Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreamafter 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dreamafter[edit]

Final (24/25/1); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamafter (talk · contribs) - I would like to present User:Dreamafter for your consideration today. He has improved a great deal since his previous RfA in October with concerns other editors noted as to his civility and his tagging of articles for speedy deletion. He has also helped to improve Wikipedia greatly with his participation in WP:BAG, his improvement of military articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest, and his work at Wikipedia:Request an account making sure that all of the requirements involved are fulfilled. I hope the community agrees with me that Dreamafter will make a wonderful admin. Captain panda 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thought it may not be the best decision on my part... Oh well, I will accept this. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not have to check, I have over eight and a half thousand undeleted edits, over 3,600 edits in the mainspace. I have these accomplishments. I also have six real barnstars. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also wok a lot with WP:FOWL, helping out there as the Coordinator (Stand in), currently as the Acting-Lead-Coordinator. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if this RFA fails I will not stop editing here, just to clarify as I have gotten e-mails about that. Dreamafter ⇔ 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 do a lot of work clearing out the backlogs on a lot of pages, like editor review, WP:AIV, Candidates for speedy deletion, and WP:ANI / WP:AN/3RR. I will also try and rectify the backlog at WP:AFD. Obviously fighting vandalism is a must. WP:SOCK looks like it could need help, so I'll try to work there as well. I would also like to work at WP:RPP, for protection and unprotection. With the deletion power, I would constantly monitor this page. I would like to help out better at WP:ACC, and WP:RM, which currently has a large backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are my military contributions, specifically Heuschrecke 10, which I brought from Stub-Class to GA-Class (see here), and the medal stubs that I brought to B-Class, for the WP:MILHIST contest department. The medal stubs are as follows : Cross of Valour (Canada), Order of Military Merit (Canada), Order of the White Star, Order of St. Charles, Long Service Medal, Distinguished Aviation Cross, Distinguished Conduct Star, Silver Wing Medal, and West Wall Medal.
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: The only major one was this, and it was fixed per my apologizing. I have fixed the problems pointed out there, and I will continue to try to fix any mistakes like that one in the same manner, calmly and just talking it out.
4. "I accept, thought it may not be the best decision on my part" (from just above) - Why isn't it the best decision on your part? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Because my time here seems to be waning, but I believe that that should be coming to an end. There was a personal reason for that, and if anyone needs to know, just e-mail me and I will provide the answer. Dreamafter ⇔ 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from GlassCobra

5. What are your thoughts on the "admins open to recall" category? If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to this category?
A: Wow, a lot of thoughts on this one... It has provided a good ides, fundamentally, but it is a bit, well, wrong, for lack of a better word. It has its problems, like any other thing like it, but I would add my name to it, if some things could be ironed out.
6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is a way to "revoke" all of the editing option for a user name or an IP address. It is properly used to to stop vandalism, or something of the kind. A ban is used to revoke the editing privileges of a person. Bans are often the result of ArbCom cases. Blocking can be used to enforce a ban, but other bans, such as requiring that a user avoids editing in a certain topic, are also possible.
7. If another admin deletes an article or removes information due to BLP concerns, but you believe that the information does not violate BLP and should be restored, what would you do?
A. Contact the deleting admin and request to know why it violated BLP. If the deleting admin refused to say why, I would start asking on the article in question's talk page.
8. When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?
A. I wuold, only if it was on the person or organization that was non-notable in any way. When it is one their books, songs, etc... do not delete it. It shouldn't be deleted on those grounds, delete it per G10 or G120, etc... depending on what it is.
9. How do you interpret the meaning of WP:IAR and when do you think this policy should be applied?
A. It means that if a policy is in your way of something, break it. If it is part of something that has information that is extremely personal to the article, then it should not be used. That is, if it has to be removed by an oversighter, because of personal reasons to the person of the article, do not use IAR as your reason for putting it in.

Question from Dorftrottel

10. Are there any issues with regard to the use of Image:Swtiefightercd.jpg? What remedies would you suggest?
A. As long as it is only used to represent that which it depicts, not just used on a userpage as an image that someone thinks is cool. I cannot think of one that allows the user to show it, except as a link to it.

A Yes/No question from Stwalkerster

11. Is your password secure?
A.
Optional question from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)
12. Why do yoiu want to be an administrator?

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/Dreamafter before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Wanted to make a note for the sake of clarity and transparancy that this user had originally labeled this as his second RfA; he requested that his actual second RfA (November) be deleted. I restored it and moved this current RfA to 3, where it is now. GlassCobra 01:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Great user, never hesitates to jump into new things, has done tremendous work here over the past long time, and is overall a very nice user. You get my support vote. Razorflame (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On behalf of Kmweber, ouch. On behalf of J-stan, beat the nom support! I've seen you many times, and I have nothing but respect for you. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. Captain panda 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I have come across your contributions and find no reason to think you would not be an asset. Enjoy the mop! docboat (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Has experience. —BoL 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - obviously, great editor. Will make a very good admin.   jj137 ♠ 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, experienced and level-headed. MichelleG (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Support, everyone makes mistakes, and you seem to be able to admit yours and retract them, which is something I want to see in an admin. Lankiveil (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Support per above. I've found you to be a nice editor (apart from that below). Rudget. 10:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support in spite of the diff cited by DHMO. There is nothing wrong with that diff. Yes, Kmweber has a right to vote however he wants on an RfA and to use whatever rationale he wishes. But an essential part of the process is that such votes and rationales are open to challenge, discussion, and - yes - mockery. In the real world, we enjoy the broad right to freedom of speech; but with that comes the broad responsibility to accept other people's freedom of speech, which may include harsh criticism and ridicule of our own statements. On Wikipedia, we don't have freedom of speech in the same way, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content must be encyclopedic. But we do allow all registered users in good standing to make whatever comment they wish on an RfA; and an essential part of that process is that criticism, however harsh, of other people's views should be permitted. Dreamafter's comment was a legitimate exercise of that privilege of criticism, and did not cross the line into blatant personal attacks. (It was an ad hominem and therefore logically fallacious; but we shouldn't penalise people for making comments that aren't logical.) WaltonOne 13:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the answer to Q8, I can no longer support. You've completely missed the point of CSD A7. It is for pages that make no assertion of notability with regard to their subject - i.e. you need to ask yourself "assuming everything in the article is true, is there a possibility that this person is notable"? The question of whether the article's subject is notable or not is a question for AfD. I wouldn't usually be this concerned with a single policy error, but this is one of the most important things for an admin to understand; bad speedy deletions can discourage new contributors and drive them away from the project, which, unlike most admin errors, isn't something we can reverse. So I'm sorry, but I can't support this time (although I will probably support your next RfA in a few months' time). I won't oppose either, however, because I disagree with the opposers concerning the Kmweber diff. WaltonOne 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Dreamafter has every to question what some would say is a dodgy rationale for opposition. The comment he made was perhaps a painfully honest remark to Mr Weber, perhaps too honest. I will assume good faith that it was nothing personal. EJF (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Adminship is no big deal, and the oppose reasons seem minor to me. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59 6 January 2008 (GMT).
  13. Support - H20's diff is a little pointy, and Dreamafter shouldn't do that anymore, but it's really a very minor issue and not worth scuttling the RfA over. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I seriously thought he was an admin already. Great user. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, I've worked with Dreamafter on many article move/deletions, as well as blocking vandals. Dreamafter has shown good judgment in these areas and I think would weild the mop effectively. Dreadstar † 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support WP:DEAL, user has largely positive history, and I don't see anything in it that suggests he will misuse the admin tools. Gromlakh (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The one diff provided by DHMO has not swung me at all. I came here expecting to support a nice user who would be suited to the tools, and that's what I'm doing. One comment is one comment, not proof that Dreamafter is like that all the time. I have encountered Dreamafter only being nice to everyone. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - per your below the belt-comment which was really an attack but not well judged..This sounds weird but judging someone for adminship based on a just one single edit is just "so lame"..You contributions uptil now has been excellent and apart from that "kmwebergate scandal" everything checks out fine..you will surely make a fine admin...--Cometstyles 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom.  Sunderland06  22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support Certainly has the experience for sure and has great edit summary usage and significant contribs to some and various Wiki-related pages. Only concern though is the little contribs to WP:RFPP and WP:AIV which explains the weaker support then above.--JForget 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, based on his experiance. New York Dreams (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support as meeting my standards but is somewhat weak as a candidate. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support Support. Another example of a RfA that's probably going to go down because of the 0.02% of the user's edits which are somewhat questionable. If we forbid every person from being an admin because they had publicly made a fool of themselves, we wouldn't have any admins left. Aside from one edit that was mildly questionable (and seriously... If you are doing something as obnoxious as nixing every admin candidate sight-unseen just because they self-nomed, you are asking to get jabs taken at you) this editor otherwise has an excellent record, definitely not one I would consider a risk for abusing the tools. Trusilver (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff is hardly the only problem. See opposes made by myself, Daniel, zzuuzz, Pomte, and others. GlassCobra 05:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Digging down into his edit history, I do admit that I'm seeing things that concern me. But still, I don't seem him at risk for abusing the tools. Trusilver (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support per above, but very few concerns in few of the oppose votes. NHRHS2010 talk 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Per this comment and Q4 answer (you should be leaving, yet you ask for adminship?). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the candidate's defense, I believe his statement was intended to mean that he would be more active, as he anticipates his personal problems to end soon. However, I too am troubled by the diff on Ibaranoff's RfA, as it reeks of POINTyness. I'm looking through this user's contributions; once that is complete, I will cast my !vote. GlassCobra 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I meant. I was doing less here because of personal reasons, I should be here more often though. Dreamafter ⇔ 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to reword your answer then. In any case, oppose stands per the diff. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I re-word the answer? And I accept that the answer remains oppose. Dreamafter ⇔ 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aah, I'm not sure if I can't read or if you've changed it, but the meaning seems to have changed now (I read "and" were there was a "but")...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but that diff looks like an attempt to draw the fangs of a user who was opposing every self-nom for the sake of it. Maybe Dream should have just told him to AGF, but then maybe RfA should AGF too? Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 6 January 2008 (GMT).
    Is "attempting to draw the fangs" of an established user a good idea? Not in the slightest. Combined with the aggressive edit summary, and the comment which borders on a personal attack (heck, it is personal), that's just a big no-no. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Dihydrogen. I'm also a little bewildered why you felt it was necessary to highlight your edit counts, awards and positions in various wikiprojects in bold. Although a minor concern, stating your accomplishments like that shows a lapse in judgement, in my opinion. Looking over your deleted edits and particularly your focus over RfA, may I say that adminship should not be a goal or trophy. Sorry, but I am unable to support this RfA at this time. — DarkFalls talk 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that because a lot of users tend to overlook things like that, I know that I used to, so I did it so as to give attention to it. If you really think it that bad, feel free to remove it. Dreamafter ⇔ 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence that a lot of users other than you have this tendency? If not, I think it's safe to assume that people coming here will read everything on this page, especially the top part. Also, it takes only one click to the talk page to see the first two pieces of bold and italicized information that you present. It really gives off the wrong vibe seeing that before noticing your response down here. And no, I will not change it because the presentation of your acceptance is fully your choice. –Pomte 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dreamafter is a very good user, and I acknowledge their contributions, but the diff regarding Kmweber is worrying: it's not behavior I'd like to see in anybody. I'd be willing to overlook it if a good deal of time had passed since the incident, but it only happened a couple of weeks ago. I am glad, however, that Dreamafter struck out the comment, but even so, I feel it shouldn't have been made in the first place. Acalamari 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - per that nasty little diff pointed out by DHMO. - Dureo (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You list AIV, RFPP, RM, AfD, and I think SSP, among the things you will need admin tools for (editor review and ACC don't require any), yet over the last year I can only see 2 substantive contributions to RFPP, 5 to RM, 8 edits to AIV (4 blocked, 4 not blocked), no edits to SSP or RCU, and less than 30 to XfD. When people talk about edits to Wikipedia space, they are normally referring to enough edits to judge how you will use the tools in those areas (deletion, protection, blocks). I either see not enough experience to judge, or no need for them. You seem to be a good and helpful editor, but I believe you should probably get several months of experience in admin-tool related areas before considering acquiring the tools. You are welcome to persuade me I'm wrong. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually ACC does require admins because of the similar requests that only an admin can create those accounts and the deletion of it bi-weekly. Dreamafter ⇔ 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose DHMO's diff just sort of hit me the wrong way. Jmlk17 07:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose After some heavy deliberation, I must come down strongly on the negative side. Dreamafter does seem to have made some progress since his last full RfA at the end of October; he's gathered 3000 edits and done some good work. However, I must take into account, as Qst did, that this is his third RfA in 2.5 months; not the best sign. Further, the past history between the two of us, specifically brought up in the first RfA, does still affect my judgment a bit. There's still the matter of nearly all the WP-space edits being to various sandboxes, zzuuzz's comment about how there is little activity in areas that would supposedly be a priority as an admin, and the rather unsatisfactory answers to my questions, particularly 8 and 9. This all comes before taking into account the diff regarding Kweber. I'm afraid that I can't really find a place for this type of comment in the environment that we're trying to foster. Whether or not it was a joke, and it doesn't really seem to be, it's extremely POINTy, as mentioned under DHMO's oppose. Also, admins are expected to exhibit a level of maturity that is clearly far from achieved in this candidate. GlassCobra 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per DHMO, DarkFalls, GlassCobra, and my long-held belief that this user lacks the ability to apply discretion and lacks sufficient Clue to be a good administrator at this juncture. However, the latter is merely my perceptionary opinion (and has been built up over a long period of time rather than specific edits), so I can't/won't be supplying diffs, and I concede that it is relative unpersuasive in this discussion but I feel it needs to be noted. Daniel 08:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, Daniel, I'd say your argument is quite persuasive. I quite agree with you on the general perception built over time; while not immediately detectable besides points like the one brought up by DarkFalls, this overall opinion is very important to judging a candidate's suitability. GlassCobra 08:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Answer to Q8 misses the point as WP:CSD#A7 clearly distinguishes it from a question of non-notability. Answer to Q7 shows that Dreamafter hasn't considered it seriously enough or didn't read the question properly. "If another admin deletes an article...," asking on its talk page would likely not attract the attention needed. Answer to Q5 tells me nothing about the candidate's actual thoughts on the matter, despite having "a lot of thoughts" on it (I would find the thoughts themselves irrelevant, but this is a communication issue). –Pomte 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose → per GlassCobra, Daniel & zzuuzz. And yes, Q8 shows total lack of understanding of the criteria. Snowolf How can I help? 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Sorry man, but I really can't see where you intend to use the admin capacity. What you do right now mostly constitutes non-admin areas, that coupled with some civility issues from last RfA and also the fact that you've posted your edit counts, even barnstars... to me, that shows that your understanding of this is kind of like another trophy. Please don't take offence to this, but it's obvious you're proud of your un-deleted edit count, barnstars and your triple crown and I view you toting these efforts as being a bit of a vanity thing and I think that you may carry that pride into adminship. And we don't need more proud admins, I'm sorry. --rm 'w avu 12:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a little unfair. I don't follow RfA, but ISTM that there is a significant amount of support (or more accurately opposes) on RfA that depends on those types of items, unless things have changed a lot recently. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23 6 January 2008 (GMT).
    Maybe it's too late at night for me to process what you're saying, but I don't understand what you mean. I'm referring to his tone in stating the items. We can simply investigate to see how many edits, his barnstars and all of that. I'm not particularly active when looking at RfAs, but I've never seen someone post anything like this, and we have all seemed to figure out the person's achievements (or more often than not, their errors) without the user themself, guiding us to it. To me, this seems the most accurate description of "prima facie", but as I hate to use the term having been sullied by kmweber pushing his point back when we both had our last RfAs. It shows poor judgement to discern what's actually important. The number of edits is important, yes, but it's predominantly important if value has been added to Wikipedia in making them. One can have 50,000 edits and not really be an administrative prospect because all they ever do is place a full stop at the end of ever sentence they find without one, but that doesn't mean they're not a good part of the puzzle, but that editor certainly isn't going to valuably contribute as an admin. Mostly, my opposition is because I don't know where DA intends to contribute based on where the edits have been in the past. Plus, based on the idea that the number of edits is so important, I'm not sure the best judgement will carry over to those admin duties, so I don't think s/he's ready yet --rm 'w avu 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think number of edits is supremely unimportant in terms of RfA. However on the issues drawn out in your response, I would say it's extremely hard to judge "tone" in these circumstances. The question of how DA expects to use the admin tools is surely No.1 in the questions to candidates? Perhpa DA could be drawn a little further on that if it would help. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13 6 January 2008 (GMT).
  12. Per Q8, Q9 and the Kurt Weber diff. east.718 at 14:54, January 6, 2008
  13. Oppose per answer to Q10, Kurt Weber's diff and also the answers to Q8 and Q9. The issues with regard to Image:Swtiefightercd.jpg include that a fair use rationale is not supplied for each article, and (I would argue) that the image is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter on either of the two articles where it is used. Dorfklatsch 20:19, January 6, 2008
  14. Oppose Sorry, but the evidence presented by Kurt Weber, DHMO, and the answers to questions tell me this user just isn't ready for adminship. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose.
    • Q8: Erm. Spelling? This is an RfA, you're in front of at least a hundred people, and you can't articulate yourself acceptably?
    • Q9: Confused me quite a bit. :(
    • Q10: That image is used on two articles but only has one rationale. That is a violation of WP:NFCC#10c.
    • Time. RfA a month and a half ago = not good.
    • Very little editing on AIV (5/5000), UAA (2/5000), little anti-vandal work.
    Oh, and the spinning barnstar on your userpage is irritating. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I don't trust Dreamafter's ability to delete articles tagged as meeting CSD criteria – "When it is one their books, songs, etc..." – real people, corporations, websites and groups. Nothing else. I also agree with Daniel's and GlassCobra's points in relation to the lack of discretion and proper judgement you apply to everyday situations on the project. Sorry, but I don't feel confident having you as an administrator here. Spebi 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not ready yet. Would gladly support a future RfA after the above concerns are remedied. The Transhumanist 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per aboves S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Answer to Question 8 is incorrect, and shows a significant lack of knowledge regarding a key point of policy. Answer to Question 9 is nearly incomprehensible, and causes me to fear the unintentional damage the candidate might make with the mop. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Xolov practically said it for me. Also, some of the other answers simply don't seem thoughtful enough -- they don't reflect the gravity with which this process should be treated. For example, the answer regarding recall reads like lip service to the question -- answer it straight, darn it. For another, few of the answers go into much detail. I get the impression, though cannot prove, that adminship is going to be just another barnstar. atakdoug (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I answer it perfectly straight than I will have user either support or oppose on the one question, so I would rather not have users oppose or support on just one question. Dreamy § 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose the notes above concern me quite a bit. Marlith T/C 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I find your answer to question 8 disturbing. --Agüeybaná 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per zzuuzz. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongly Oppose I don't even know where to start. Some of his comments to other users is quite contemptuous. For example, it's quite rude to say "Fine, whatever" to another editor over a small disagreement in the removal of red links. But then again, it may be a cultural thing where it's perfectly acceptable to say that in another country. If so, please correct me. Also, I just randomly clicked on about 4 of his recent edits in the main namespace (having to go through numerous AWK edits), and this candidate made very obvious spelling/punctuation/grammatical errors that were still present when I read it. I feel it could have easily been identified if he would preview or re-read it before hitting the "Save page" button. Finally, I have a strange impression that this candidate is probably an arrogant kid judging from reading his responses to other people. I think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia that this Sephiroth Dreamafter should continue to contribute without having an "administrator" label. There are other things too but I don't feel it's necessary or it's too minor to mention. Dr.Kane (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You put the word "Sephiroth" in your text, and it may be that I am just an "arrogant kid", but I have no idea what that means. Are you trying to oppose me or Sephiroth BCR? Dreamy § 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am having a difficult time where Dr.Kane is going with that, even after reading Sephirot. GlassCobra 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I actually meant user:Dreamafter; I just fixed the error. I was rushing trying to type it up, and I admittedly was a little bit drunk when I wrote it, but I do stand by what I said even though it may sound a little bit harsh. No offense intended. Dr.Kane (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Given some of the diffs pointed out, I simply do not feel comfortable giving this person admin tools. Perhaps try again in a little while? Guldenat (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Don't get me wrong, mate, I think you're a good editor, with some good content contributions (i.e. two good articles under your belt), as well as outstanding work at WP:ACC, however this comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24 left me feeling a bit uneasy of your ability to be civil, and, whether this actually had been meant as a joke, it certainly didn't appear that way, and the edit summary is displeasing, it may as well say "beat this insult", as that is basically what it appears as if you meant. That comment strikes me as rather rude and somewhat insulting, and, whether we like Kmweber's opposes or not, we have to accept he is not going to stop. Thus, I am remaining neutral. Qst 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that... I was sure that that would be noticed. Ah, well, a bad day on my part, a lot of people like that at my work, so I was a little (okay, maybe not so little) frustrated at that by then. Dreamafter ⇔ 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What also concerns me is the fact you have had three RfA in less than 2½ months, it appears as if you are 'desperate' so-to-speak to become an admin. Qst 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you noticed in the history of this page, the "second" RFA was a mistake if you will. See here. Dreamafter ⇔ 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Dreamafter's defence relating to kmweber's comments, that guy was pissing a lot of people off in RfAs back in October. I nominated myself at the same time and got the same response. It was only natural that someone would get sick of it. --rm 'w avu 12:38, 6 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dreamafter_3&oldid=1085559220"