Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidcannon

Davidcannon
David has been here since the beginning of January and made 3,352 edits as of June 12. I thought he was an admin until I noticed he was revert vandals the old fashion way. I feel he would be a great admin. --"D ICK " C HENEY 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for nominating me, Dick! I accept.  Being an admin isn't something I've given a lot of thought to, but I promise that I will faithfully attend to any administrative responsibilities if chosen.  To let others know where I stand, I'm a strong believer in democracy, so I promise not to take any major actions (deleting articles, etc.) without putting them to a vote first.  I've been a bit quiet on Wikipedia in June due to a temporary overload at work, but will be back to full-time Wikiholism in July.  Once again, I'm so grateful for this nomination.  Thank you so much. David Cannon 04:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) --"D ICK " C HENEY  03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Good solid work and a lot of it! Pollinator 13:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Though people who speak Esperanto frighten me, Dave is an excellent worker and has a well-measured temperament. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Lst27 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Jiang 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) solid contributor
 * 6) Fredrik | talk 12:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) --GeneralPatton 23:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Merovingian &#9997;  Talk 02:44, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Fuzheado | Talk 13:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) - solid friendly contributor.
 * 10) theresa knott 13:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Acegikmo1 15:23, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Jwrosenzweig 16:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Michael Snow 16:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) older &ne; wiser 23:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) Absolutely!
 * 16) Woggly 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Neutrality 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Smerdis of Tlön 19:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) I've known from first-hand experience that David has the type of calm and cool-headed personality suitable for adminship. --Menchi 00:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Danny 05:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) 172 07:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * :) Muriel G 08:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Kingturtle 17:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:


 * Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I dispute this vote on the grounds Lst27 has already made one vote in support, and is not entitled to a second. -- H. C HENEY 02:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Note for User:Lst27: You're the kind of person I love - someone who supports me strongly enough to vote for me not once, but twice! You are both the fourth and the fifteenth person to vote for me.  I feel very gratified, but I'm sure I'm only allowed one vote from you, so you might like to look into this:-) David Cannon 02:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I forgot that I have voted before. I will try not to do it again. :-) --Lst27 17:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would help you keep track if you didn't blindly vote in support of everyone who is nominated. -- UninvitedCompany


 * Respectfully, I think that comment was out of line. Snowspinner 20:52, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lst27 has, by his own admission, nominated people here in order to gain their sympathy. He also shows a peculiar fascination with adminship having nominated himself here twice.  He votes to support nearly all nominees, and rarely if ever explains his reasons for doing so.  I do not recall him opposing any nominees.  And, just today he has suggested that "bribes" using WikiMoney should be sanctioned in votes here.  My comment stands.  UninvitedCompany 21:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Although I find Lst27's actions to be frustrating in a number of cases, nothing I've seen makes me think he edits or votes in bad faith. I'm willing to assume his Wikimoney comment was a rather unfunny joke, but, as someone with a questionable sense of humor myself, I can sympathize. I suppose my point is that Lst27 is not doing anything offensive or problematic enough to make speculation as to his intents or motives worthwhile. Let's save harsh words and criticisms of user action for problem users - not users with problems. Snowspinner 21:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)