free to support yourself, DAFMM. Just be warned that the closing bureaucrat will likely not count your vote, and you may even get some opposes because of it. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong oppose. I appreciate the user's content edits, but he's shown a completely inappropriate attitude, with comments like this, this, a complete failure to deal with the complaints of others as illustrated here and here and edit-warring on several articles. In addition the answers to the questions are not satisfactory, particularly the third one. If I wasn't assuming good faith (it is your first time at RfA, you might not know the detail required for answers) I'd say the answer to question 3 is deliberately vague in an attempt to hide your past actions. 3,000 edits or so is also not really enough for me to judge you accurately for an RfA, although those examples I've pulled out above suggest more edits wouldn't necessarily improve your chances by much. Your use of User:HandyTips suggests inexperience with the way Wikipedia works - userpages are not indexed by google, not immediately visible to people visiting the site and not the sort of thing people look for when they need help; they have Cheatsheet or WP:MOS, for example. So why have it? Comments like this imply that you don't take the process seriously, which isn't really a good way to start off. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Ironholds. Wizardman  14:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I think Ironholds has it covered there. – B.hotep •talk• 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) If you don't think we can trust you, why should we trust you? ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Ironholds' arguments are strong - I would add to his comments that the edit count is also inflated by a high number of minor edits over a short space of time (e.g. edits to the MSN article). -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Ironholds. I didn't look any further. — Ched :  ?  15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) OpposePer Ironholds.Abce2 | Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral



 * 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.