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

FINAL (2/18/0); Ended 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Davnel03 (talk · contribs) - I have been on Wikipedia since November 2006. Although I found it a little hard to settle into Wikipedia regarding its rules at first, I got use to the tools that are on Wikipedia in the first few weeks. Since then, I have helped to improve several Formula One and professional wrestling articles including 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, which is currently a FA candidate. Davnel03 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 intend to clear several backlogs here on Wikipedia, including WP:AIV and several category discussions. I also intend to help with several deletion processes, and also will try and keep an eye on the WP:ANI noticeboard. I will also try and fight of vandalism, and give users the necessary warnings. If a user decides to vandalise most of the time I will simply indef block them as vandalism should never be tolerated on Wikipedia.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I made several good edits on 1995 Formula One season earlier this year. As I mentioned above, I tend to work on F1 race reports, and have been improving F1 race reports so that they are at the highest possible level of quality. The 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix is probably one of my best contributions on Wikipedia as it is one of the few race reports that is in-depth and didn't have anything major happen in it. I also try to push professional wrestling articles to their highest possible level. With this, I have helped The Undertaker hit GA level, and CM Punk recently became a FA. I am currently working on John Cena, and that is currently at FA level. I am now beginning to look at a broader variety of articles including football related articles.

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: Yes. Firstly, Burntsauce, over his blanking of professional wrestling articles, citing BLP issues. I tended to revert his edits, only for him to give me a warning for my actions. I didn't want to revert again otherwise I would be violating 3RR. In that situation, I backed off until the situation was sorted out. Yamla, however, that was 110% my fault. I uploaded several copy vio images to Wikipedia in the past and got several warnings about this on my talkpage. I threatened him legally and I was indef-blocked. I apologised for my actions and my block was lifted. Since, I have not been in any disputes with any users, and am tending to establish a good working relationship with other Wikipedia users, including Yamla.

• See Davnel03's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Davnel03: Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Davnel03 before commenting.

• I need more information before I can decide. Davnel, you are a good, established editor, and would normally earn my unconditional support based on your long record of helpful contributions to the encyclopedia. However, a scan of your talk page shows that other editors have been concerned about your behavior as recently as one month ago. The block for a legal threat was four months ago, and the behavior has not been repeated, so I can forgive that. Someone complained that you uploaded a copyrighted or fair-use image with invalid rationale; such mistakes are typically investigated at RFAs to ensure that candidates understand the deletion policy for images. Someone else complained that you were doing heavy edits on articles and nominating for GA without discussing first on the talk page - admittedly, this is no crime, and I've done the same thing.

I'd also like a clarification on your answer to Q1: do you mean that you will block people who devote most of their editing to vandalism (consistent with the blocking policy, or you will indef-block vandals for a first offense (not necessarily consistent with policy)? Shalom ^Hello 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the severity of the vandalism, say if somebody insulted someone else repeatedly, blanking pages, legal threats then a block would be required, but I wouldn't go against the blocking policy. And no, I wouldn't indef block a vandal on first offence, I'd warn them twice, and if they carried it on, a indef would probably be required. The copyrighted images part I now fully understand and have tried to stay away from uploading images since. And, as I stated at WP:F1, I decided not to inform them of a GA (2007 French Grand Prix), is mainly because I made most of the edits on the page, its not like a group of editors were editing. Davnel03 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Weak support - Been here for almost a year, several thousand edits (a little lower than I like to see) however good WT and WP space contributions in my opinion (I like to see actual wiki project involvement so that is a big plus). Big downside, low edit summary usage. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak Support - Although the past behavioural concerns are serious, I think the opposers may be being a little harsh. The candidate's recent contributions reveal a strong record of editing, and I believe that the candidate deserves a second chance; I disagree with Kicking222's statement that the candidate cannot be trusted with the admin tools "at any time in the future". I also respect the fact that the candidate has been honest and owned up to his past actions. That said, however, I do think the past problems were too recent, and it was unwise to run for adminship at this time. But if the candidate edits productively and avoids any trouble for the next few months, I see no reason why an RfA in 3-4 months' time should not succeed. Walton^One 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. INCREDIBLY strong oppose You were blocked for three months, and you were not unblocked until six weeks ago. The reason you were blocked, which you barely gloss over in your answers to the first three questions, is that you made ludicrous personal and legal threats and abused sockpuppets barely four months ago. In fact, I'm quite surprised you were even given a second chance, especially considering that you had multiple warranted charges levied against you, and that it took you a full 2.5 months to apologize. I'm glad to see you've changed, and from looking at your contribs, I can see that you're now a strong editor. I hope you continue down this path. With that said, there is no conceivable way I can trust you with the admin tools at this point, or at any point in the future. Sorry. -- Kicking222 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per incivil behavior and the legal threat that got him blocked in the first place. He also seems to have had problems getting unblocked (see the discussion at User talk:Davnel03/Archive 1#Blocked_indefinitely) since he was using sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IvoShandor failed on less than this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Oppose Someone that has only been unblocked for a little over a month has no business running for adminship. Your poorly written nom isn't very promising either, lack of punctuation or poor use of it leads to the type of unclear communication that can cause trouble --Lucid 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Oppose - A documented history of the user's past is available here - User:Skully Collins/Davnel03. It includes petty vandalism, personal attacks (including insulting people with serious illnesses), legal threats, blatant copyright violations and serial sockpuppeteering. Readro 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. This RfA is coming too close on the heels of a block for extremely bad edits. I felt strongly enough that this RfA won't pass that I snowballed it[1], only to restore it at the user's request. I really, really feel that the user is unsuitable for becoming an administrator without substantial evidence that they have changed their ways (I'm not saying Davnel should never be an admin, I'm just saying that now is far, far too soon). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. User:Skully Collins/Davnel03 makes for some disappointing reading. Frankly, I'm quite amazed you are even considering adminship - it is a position of trust and community confidence, and I don't think you have either of those yet. The community also has higher standards of etiquette and civility for administrators. I would not advise you to re-request for at least 6 months. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose: per Readro. dr.ef.tymac 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose This RfA shows poor planning in the light of recent events and also demonstrates that the author prevaricates when it comes to full answers to the standard questions. Neither of these qualities makes for a good admin, so I recommend withdrawal of this RfA at this time and that the candidate continue to work hard at improving their standing within the community with a combination of admin-related and mainspace tasks before applying again at some future date. (aeropagitica) 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Oppose I would not trust a user who is extremely uncivil [2] as an administrator. Suggest Withdrawal. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. No way. Per everyone above, particularly User:Skully Collins/Davnel03. Sarah 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the worst of his problems... Shalom ^Hello 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose Per all the previous comments. I agree with Riana, considering your mistakes in the past you are going to need to work extremely hard to show that you can be trusted. I suggest you immerse yourself in a few admin-related tasks and try this again in 4-6 months at a minimum. Trusilver 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Per above. Will take a long time of good behavior to live that down. Agathoclea 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose as a formality, per the evidence on Skully Collins' userpage. Shalom ^Hello 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per the other oppose !votes above. I'm sorry, but I personally feel that you can not be trusted with the sysop tools at this time. nat^tang 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Oppose - The problem here is, civility. You where blocked 3 months ago, for legal threat and personal attack. We can't have those people as admins. Wait a few more months until that damage heals. --Hirohisat ^Talk 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per above. Wizardman 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong oppose per above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.