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

Dreadstar[edit]

Final (55/15/1); Originally scheduled to end 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Dreadstar for adminship. He's been my admin coachee for about two months. We've communicated quite a bit over email and on-wiki, and I am confident that Dreadstar is ready for adminship. He has been active since September 2005. (He had 2 periods of inactivity due to being hospitalized.) He has over 16,000 edits (for those who count), has started a number of articles (1, 2, 3, 4, more) and contributed heavily to others (1, 2, 3, among others).

Dreadstar is a friendly and enthusiastic editor. He's not afraid to get involved in contentious articles and policy discussions, and is dedicated to resolving conflicts. He recently contributed to a successful consensus decision at What the Bleep Do We Know!? (see [1]), and worked on resolving conflicts at Holocaust ([2]) and Battle of Washita River ([3]). He has experience vandal fighting (with VandalProof), is active in policy discussion (WP:OR especially), and has participated in AfD discussions (1, 2). I've never seen Dreadstar be less than civil or friendly. He's been active for about two years, and still has energy to engage contentious articles like Psychic, Holocaust, and various parapsychology-related articles. He can only be more productive with the tools. In sum, Dreadstar has the experience and the temperament to be a great admin. --Fang Aili talk 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Phaedriel: It's difficult to ask more in a candidate that what can Dreadstar offer. Some time ago, I was lucky to meet him during the dispute surrounding Battle of Washita River, where his thoughtful, kind approach impressed me deeply. The consistent coaching by Fang Aili's (which I have witnessed) has added to a keen knowledge and understanding of policy. Hardly anything to add to the excellent resume that has been accurately outlined above, other than denoting that the Dreadstar is unfailingly kind, helpful, courteous and hard working, and I can personally attest for each of these qualities. It is with pleasure that I present him to you, knowing that, in him, the mop will be in extremely worthy hands. Phaedriel - 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Anonymous Dissident: - Dreadstar is a very diligent editor and vandal fighter, who has made over 16100 edits overall, 8000 odd of which are to the mainspace. He is a friendly and civil editor, two qualities which are essential in admins. All in all, Dreadstar comprises prime administrator material, and I hope that the Wikipedia community shares this view. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Dreadstar † 18:45, 10 September 2007 (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: Blocking persistent vandals, protecting pages being vandalized, and deleting inappropriate pages that vandals have created would be a welcome enhancement to my current set of anti-vandalism tools (VP). As my nominator points out, I have stepped in on several occasions to stop edit warring disputes and bring the warring parties to the negotiation table, and I would like the ability to protect pages and to block 3RR or WP:NPA violators in disputes where I am not involved either as a disputant or a mediator. I would not use my admin privileges in disputes that I am involved with, I would instead seek a neutral admin’s assistance. I would also like to help clear any backlogs of pages or images to delete, such as orphaned, duplicate or copyright-issue images.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been my anti-vandalism efforts, the several mediations I’ve handled, and general wikignome activities of fixing things, such as adding appropriate sections, repairing bad links, doing dabs. There are also several articles that I’m proud to have created, such as Charles Banks Wilson.
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 haven’t been stressed by my participation in Wikipedia, although I have been a party to some intense discussions and disagreements. My very first experience discussing a subject on Wikipedia was in a highly contentious article, and I have always remained civil and explained my view. I’m not proud of one or two short instances of edit-warring I've been involved in, but I learned a lot from those incidents and instantly regretted my participation in them. When conflicts arise, I step back and try to never answer with anger or frustration. I keep all personal comments out, relying on application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I follow the dispute resolution process and have had great success in focusing on the core issues of a dispute, getting a third-opinion, taking straw polls and gaining consensus. This is by far the most satisfying and successful method of dealing with disputes. Edit-warring is unproductive and scares off contributors, damages the article in dispute, and gets nowhere. Better to have the article protected, and discuss.
My real-life job is in management; managing people, problems, clients and upper management, so I'm very used to keeping a level head at all times. I think my RL experience has translated well into my Wikipedia editing, and I'm always looking to better myself. Helping others is a huge part of my job, and I find it to be a very satisfying thing to do...and it's the same here! I enjoy helping other editors.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Quite honestly, I haven't used a technique to accumulate edits. Part of the reason for the uptick in the number of my edits over the past three months is due to my being approved for the use of VandalProof on July 24th. The sheer number of vandalism edits is staggering, and the team of dedicated editors who fight the vandals is a very hard working and noble crew. I'm proud to be a part of the antivandalism effort.
The edits I've made that require the most thinking are the ones during my mediation efforts, the policy discussions, and the AfD discussions I've been a part of. AfDs requre research in order to form an opinion and be able to give an intelligent reason for that opinion. I always research the subject, and in one of the AfDs I've partipated in, I not only performed internet research which revealed that the article subject's school name was wrong, but I even put in a phone call to the Director of the organization to confirm my findings and gather more information.
There is nothing I would have done differently, I would have been doing the same things whether I was running for admin or not. I enjoy doing what I do, or else I wouldn't take the time to do it...;) I haven't done anything to inflate my edit count. I'm running on quality not quantity. Merely accumulating a mass of empty edits doesn't lead to gathering respect from other editors and shouldn't lead to the honor of becoming an admin. I think you can tell from the comments of my nomininators and some of the supporting votes below that I've done more than accumulate an edit count. I find your research intriguing. The graph is well done and I look forward to further analysis on the subject.

Question from AldeBaer

5. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past? This is not a joke question. I feel you haven't provided a satisfactory answer to this so far.
A: I think your question is very serious and deserves a detailed answer. I’m glad you asked it. Yes, I've definitely been involved in conflicts over editing. I made some mistakes in the past and I regret the way I handled some of those conflicts. I learned a great deal from those experiences and recognize the mistakes I made. I've been involved in several conflicts; the incidents mentioned below happened in February 2007, a fairly long time ago and I've learned a lot since then. Here is more detail on the incidents mentioned. Let me know if this answers your question.
  • 3RR block. My only block was in February 2007, it was for three hours. It was the result of one of the edit wars I was referring to. In her comment below, Yksin hit it right on the mark; after I had been blocked, I was trying to understand how I had actually violated 3RR, it didn’t make sense to me that my first edit cited in the 3RR violation (removing the NPOV tag after mediation and consensus had shown that the section was not POV.) was a reversion. So I discussed it with the blocking admin.
  • Edit war. As for the edit war that resulted in the block, after I removed the tag, it was put back, I thought it was a mistake and reverted – we had just been through a lengthy mediation and it was surprising to see the tag put back. I quickly found out differently on all counts, and I learned a good lesson that day. I certainly wouldn’t do that again.
  • Edit removals. Argh. Yes, that was my misunderstanding of one of the statements in NPA about removing edits. I've learned not to be as sensitive to those types of comments, and removal is not an option - unless it's a truly outrageous attack.
  • 'Edit summary comment The edit identified below that I removed from my talk page where I put in the edit summary “remove comments from abusive editor” didn’t mean that the removed edit itself was abusive, but that I felt that the editor whose post I was removing had been abusing me in his other comments, I even checked with an admin who agreed with me about the incivility -but not the removal, and gave me some good advice. My putting such a comment in an edit summary was a mistake that I freely admit, especially since it’s so easily misunderstood and it wasn’t the right place to make such a statement - if at all.

Question from Wikidudeman

6. This question comes in a few parts. Firstly, Do you believe that Wikipedia should give credence to non-scientific or pseudo-scientific disciplines or occurrences such as purported psychic phenomena, Bigfoot, UFO's, etc? To clarify, Should the Psychic article clarify that "Psychic" abilities almost certainly don't exist as the vast majority of scientists conclude or should the article tiptoe around the fact that science can explain such things easily without invoking supernatural powers and give equal balance to all sides of the debate including the conclusion that psychic powers do indeed exist and are prevalent? Secondly, Should the James Randi article and the James Randi Educational Foundation have good sized(a couple of paragraphs) sections about how some people believe that his challenge is a "Gimmick" or that his challenge is not a legitimate way to test claims of supernatural abilities? Please read these questions carefully and answer them directly in detail. Thank you. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make a brief comment on this. You may very well disagree with Dreadstar's views on alternative science and theories and the weight those get given in articles, but we're here to determine whether Dreadstar can be trusted as an admin. Do you think he would abuse the tools in a content dispute? Or do you simply disagree with his opinion about certain articles? Melsaran (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worded the questions very carefully so as not to ask what his personal views on James Randi were or on psychics were, but on his views of how such articles should be shaped. I'm not asking him if he believes in psychics since that is irrelevant. Nor am I asking him if he believes James Randi is a "gimmick" as that is also irrelevant. I'm asking specifically how he believes the wikipedia articles on these topics should be shaped. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how are his views on how the Wikipedia articles on this topic should be shaped relevant to his trustworthiness as an administrator? Melsaran (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have never advocated that Wikipedia state that psychic abilities or phenomena actually exist – if I’ve appeared to do so, then that’s a severe miscommunication on my part. I believe all significant views should be presented without bias. We should not be making a statement as to whether or not they exist. We shouldn’t tiptoe around or be adding bias to the views of the skeptics, the scientists or the believers. If science has concluded that something paranormal has no substance, that view should be clearly stated and sourced in the article. I think this comment I made describes my views well.
Let me clearly address each question:
“Should the Psychic article clarify that "Psychic" abilities almost certainly don't exist as the vast majority of scientists conclude?"
Yes it should. My only concern was that such a view should be clearly stated in the article and not be merely ‘implied’. For instance, making implications by using biased and loaded wording which violates words to avoid; instead we should add detailed content to explain why and how the majority of scientists have made their conclusions.
"should the article tiptoe around the fact that science can explain such things easily without invoking supernatural powers and give equal balance to all sides of the debate including the conclusion that psychic powers do indeed exist and are prevalent."
Not at all, the scientific view and alternative explanations should be clearly stated without any bias.
"Secondly, Should the James Randi article and the James Randi Educational Foundation have good sized(a couple of paragraphs) sections about how some people believe that his challenge is a "Gimmick" or that his challenge is not a legitimate way to test claims of supernatural abilities? Please read these questions carefully and answer them directly in detail."
No, that’s not what I was saying at all. In our dispute, which you mentioned below, we were talking about the prominence of the Randi challenge in the Edward article, which didn’t need several good sized paragraphs on Randi’s challenge - just a short statement. In the Randi article itself, the notable critical comments should be included, but not in a biased or distorted fashion either. While I think the controversy about the challenge should be mentioned in the Randi article, I do not think those critical comments are deserving of a “good sized couple of paragraphs”. I am a firm believer in WP:UNDUE.
It’s interesting to me that I became a “supporter of the paranormal”. I believe that had I come to Wikipedia and found the articles written entirely from the perspective of the ‘believers’, I would have argued the opposite side, for inclusion of more scientific content. NPOV is the concern, not my personal beliefs. I’m not sure about the paranormal, but I have an open mind about it. Dreadstar † 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question from Wikidudeman

If what you say is true, then why did you argue so passionately with myself and User:BillC that James Randi's million dollar challenge was a "Gimmick"? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: First let me clarify that if you read the actual comment and discussion, I think it's clear that I wasn’t advocating using the word "gimmick" in any article, and I still don’t advocate its use. As for the discussion that followed, I was merely explaining why I used the word gimmick on the talk page. I really have no interest in continuing that particular debate. Dreadstar † 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup from Wikidudeman - From what I could see, From the link you provided, the argument after you said that James Randi's challenge was a "Gimmick" was you arguing that you were justified in saying so. The question I am asking is, Why bring it up to begin with? If it shouldn't be used in the article that is. What was the purpose of arguing that his challenge was a "Gimmick" if it had no relevance to the article itself? If it did indeed have relevance, What was that relevance? Wikidudeman (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Should the James Randi Educational Foundation have any info at all giving credence to the contention that the million dollar challenge is a "Gimmick"? If so, How much? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this for a couple of hours, & decided I should say something. It concerns me that this line of questioning appears to be a continuation of a content dispute, & asking Dreadstar to, in a manner of speaking, "edit in a fishbowl." You also refer to a discussion involving you, BillC, & Dreadstar with no link provided to clue in the rest of us following this RfA on which specific discussion you're alluding to -- it's not readily apparent from your Oppose statement. Skinwalker's question below (Q7) is certainly relevant to the RfA, as it directly bears on Dreadstar's interpretations of Wikipedia policy; but I'm not quite sure what the relevance of your questions are, except as a continuation of content dispute. --Yksin 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not providing the link. It's here: link. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: If it’s mentioned at all, as I described in my earlier statement, it should be properly sourced and attributed to whatever notable, reliable, verifiable source the statement comes from. As for credence, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and it should not violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP if it's included in Randi's own article. Dreadstar † 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Skinwalker

7. Two parts, one specific and one open-ended. First, could you clarify your assertion, found here[4], that electronic voice phenomenon does not fall under WP:FRINGE? Second, can you discuss your views on the WP:FRINGE guideline, particularly as they apply to NPOV and undue weight? Skinwalker 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Again, this is a matter of context. I was responding to the previous comments which were focusing on the notability, cultural-fictional and scientific-peer-review sources. Please keep in mind that this was a long time ago and I was just learning about that policy and EVP all at once...;) My comment about it not being WP:FRINGE was directed at the proposal for the article to be focused on the cultural aspect of EVP, not the science. According to science, it is indeed a WP:FRINGE science, I was referring to it not being fringe in the popular culture view, as I thought it had been somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications. I believe the other editors were saying that for the EVP article to give details about any of the experiments that had been done, the subject needed to have notability per scientific topics - because it was WP:FRINGE, I disagreed with that view and felt the limited science should be included.
My views on Fringe and NPOV are that we shouldn't be making something appear to be more "real", "notable", or "scientific" than it actually is - if the subject is worth mentioning at all. We shouldn't be promoting fringe ideas or publishing original thought. Non-mainstream theories need solid sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and must abide by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well as WP:FRINGE. The discussion about EVP was primarily regarding its cultural aspects, which in my opinion at the time, didn't fall under WP:FRINGE.
The Paranormal ArbCom decision identified EPV under the loci of dispute, which is partly addressed by the finding of fact Three layer cake with frosting, which is why I mentioned it in my reply to Rspeer below, that finding is indeed concerned with EVP and the paranormal, as well as what I was commenting on regarding my views. Mainstream science has ignored and/or dismissed EVP, but it exists as a popular cultural concept. That was the basis for my comments about EVP, including my statement about WP:FRINGE.. Again, ArbCom has ruled on this, and I abide by their decisions. Clearly EVP is fringe all the way around; I've a learned a great deal since I made that statement.
Looking back on it, I must admit that my statement about EVP not being WP:FRINGE was a boneheaded comment. Definitely not the best example of my work...;) I hope that any editor on Wikipedia can be granted the opportunity to learn over time, as I have since February, when I made several of those boneheaded statements. Dreadstar † 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second question from Wikidudeman

Can you please explain why you referred to other editors as "Lazy" and "Pseudo Skeptics" here? Also, What exactly does "Pseudo Skeptic" mean? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Also, Another example. Here you seem to be comparing "Skeptics" to "Cynics". Please explain. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your added question. I wasn't comparing skeptics to cynics. I consider myself to be a skeptic, and I'm far from being cynical...! Dreadstar † 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'll have to retract my earlier statement that I've always been civil, and just say that I've always strived to be civil, even in the face of egregious comments by some of the opposing editors. With the comment you point out, I was joking around on the talk page of a fellow editor - there had just been a comment that "ESP shouldn't be confused with ESPN". My comment was clearly an inappropriate joke, but it wasn't directed at anyone in specific. Let's post the whole comment, I think it's clear what I meant:
"Yah, that's the ticket, the Psychic article..that's the one! Glad you were psychic enough to realize that! (Jeez, I must still have the flu... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skepitcs won't be happy until it says "All psychics are frauds and there's no such thing..." Anyway, I hope your version sticks! I'll work to make it so. I'm tired of arguing over a single word, you actually did what I've been suggesting and added detailed content! That's the way to go, but some of these editors just want to be lazy and throw in a biased, loaded WP:WTA. Good job! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"
Hey, I'm guilty as charged, joking or not - it was uncivil, and I regret making such a comment. After being so close to death and suffering through serious illness and multiple surgeries since that time, my world view is quite different now than it was those many months ago. I can only say that I've grown and learned a lot. I wouldn't make insulting remarks to anyone any more. I'm willing to be subject to recall, if anyone's concerned about my pov or civility, or anything else.
In its more serious implication, that comment is meant to say that instead of taking the time to research and add detailed comments, some editors substituted the easy way out of adding in a WP:WTA instead. Not the best way to add critical commentary to an article, in addition to violating WTA.
As for the second part of your question, you've actually asked this same question before in response to a question in your Admin nominiation in July. I'll answer by pointing you to the article on the subject, with a short quote from it: Pseudoskepticism, "[Truzzi] defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'". I consider myself a skeptic. The term pseudoskeptic has been found to be a pejorative and an insult, so I would never again say it in reference to any person or group - even jokingly. Dreadstar † 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third question from Wikidudeman

If nominated to adminiship, Would you be willing to add your name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall with the requirement that at least 5 established users with over 500 mainspace edits agree that you should be recalled and re-confirmed? Reconfirmation means that if you abuse your admin powers and 5 established users with over 500 mainspace edits each agree that you have abused them, you request a steward remove your administrator powers and you run for admin again. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dreadstar had a family emergency and may not be available to comment for a few days. --Fang Aili talk 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite frustrating. If Dreadstar would be willing to put himself up for recall if he were to become an admin with the stipulations I listed above then I would probably change my vote to Neutral or maybe even Support. However if I can't get my question answered then there is nothing much that I can do. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Dreadstar has had a rather serious family emergency, and thus, some patience, and leeway would be helpful, as he may not be able to respond immediately. Ariel♥Gold 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay, thanks to both Fang and Ariel for explaining my inability to respond quickly. Yes, Wikidudeman, I agree to your terms and I will gladly add my name to the recall list under the terms you've indicated. Just to be clear that this applies to my actions going forward and not any past disagreements. Thank you for making such an offer, Wikidudeman - I accept! Dreadstar † 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A big respectful tip of the hat to you, Wikidudeman, for your willingness to give Dreadstar a chance despite your closely held doubts. --Yksin 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yksin

10. Many of the questions here have focused on your activities in the first half of this year, prior to your extended break due to hospitalization. You have alluded to changes since the hospitalization that have had effect on how you conduct yourself at Wikipedia. Could you describe these changes? Please include specific examples of your edits/activities after you returned in July. What is the difference between how you did things before & how you do them now? --Yksin 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Excellent question, thanks! This will need a detailed response. While recovering from my surgery, I couldn't even sit at the computer, so I had a lot of time to think about things, including my involvement in Wikipedia. My entire existence had brightened - having survived such an ordeal has really helped me focus on the important things in life, like family and friends, and I wanted that to carry through to my work on the project. I really wanted a fresh start when I came back in July. I want to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia, fighting vandalism and having good relationships with other editors. I've always had a good sense of humor and positive optimism, but I think I had allowed myself to get too deeply involved in some of the paranormal disputes.
My earlier experiences on Wikipedia were with editors with strong POVs, so I thought that was the way to participate. So I think my editing had been tainted by my initial experiences in articles where there was a lot of contentiousness, and I thought the way things were being done there were the way things worked. I have since come to find out that I was wrong, and changed my methods accordingly. I no longer wanted to engage in endless disputes over the paranormal, and I realized that I derived great satisfaction from the mediations I had been a part of. When I came back I resolved to step further back from these disputes and try to act more as a mediator to organize and keep the discussions civil.
I removed most of the paranormal-related articles off my watchlist, and focused on other areas of Wikipedia. I created the article on Charles Banks Wilson, an artist I long admired, and have also worked on other articles in areas I’m interested in like Dreadstar (graphic novel) and The Price (graphic novel). I started participating in more AfD discussion like the ones on KleinISD Vistas High School, The American Muslim, James Bond gun barrel sequence, Media in The Simpsons‎.
I worked on cleaning up OR from What the Bleep Do We Know!? and then helped mediate the dispute (Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/archive2 especially the Request for Comment and Straw poll), which led to consensus and the article being unprotected by the blocking admin.
Without taking any position in the content dispute at Battle of Washita River, I organized and oversaw a straw poll which helped editors come to a consensus leading to article protection being changed to semiprotection. I attempted to mediate a content dispute at The Holocaust (Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 16 and Talk:The Holocaust/Sandbox, which as was pointed out, mainly failed for lack of participation by some of the disputing editors.
I will still occasionally get involved in paranormal related discussions, but I will not engage in back and forth bickering and any type of comments about other editors, except in relation violations of policy. Mainly I try to participate in bringing both sides together in consensus. For example, with Psychic surgery I took an important part in the discussion (Talk:Psychic surgery/archive3,Talk:Psychic surgery) to rewrite the lead in a way that both sides in an edit war could accept, so that protection could be lifted. (It was, and no edit warring since.)
I also like to recognize editors who just try to make it easier for others. I came across this exchange Orange signature 1, Orange signature 2 -- and I thought that was so cool, so I left a barnstar and an award for both the users. I don't have a desire to get involved in emotionally charged disputes except to come in as a mediator and apply policy. My own views and personal feeling are irrelevant. I've come to know policy much better, and I continue to learn and grow. Dreadstar † 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cardamon

11. Could you explain your views on when it is permissible for an editor to delete another editor's talk page comment, and how they apply to this recent edit? Cardamon 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Comments should be only very rarely removed and only in egregious circumstances per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, such as those containing personal information or libel, and in cases where permission is obtained from the editor who made the post. The post in question was removed per the WP:BLP policy. It has been firmly presented to me that unsourced personal attacks even on talk pages should be removed immediately; specifically:
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."
To quote directly from the removed post, this is clearly an attack on a WP:BLP:
"this article is too gentle with this man, and his dumb show." "The belief that Edward has powers is ridiculous, and cannot be compared in any way to the belief that he is simply a liar who wants only to make money. It is not only the anti-Edward that "believe" he is a liar. He IS one. Period" "My english may not be perfect, but one thing is sure : Edward is NOT a psychic"
Added to the unsourced personal attack are uncivil comments, which I would not have removed had they been the lone issue:
"Do some of you REALLY believe that crap? John Edward, a psychic ! ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ! This is soooo dumb !!
Dreadstar † 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also discuss this edit, which was described as refactoring, and which removed talk page comments by quite a few editors? (Some of the removed comments, by an editor who was indefinitely blocked shortly afterwards, are vile.) Cardamon 09:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, that editor was blocked by Jimbo himself for making vile hate speech comments, including those on the Holocaust talk page. I attempted to refactor the page per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, specifically,
"Refactoring talk pages can be used to clean up the accumulation of unclear or irrelevant previous posts. Such an accumulation can make understanding an ongoing discussion difficult and may discourage potential contributors from involvement. Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility."
Due to the volume of the hate speech on the Holocaust talk page, the focus was completely off the editorial content of the article and I thought a refactoring of the page would be a good means of focusing on the essential core issues. The comments by the other editors in that refactored section were mainly replies to the hate speech, e.g:
“Ignore the troll, please check contribution history. - Jeeny Talk 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)”[reply]
I refactored those as well, leaving the specific points about the article that had been raised, so those could be focused on and discussed. I had just archived the old discussions in archive 16 that I had created a couple of days before the edit you mention: [5]. I was in process of getting ready to add the comments that were removed during that refactor to the archive when another editor beat me to the punch and archived them (edit conflict) as I was saving the same content to the same archive. Then another editor objected to the archival/refactoring and restored the entire thread, which is also covered under Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages:
“If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.”
After the user had been blocked, I archived the remainder. Dreadstar † 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies to this question seem reasonable to me. Cardamon 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dreadstar before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

My follow-up statements to that post were:
“I mean, you cannot write the article that (for instance) talks about "Witches", but only uses Bewitched as a "fictional" source for content." [7]”
"The current article just needs a cultural section added to the existing content; it does not need to become a total "cultural article" or any type of fictional article - semi or full." [8]”
That’s where I was going with it, not that believers outweigh science. That’s actually the opposite of what I was attempting to say. And I wasn't making any comment about the validity or quality of the science, as a matter of fact, the science was highly questionable...but it shouldn't have been left out or even extremely minimized.
I was attempting to turn the proposal around and show how that view (majority rules – fictional subject) would work if it were applied to other paranormal articles where there actually was a body of scientific investigation. Majority rules would put science in the outbox everywhere, and make science seem less valid. But, if you cherry-pick that one statement out of context; it looks like I'm advocating for belief over science...which just isn’t the case.
Just to be clear, I would certainly never use admin abilities to push a pov; as a matter of fact, I probably would avoid using them on paranormal articles altogether, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Dreadstar † 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized you'd written this until I'd written & posted my own lengthy comment below in response to rspeer's analysis of that quote. But I'm glad to find that I seem to have been correct in my own analysis. I think it points out the importance of looking at statements made by RfA candidates within the full context of the discussion in which those statements were made. Thanks. --Yksin 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's looking a lot that way. To some extent, both this RfA & Wikidudeman's (which I took a long look at) have seemed to me a continuations of content disputes on those articles. Also it's seemed to me that the focus in this RfA has been on stuff that happened several months ago, with little attention given to the ways this candidate has learned & improved since then, to the point of having been instrumental in helping resolve major content disputes on articles like What the Bleep Do We Know and Battle of Washita River, & making a pretty darn strong try at it at The Holocaust (which I think failed only for lack of participation by editors on one side of the content dispute). But, as I said in my Support vote, Dreadstar's participation as a neutral party (taking no position on the content we were disputing) was instrumental in helping us to work our way towards a resolution of a very long-term dispute. --Yksin 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience one of the main problems with RFA is that the people who have been around the longest are most likely to have done things that upset some people. Even if they walk on eggshells it's bound to happen. The most experienced and successful editors are frequently the most controversial ones. Generally people who have been here a few months and haven't had any disputes but have absolutely no real experience get RFA's passed easily but people who have been here over a year and have had a few dispute sin the past are much more unlikely to become an administrator. That's one of the main flaws in this RFA system, Experienced editors fail where inexperienced editors succeed. While DreadStar is an OK editor, There are definitely serious concerns but since he has agreed to my stipulations I erased my opposition. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Except that in this case, Wikidudeman, we have a candidate seems intent on portraying a different persona than who he really is. That is VERY different from someone who does the right thing and ruffles feathers from time to time. Xiner (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --Fang Aili talk 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SupportSeems like a great editor.Rlevse 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support See no reason to oppose. LaraLove♥ 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with enthusiasm. Dreadstar gave us a big assist at Talk:Battle of Washita River by setting up straw polling in our article RfC, which helped enormously towards us developing a consensus & putting an end to a lengthy period of full protection on the article due to edit warring. I was too overwhelmed at the time by all the problems we'd had with that article to figure out how to do a good straw poll, or even to realize that was what we needed, so it was really a huge help. I've also been witness to Dreadstar's communications with one of the other editors involved in the Washita dispute, whose habitual incivility had already resulted in a user-conduct RfC. Dreadstar has had dealings with this editor at the Washita talk page, at Talk:The Holocaust, & on the user's talk page, maintaining a firm but patient & civil demeanor throughout, despite plenty of provocation from the other user. Dreadstar is very well-suited to taking on the additional responsibilities that come with admin-ship. --Yksin 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good editor, see no major concerns. PatPolitics rule! 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No doubt he will make a good admin. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Answers to Q5 allayed concerns raised in opposes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per all the reasons stated above, as a proud co-nominator. Phaedriel - 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- This user will apply the tools intelligently, and appropriately. That's all I ask. --Haemo 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - having become involved in the attempts to unprotect and improve the Battle of Washita River article myself, I can echo Yksin's praises of Dreadstar's conduct, approach, and civility there. Everything I've seen from him makes me confident he has a thorough grasp of WP policies and will apply them fairly and use any new responsibilities wisely. --Miskwito 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support You sound familiar. I think we've worked together, and I have no reason to oppose. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I was recently just looking around at pages, and I saw his name, was curious, and asked why he was not an admin. Stupid question. Dreamy \*/!$! 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Dreadstar has often helped me in difficult editing situations by giving advice and pointing me to specific policies. I've been impressed with his dedication to Wikipedia and learned a LOT from the way he handled the major rewrite of What the Bleep -- an article that had long been contentious and had serious violations of WP:NOR. TimidGuy 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Yeah, of course! Good solid editor with a lovely sense of humour. ScarianTalk 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good editor, good qualifications, and I trust the noms quite a bit. Jmlk17 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assess the nominee, not the nominators. Your trust in the nominators is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - TwoOars (Rev) 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (changed to oppose) We need experienced editors as admins. —AldeBaer 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support all the best Khukri 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as excellent editor, no problems, will make a good sysop. Bearian 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support a serious editor. - Modernist 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support a very helpful editor. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Involved in a small way in the What the Bleep... discussions and found Dreadstar to be intelligent, thoughtful, calm, and very helpful in dealing with disputes. olive 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, despite issues raised by oppose comments, I see no reason why not to grant him the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. First time I've seen something which equates to opposing per edit count >_> Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is opposing for anything that even vaguely resembles edit count. --JayHenry 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was part of rspeer's oppose. --Fang Aili talk 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support, I have seen Dreadstar's work in all of the areas he does work in, and I am thoroughly impressed. Sebi [talk] 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Nice guy and never had a problem working with him. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Disagreeing with someone's views on article content is not a valid reason to oppose, in my opinion. I am confident that this user will not abuse the tools in content disputes. Melsaran (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. It appears below that Wikidudeman is trying to sink this RfA due to personal conflicts with the candidate, which is completely inappropriate and unimpressive. I don't see any reason the candidate could not be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Asserting that my objections are based purely on "personal conflicts" is simply false. While my personal experiences with this candidate are outlined because they are what I'm most familiar with, it isn't the only thing that I bring up in my opposition. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly have an axe to grind. Therefore, you have no credibility in this case in my opinion. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the "no credibility" and "axe to grind" comments, I only oppose RFAs when I believe the user in question will either abuse the tools or won't know how to properly use them. I have given sufficient reason to believe this user isn't ready for the admin tools. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spike, even if the basic motivation for Wikidudeman's oppose is a personal conflict with the candidate, automatically disqualifying everything he says seems a bit awkward. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    While some of my opposition stems from my "expereinces" with the candidate, my opposition is anything but personal. I frequently support RFAs for editors whom I have had previous conflicts with. Though again, Some of my opposition stems from my experiences with the candidate, but other parts of the opposition stems from things the candidate has done which I was not involved in, such as disputes involving edit waring, a block for edit waring, etc. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Good editor. Rfas shouldn't be judged on their editing styles or what they believe in. That's wrong and biased. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing styles are one of the main things to judge RFA's on. If someones editing style is to edit war, assume bad faith and insult other editors then that is definitely something to judge an RFA on. I agree that "beliefs" are irrelevant. As far as I can tell, No one has opposed him based on his pro-paranormal beliefs. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be hard to oppose him in any case based on his "pro-paranormal beliefs", as no proof has been given that he holds pro-paranormal beliefs; see for example his answer to your question #6, where he states "I’m not sure about the paranormal, but I have an open mind about it." "Not being sure" about something is not the same as being "in favor" of something. --Yksin 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be attacking him for believing in something you don't. This doesn't mean that he can't be trusted with the tools, or would be a bad admin. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to be attacking him for believing in something which I do not? Please explain how you got that impression. Nowhere in any of my opposition arguments have I opposed him because he believes in something I don't. I'm opposing him because of his previously disruptive editing habits and assumption of bad faith. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he believes about the paranormal. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Editor has been involved in many highly complex and contentious issues on Wikipedia, and these have lent themselves to mis-interpretation here. But being so involved or even making mistakes is not a good reason to oppose his candidacy. He seems to be a conscientious and thoughtful editor who is already doing many of the things which admins do. I think he will do well. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When Dreadstar was defending you on your RfC, I find that he was the first to support many positions that were divisive and not at all conscientious. Here's an example: "The paranormal section is essentially a platform for skeptics to espouse their view of the world, and only a few editors have had the courage to take them on. It is impossible to seek an informed consensus in those articles without being a little aggressive, and the skeptical editors are very good at baiting people into edit wars." I don't think there's much there that can be misinterpreted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It hinges upon whether the statement is true or false. I don't know you, which means you don't edit paranormal much. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have believed the statement anything but ranting either, if I hadn't been through it myself. But it looks like your mind is closed on this, if you are willing to say he is not conscientious. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Dreadstar is a great vandalfighter, and does much vandal fighting at a time when fewer administrators are available. Whatever may have happened in the past on paranormal topics, I am convinced that enough time has past that he has learned from whatever mistakes he might have made, and would not use his admin powers in these areas. Academic Challenger 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Looks like he would be a good admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. SupportIt sounds like he would be a good admin. Folks below are raising the paranormal stuff, but he has said he would not use admin powers in this area. I think we should take his word for that. Bigglovetalk 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I think the opposers are taking some of the paranormal arguements a bit too far. I think this user can be trusted enough to have adminship. Captain panda 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I don't particularly care if I agree with Dreadstar's content views or not. He's shown a willingness to learn from his errors and I have no reason to believe he will abuse the bit. This editor fits the bill for me. Vassyana 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Per noms, and above, I see no reason to suspect Dreadstar will abuse sysop. Dureo 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I have personal experience of Dreadstar encouraging collegial and generous behavior in other users. -- LisaSmall T/C 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good user. Acalamari 17:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. When I first started writing here, Dreadstar (among others) was a very helpful mentor on how to edit articles. I sincerely support Dreadstar. Cosmokazi 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support looks like someone who would fit the role. AD 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support We need more users like this user. Fully support. Phgao 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support The editing environment in Wikipedia is a very confrontational, I think, for the very reason we are seeing some of these questions requesting that Dreadstar account for positions he has taken in articles. I do not deny the right for any editor to champion a cause. I do seek to deny the right for an editor to push a point of view at the expense of rational and reasonable debate, as has so often occurred in the paranormal articles. I have seen nothing but the demonstration of respect for Wiki policy from Dreadlock. In my view, he will help bring respect and credibility to Wikipedia articles. Tom Butler 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I fully support Dreadstar on the basis of his excellent contributions, as well as for the fact that we badly need an admin with strong knowledge of parapsychology and related areas. - Solar 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - If Phaedriel is co-noming, I can't see that bad attitude would be a problem with Dreadstar. Experience is no issue, either. Anyway, if this paranormal stuff does turn out to be real, Dreadstar, and you are one of the chosen ones, please remember that I supported your RfA and put in a good word for me. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I support Dreadstar's nomination for a number of reasons but also with a few concerns - the same concerns I would have about any admin with an interest in the paranormal. The paranormal is one of the areas where wiki has a real problem. There are three competing viewpoints in my opinion, rather than the two normally stated. There are strong believers in the paranormal, there is a middle ground, and there are pseudosceptics. All three are heavily represented on Wiki. In my view Dreadstar occupies the middle ground. Definitley the paranormal leaning side of the middle ground, but the middle ground nonetheless. For this reason I think he is in a good position to be an admin with regard to those subjects in particular (and they are the hardest ones). That is, there has been a recent paranormal arbcom case (although many writing here appear not to have taken on board any of its findings) and it would be good to have someone able to represent those findings accurately in the disputes that will continue on paranormal articles. Thus my support for Dreadstar's nomination. My concern, the same concern I would have about anybody here, is that with regard to paranormal articles on wiki, integrity is paramount. The proof of Dreadstar's integrity would only show in his involvement in disputes after becoming an admin. I have seen nothing to suppose that Dreadstar would not act with integrity but it is clear than admin status has made many here think they are above the law. As regards the other duties associated with adminship I have no doubt that Dreadstar would be able to carry them out fairly. Davkal 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support This user has clearly demonstrated the ability and the will to edit Wikipedia responsibly and to raise the quality of articles both by removing malicious or inappropriate content and by adding new content of their own (these days, far too many users will simply delete and don't create). The user has also demonstrated the willingness to discuss ALL SIDES of an issue, advocating dialog between users and the discussion of issues so that a solution may be found. All of which are admirable qualities in an editor. On a slightly different note, having read the above (and the below) I notice that the most common of the criticizms leveled against this user fall into a single category, this being that other users object to the fact that the nominee thinks that it is appropriate for entries with controversial subjects to include all notable opinions, while the criticizing users believe think that only the opinions of scientist matter. Frankly, I have to say that when a subject is primarily notable for the unscientific views that surround it it is an absolute must that those views be included. For this reason I consider criticizm of the nominee in this area to be invalid and I still support their nomination. - perfectblue 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    I am more than a little concerned by the fact that the user is being singled out for critisizm over their paranormal edits. This appear to be the mainstay of all criticizm against them yet it is irrelevant to most of the work of an editor. For example, how would it render them unsuitable to arbitrate a dispute over the use/deletion of curse words, or to decide that one user was stalking the edits of another? This user has done too much good work in too any other areas for me to consider their single subject critisizms to be relevant to or representative of their suitability for being an administrator. - perfectblue 10:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support User track appears to be okay and to come back after surgery and contribute to wikipedia is great.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. After reading both sides of the fence, I don't know comepletely what to make of the candidate since I haven't had personal contact. However, co-noms by two of the most trusted wikipedia users to me means that he must be a good candidate. Wizardman 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I trust User:Phaedriel's judgement in this case, and support this candidate based on his experience and qualification. WooyiTalk to me? 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I support any editor who attempts to bring a calm voice and neutral viewpoint to controversial topics, especially those labeled paranormal. Dean 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Dreadstar's contributions are a welcomed voice of reason during heated discussions. Roseapple 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support A very good and experienced editor. Good answers to above questions. Also I hope your health is better now. Kudret abi 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I am not convinced by those editors who have brought up concerns. The majority of these issues are months old; some dating back to 2006, most from the first quarter of 2007. In nearly every unsuccessful RfA, the candidates are advised to "return in 3-4 months" to demonstrate they have learned from the issues in question, and have properly changed the way they deal with them. I am confident that Dreadstar has done just that, and I believe this is best illustrated in his answers to the many questions asked here; his measured and thoughtful responses show he is more than able to retain a cool head. I have bumped into him many times during Recent Changes patrol, and I have never once noticed he acted in anything but a polite manner, his notices and responses even and calm, and his explanations thorough. His assistance to me when I have questions have been invaluable, and while I consider him a "friend", I did some serious looking at this RfA, before deciding to comment. I respect Wikidudeman greatly, and his concerns caused me to pause for quite some time, while I looked into Dreadstar's past history. I respect Wikidudeman for abstaining from comment now, as Dreadstar has agreed to be open to recall. The sockpuppet issue going on here with Deedstar and his multiples is very disturbing, but I would request that the closing administrators take the comments made by those editors with very little weight. There are editors I respect who have voiced opposition, and I gave their comments heavy weight in my final decision, but I again noticed that nearly every major issue brought up was over 6 months old. I believe in giving second chances, and I fully believe that everyone can learn from past mistakes. As far as the "paranormal" stuff goes in general, I honestly have no feelings about the paranormal articles. It does seems to me that there are a good many articles on subjects that are either known to not be true, or just suspected as such. The point is that if they are presented as items which were reported by the media, and strive to not offer any opinion, I see no reason these articles cannot co-exist with other aspects of the encyclopedia. I agree that in the past, Dreadstar may have used edit summaries that were not overly helpful, and that he has made mistakes in the past, but there is not one of us who can say we haven't. I truly believe that Dreadstar has not only learned a significant amount from these long-past incidents, but also since then, and I'm more than sure he's also learned quite a bit during the course of what can only be described as a difficult RfA process here. I truly think that Dreadstar would be responsible, cautious, and if faced with a situation he felt could be difficult for him, he would request assistance or request another administrator handle it. Therefore, it is my opinion that despite the controversies brought up, it will be beneficial to the community to allow Dreadstar to assist Wikipedia in administrative duties. Ariel♥Gold 10:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Dreadstar handled skilfully a difficult situation involving an entry where I had a particular interest. Brian Josephson 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong oppose Changed to abstain (I've changed my vote to abstain since this user has agreed to my terms above, Though I will leave this info here for other editors to judge) - This user (formerly known as User:Dreadlocke) has quite a long history of being very difficult to work with and conflating issues. There are several examples of this in the past several months which I'll elaborate on. Here he removed another editors comments because he deemed them to be "unnecessary" [9]. There is also the incident of him attempting to get into a debate about the validity of James Randi's paranormal challenge on the talk page of the John Edward article. I replied that it was not the place to engage in such a debate and called the discussion a trifling, which he interpreted as an insult and subsequently edited my post to remove the word he interpreted as insulting, [10]. While the word "trifling" means "of little importance" and have such a discussion on such a talk page was obviously of little importance, I didn't interpret it as an insult. The word might not have been the best to use, however the problem here would be his removal of words from other editors edits and assuming bad faith. He instantly assumed that the comment was an insult without ever assuming good faith. He also decided to engage in a drawn out debate about whether or not what I said actually warranted a "personal attack" which can be found here [11]. This in my opinion shows a lack of judgment. He seems to have a habit of labeling anything he disagrees with "uncivil" and erasing them, as can be shown on his talk page where he frequently removes very constructive remarks from other editors and labels them "uncivil". Examples:[12], here he removes my comment inquiring about a request for mediation concerning an article labeling me an "abusive editor" [13] and upon reposting the inquiry on his talk page a few days later, he removed it again, once again labeling me an "abusive editor" in the edit summary [14]. Those are just a few examples of such habits. He also has a history of overt edit warring which has been established pretty clearly due to a 3rr block. When his name was User:Dreadlocke he was blocked for 3 hours after violating the three revert rule. Diff [15], Blocklog for User:Dreadlocke [16]. He subsequently got into a debate with the blocking administrator disputing whether or not the block was indeed justified [17], [18], [19]. These are just a few of the many examples of bad decision making and lack of knowledge of policy exhibited by this user the last several months. This user also shows a tendency to go months at a time without making edits or making only a few edits. This brings into question his ability to be around when he is needed for arbitration matters. For instance between September and October 2006 he made only 23 edits and in the months of May and June of this year he made absolutely zero edits and seems to have disappeared until he appeared again last month making over 2,000 edits. He was a very problematic editor during the time prior to May however upon his return last month he seems to have avoided any disputes and has even engaged in "Admin Coaching" which makes one wonder about his sincerity. Assuming good faith, I will say that this user at least needs several more months of edits prior to becoming an administrator and at this time I'm going to have to strongly oppose him. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your post concerned me enough that I've taken a good long look at the diffs & links you provided. There are some issues I read differently -- for example, his discussion with the admin about his 3RR block doesn't strike me as a "debate" about whether his block was justified so much as an explanation of his own reasoning for the edits at issue, & a good faith attempt to gain an understanding of what his error in interpreting policy was. He remained civil & respectful throughout the discussion -- it read nothing like the "poor victim me" justifications for edit warring I've seen with other people blocked for 3RR. The drawn-out debate about "trifling" was drawn out not only by him, but also by you. I do have concerns about the comment-removals you detailed, & the "abusive editor" statement in made in edit summaries in regards to comments (by you) that did not seem abusive to me... but it's not quite enough to tip me over to opposing his nomination, or even into going neutral on it, given that these instances took place many months ago (in February), & you yourself state that he "seems to have avoided any disputes" since returning to editing. It would be good, however, to have a statement from him about this. I'm not really sure why his participation in admin coaching should lead to questions about his sincerity -- admin coaching seems like a good way to have some guidance toward better understanding policies, including user-conduct policies, so that he can make a good & conscientious admin. I believe he stated himself that his periods of no-edits were during periods of extended illness, which surely admins are permitted to have (not that I'd wish extended illness on anyone). --Yksin 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction -- the explanation of absences was actually made by his nominator Fang Aili, who stated "He had 2 periods of inactivity due to being hospitalized." Not quite something I feel fair to hold against someone. --Yksin 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly in agreement. Many of the things Wikidudeman brought up strike me as extremely minor, and without much cause for concern, but the removal/editing of other editors' comments (and justifying removing good-faith comments by calling the editor "abusive") isn't good. I'm not ready to change from support yet, but I would like to know what Dreadstar has to say about all this. --Miskwito 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call frequent assumption of bad faith, edit warring, disruptive edits, and being blocked for edit warring "minor". I would call it a major cause for concern. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this with Dreadstar briefly, and as he has already posted above, it was a product of a misunderstandment of the terms of the policies about removal of messages, that he was willingly conceded, even long before this RfA. As a self-admitted mistake that he never repeated afterwards, and considering the long time since it took place, I'm fully satisfied by his explanation. Phaedriel - 11:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Looking through his contributions, I find that Dreadstar has spent a lot of his time on Wikipedia promoting one side of the paranormal issue, and I'm afraid he would use his admin powers to benefit that point of view. I'm most worried by a comment of his that makes me doubt his interpretation of reliable sources:

    "With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs - so if we take a "majority rules" perspctive, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Wikipedia community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles?"

    I'm reluctant to oppose on this basis, since he is apparently a very fair-minded mediator on other topics, but when it comes to paranormal topics, I am unimpressed with his conduct. He seems to end up in escalating battles that are easy to avoid. Here's one where he changed the meaning of one of his talk page contents after someone already responded, the other person changed it back, and then Dreadstar reported the other person to AN/I over WP:TALK. The misunderstanding would have been easy to resolve without escalation.

    Note that I'm not endorsing the basis for Wikidudeman's oppose above, which seems to mostly be a personal grudge, and ends with arguments that don't even make any sense ("he took a Wikibreak, and that's bad because blah blah arbitration"? "Admin coaching is insincere"? "Editcount-while-hospitalized is too low"?).

    Finally, I am unconvinced by his Q4 answer that his edit count is not inflated, especially since he has a userbox on his page boasting about his count. Though he gives VandalProof as a reason, he has only used it recently, yet he edited at the same frenetic rate in 2006, so it doesn't account for all the inflation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on later comments by Aldebaer, I'd like to amend this to a strong oppose. It is dishonest for Dreadstar to claim that he has "always remained civil": I saw a swath of clearly uncivil edit summaries in May. In short, I do not trust Dreadstar. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do agree with you. I have noticed that he has a pro-paranormal slant, though it's pretty obvious if one takes notes of his edits. I wouldn't use that in itself as a reason to oppose him as we all have our biases, as long as we don't try to insert them into articles. Though the problem is that he has on numerous occasions engaged in edit wars and disputes over his personal beliefs, which leads me to believe that he probably would not be a good administrator. He has done some good work the past several weeks but prior to his 2 month long break with 0 edits, he had a long history of disruptive edits and edit waring as well as not assuming good faith, not only not assuming good faith but also assuming bad faith on many occasions. The fact that he's been blocked for edit warring doesn't help the case either. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really wish you would stop saying "disappearance" and "2-month break" in a disparaging context. Those aren't reasonable arguments against adminship. Though I have found some reasons to oppose, I think you're reaching too far to find them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how "disappearance" is disparaging, I apologize if you interpret it that way, but whatever term you want to apply to his sporadic absences of 2 months at a time, Administrators need to be available for various reasons. Though as mentioned below, I wouldn't ever oppose a RFA only due to absences from editing. It should always be mentioned though. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like respond to the "disappearance" comments: as I mentioned in the nomination, these absences were due to hospitalization, and even if they were not the result of such unavoidable circumstances, it is no big deal for users to take breaks for whatever reason. --Fang Aili talk 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators need to be around, especially active ones. If an Admin is a part of some arbitration, the admin needs to be able to respond and answer questions and can't take months off at a time. This user has not one but two large breaks of months at a time where he either posts a few posts or posts nothing. This alone though isn't why I oppose. If this were the only thing he'd get a strong support, but this is just one among many many problems that I see with this users edits/editing habits. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Administrators need to be around" is a discredited argument. Being an admin is a completely volunteer job, and nothing is harmed when particular admins are not around. Your objection about arbitration has nothing to do with being an admin. (People tend not to end up in arbitration when they're away, whether they are admins or not.) Wikibreaks tend to be neutral to good things, so I object to you trying to claim they are bad. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree. Administrators are much more likely to be involved in arbcom cases than normal users simply due to the extra tools they have which can cause controversy if used incorrectly. An admin who takes months of leave at a time (for whatever reason) would need to take extra care because if an arbcom starts about something he did while he was here and he isn't here to defend his actions then that's a lot of extra trouble for the arbcom to deal with. Now, This is worth mentioning again; I am not opposing him due to his long leaves of absence. I'm only mentioning it because it's relevant. I'm opposing him because of his history of disruptive edits and constant assumption of bad faith. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really object to the term of "constant assumption of bad faith", the majority of issues raised occurred 5-6 months ago, or even longer, and Dreadstar's activity since then could in no way be described as "constant assumption of bad faith". Ariel♥Gold 09:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about the validity of oppose arguments based on the editor's personal opinions or biases. Dreadstar specifically says in Q1, "I would like the ability to protect pages and to block 3RR or WP:NPA violators in disputes where I am not involved either as a disputant or a mediator. I would not use my admin privileges in disputes that I am involved with, I would instead seek a neutral admin’s assistance" (emphasis his). Unless there's a good reason otherwise, I don't see why you wouldnt' assume good faith here and presume that he's being truthful? (Obviously I realize that's not the only reason you're opposing) --Miskwito 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it were just that I disagree with his point of view regarding Wikipedia content, I wouldn't use it as a reason to oppose. Dreadstar's support for the paranormal crosses the line into policy, though, and it is commonplace to oppose admin candidates when you disagree with them over policy.

    I find it a perversion of WP:RS to say that random people who believe in the paranormal have the same standing as scientists when explaining the natural world. Dreadstar has argued for interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:RS that run counter to Wikipedia being a reputable encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not my view at all, I don't place random people who believe in the paranormal on the same standing as scientists. My view is actually in line with that of the ArbCom Three layer cake with frosting and the rest of the ArbCom findings and decision. Dreadstar † 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment from you I quoted above seems to say you do. Meanwhile, the "three layer cake with frosting" is totally irrelevant to my objections. That's only about parapsychology, a topic I never brought up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I want to address your characterization of Dreadstar as someone who is "perver[ting] WP:RS through an equation in which "random people who believe in the paranormal have the same standing as scientists when explaining the natural world." This especially concerns me because your characterization of this seems to influenced other people to oppose the RfA, on what seems to me to be mistaken grounds. With respect, I think that by reading the quote from Dreadstar you provided about outside the context of the full discussion in which Dreadstar's comment was made has led to a misunderstanding about what he said & what "side" he was arguing.
    So to provide full context -- here's the complete discussion. (This is the version of Talk:Electronic voice phenomena just prior to it being archived by Martinphi on 22 Feb 2007.) The topic under discussion was whether coverage of EVP in the associated article should be primarily cultural (or, Milo H Minderbinder originally called it, "fictional"), primarily scientific, or a balanced incorporation of both POVs; and, if the last, how to strike a balance of POVs given that there was relatively little information by scientists about EVP because EVP was apparently consided too "fringe" for scientists to pay it much attention. To the extent EVP was investigated scientifically, it was alleged by some editors to be non-mainstream, & these editors questioned whether it met WP:SCIENCE standards for notability. In the context of this dicussion, Milo H Mindbinder wrote the following: Where has "the scientific community" had any response to EVP, much less a significant one? The two journals cited are ones that specialize in fringe topics, they're not mainstream scientific publications. With zero mainstream coverage, I don't see how you can argue it is anything but fringe.... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." If the majority view is that EVP is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community, the article is required to reflect that to maintain NPOV (emphasis added).
    This is the comment Dreadstar (writing then as Dreadlocke) was replying to. Here again is the portion you quoted: With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs away - so if we take a "majority rules" perspective, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Wikipedia community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles? (but read the full quote; better yet, the full discussion). To me, this reads as: "Milo H Minderbinder says we need to go with the 'majority rules' perspective. But this is what the 'majority rules' perspective would mean: leaving out the scientific perspective because it's too much of a 'minority'. If those of you who are skeptics on the paranormal are going to follow that standard here, are you really willing to follow that standard in all paranormal articles on Wikipedia?" I.e., Dreadstar was arguing against following the "majority rules" perspective elucidated by Milo H Minderbinder at that time, because it would deemphasize the scientific POV as being a "minority" view.
    Later comments by Dreadstar (Dreadlocke) during this dicussion bear my analysis out. For example, As a reader, I would want to know about the details of any scientific investigations or opinions of EVP, I wouldn't want just a "fluff" article about tv shows and fictional information. I would want to read about the real deal. And The primary notability is that people believe it, or think it is possible, and not TV shows and fiction. What makes reality tv and fictional representations popular, is that underlying belief - so the scientific "real" side needs to be prominently described. That's what I believe readers would want to know about. No one is arguing that the article should not meet NPOV, it's just a matter of degree on how to include both. (But again, read the full comments & full discussion to get the full context.) Challenged by Milo H Minderbinder to source the claim that "The primary notability is that people believe it", Dreadstar did so (& here's the source he gives.)
    This satisfies me that Dreadstar is not, in fact, counting "random people who believe in the paranormal" as having the same standing as scientists with regard to the paranormal, but in fact the exact opposite -- just as he said. --Yksin 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (As a gesture of good faith, and since this RfA appears to succeed, I hereby withdraw my opposition. Some more or less valid concerns have been brought up, and I trust you will take them to heart.) I just spent an hour investigating the validity of Wikidudeman's contentions. Even though I'm a more or less regular supporter, I'm left with no choice but opposing this candidacy at this time. The candidate's behaviour at Talk:Psychic alone casts serious doubts as to coolness and WP:AGF. The valid argument that things like this happened as early as January is in equal validity countered by respective concerns over streaks of near-total absence, sudden change in behaviour and possibly some edit inflation. What tipped it over for me is the candidate's bad memory, or faulty perception, or dishonesty (each not a trait I'd favour in an admin) as evidenced in saying that he "always remained civil", which I find a doubtful statement looking through the diffs. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose somewhat weakened by answer to Q5. I still don't feel totally comfortable, however. Should this request succeed, I urge you to continue your current civil course. Further, while I personally disagree with JayHenry's comment as an oppose rationale, I do see the point he's trying to make: Admins as well as editors should in my opinion come from all ages, social backgrounds, religions, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, real-world places and from all corners of Wikipedia, but there is a limit to what I can wholeheartedly agree to, and defending the paranormal realm against "scientific POV-pushing" is one such thing. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Rspeer. This is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, the likes of John Edward do not get equal standing with science. Do not get me wrong, my support for WP:NPOV is absolute, and I've argued repeatedly not to delete articles on pseudoscience and the paranormal. But the lead of our article on psychic says, among other things, "The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial." Wrong. It is as controversial as "the existence of Hogwarts." Carl Sagan once said, "Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing." When I read a Wikipedia article, I still want to emerge from it with knowledge. We have an obligation—to our readers, to ourselves—of nothing less.--JayHenry 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even though I wasn't directly involved due to my surgery, my basic involvement and issues with paranormal articles were addressed by the recent Arbcom Paranormal case decision. I felt that the subjects of the articles were not being treated fairly or per Wikipedia policy. I wasn’t trying to promote the paranormal or parapsychology, I was attempting to make the articles more NPOV. The comments I made and my intentions, including the intent behind the statement quoted by Rspeer above, were pretty much well confirmed by ArbCom in their decision.
    Most of the disputes I was involved in were about wording that I felt was biased against the subject of the article, such as the use of “purported psychic” or “self-described psychic”, which was as subject of intense dispute, here are a few: [20], [21], [22]. The discussions were everywhere: [23] [24], even disputes about calling parapsychology a science.
    To me, these terms and disputes were unnecessary – and ArbCom agreed with that assessment. Now that ArbCom has ruled, those are no longer issues that I’m concerned with, even were I still inclined to engage in such discussions. Dreadstar † 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you just cited the ArbCom decision that drove User:ScienceApologist from Wikipedia. That was a dark, dark day for the project. I'm generally in support of the ArbCom, but they butchered this one. The current and embarrassing state of the article psychic is proof alone of folly. --JayHenry 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That Arbcom case in my opinion was not a very good example of a well though out and processed one. It was jumbled and complex due to dozens of users who had no previous experience with Arbcom cases adding all sorts of unrelated material and the committee had numerous cases on their hands at the time and the number of proposals in it was staggering. I think the Arbitrators were overwhelmed by all of the info. I don't agree that 90% of the decisions of that case were ever helpful to improving Paranormal articles and even at times difficult. As a matter of a fact, That case drove away other good editors as well including User:Minderbinder (who btw had also had long disputes with Dreadstar). It should also be worth nothing, I was trying for a while to get Dreadstar involved in the Arbcom and have them look at his long history of disruptive edits. The Arbcom was initially started and agreed upon due specifically to the actions of some pro-paranormal users. I eventually found a better way to resolve disputes than the Arbcom though as is evident from Parapsychology (Soon to be FA) and Homeopathy (Soon to be GA), and the arbcom did little to aid me in this. However It should definitely be noted however that the Arbcom was initially started because of pro-paranormal users disrupting various pages, and over time turned into something much more complex to the point little was done about the actions of various users. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose because of fears he might use his admin powers to skew debates in the paranormal realm. Maintaining a neutral point of view doesn't mean that psychics are as likely to be real as they are frauds. As an earlier contributer rightly notes, the existence of paranormal powers isn't a matter of controversy, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to substantiate any of these claims. If well meaning people look up information on wikipedia they shouldn't be left in any doubt about this. While editing to support ones point of view is fair enough, we all do it, using admin powers to do so would be entirely wrong and I don't trust this user not to do that. Sorry. Nick mallory 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose after seeing the rather bizarre comment cited by rspeer which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. I also see a confrontational attitude in many instances that would only escalate conflicts rather than resolving them. - TwoOars (Rev) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strike off my oppose in light of the explanations regarding the EVP talk page. Although like Skinwalker I too think that Dreadstar is misrepresenting WP:FRINGE, I believe that it is a content dispute and in the absence of evidence to suggest that Dreadstar will use sysop rights to push a POV, I can not in all honesty oppose here. However I can not support either as I still have niggling doubts about the user's understanding of NPOV and because of the confrontational attitude I mentioned above. So I abstain. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose Pro-paranormal POV warriors have been disrupting many, many articles for a long time, per the diffs presented above and at the paranormal Arbcom case. To be fair, Dreadstar was not very involved in the arbcom case, but the basic misunderstanding of NPOV in the comment rspeer cited is a textbook example of the philosophy of these editors. The last thing we need is to grant one of them adminship. Skinwalker 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Per Dreadstar's suggestion above, I read the comment that rspeer cited in its full context[25] and I find Dreadstar's position even scarier than before. Not only is he arguing for a very unconventional application of NPOV, he is misrepresenting WP:FRINGE as well, claiming that electronic voice phenomenon is not a fringe subject. My oppose is not based on my disagreement with the content he produces. It is based on what I perceive as a fundamental lack of policy/guideline understanding, and even if he does not use admin tools in areas of parapsychology I am concerned he will misapply policy elsewhere. Skinwalker 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose An admin candidate's private beliefs are none of my concern provided they do not bias his or her performance. But in this case I must oppose, as I feel that Dreadstar (formerly Dreadlocke)'s interpretation of NPOV has been shown to be quite slanted towards the paranormal, as in this example. His complaints about "pseudo-skeptics" also concern me. LuckyLouie 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Aldebaer. The candidate's opinions on specific content issues have zero bearing, and frankly, bringing them up throws doubt on the credibility of any legitimate user conduct concerns. But there are legitimate concerns as pertains to this candidate's understanding of policy (both in the letter and the spirit of the law). Most seriously, per the diffs provided here I would not describe the candidate's behavior as exemplary. We all enter into conflict, but this user seems to have egregiously flouted the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. VanTucky Talk 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongly oppose, per Jay Henry and Skinwalker. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very Weak Oppose This is one of those times where I would like to see the user become an admin, but the issues raised above just make me feel you may end up making some mistakes - sorry --Benchat 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per Jay Henry, and rspeer's concerns about your ability to remain neutral and your understanding of NPOV. But mainly per the fact that if one of the opposers hadn't mentioned your editing under another name previously (User:Dreadlocke), we would never have known, as you don't admit it to it anywhere in your comments, and nor did any of the co-nominating statements. That's either incompetent or disingenuous, neither of which instils me with confidence. Neil ム 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This may or may not make a difference to you, but just as a point of information: he underwent a user name change on 12 July 2007, so all contributions in his edit history were reattributed to the second username. I.e., his full edit history is available under User:Dreadstar. (Though that doesn't affect his signature on talk pages, which may still be an issue for some people.) --Yksin 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though when you click on his previous username (User:Dreadlocke) it says "Retired" and "Former Wikipedians". This gives the impression that the user has left Wikipedia as the name doesn't redirect to his current username. If someone were to see his disruptive edits from that name and clicked on the username they would be directed to a page that says the user is "retired" and is a "Former wikipedia" opposed to being directed to DreadStar's current userpage. Perhaps he just forgot to redirect it, but it's quite confusing and could give people the impression that they are seperate people. I myself first though that before further investigating it and checking the talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yksin is right about the username change. I should have mentioned the previous username, though, because of the 3-hour block on the Dreadlocke username record. Dreadstar and I talked about that block months ago, and I simply forgot about it. At the time, I didn't consider the block a "big deal" because it occured months ago, it was an isolated incident, and seemed to stem from a miscommunication or misunderstanding (not a desire to edit war). Therefore it just didn't stick in my mind. Also, when I double-checked for blocks just before submitting this nom, I found that the usual path for checking was not availabe: I went to User:Dreadlocke intending to click on "User contributions" in the toolbox, then "Block log", but "User contributions" is not there. So I figured that any blocks had been transfered to Dreadstar's record. This was a misunderstanding of the username change function on my part, as well as just forgetting about the conversation I had with Dreadstar. I apologize for this oversight. --Fang Aili talk 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't just "your" oversight. He could have pointed it out as well. Whether this is intentional or simply the fact that he forgot about it, It gives more questions to think about when contemplating his adminship. Though you bring up a good point. By not mentioning his previous username, People aren't able to see his record of having been blocked for edit warring. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very weird. I had thought that the block log would have transferred over along to the new username along with edit history -- so I misunderstood how it worked too. I was finally able to find his edit history by going to my own special contributions page & clicking on the block link, then replacing my username in the Title field so it reads "User:Dreadlocke". Then click on "Go" and his block history as Dreadlocke is displayed (one three-hour block on 19:08, 23 February 2007 by User:William M. Connolley for 3RR on John Edward). --Yksin 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the edits flagged by Wikidudeman are troubling. The candidate's response to question 1 indicates that s/he intends to use the tools for vandalism fighting, but the flagged interactions seem to indicate that s/he doesn't know how to tell vandalism from strenuous debate. I also fear that s/he has a rather thin skin which is not a good quality for an admin: we have to endure sometimes quite nasty comments and second-guessing with civility and some good humor. Perhaps the most troubling of the edits is the deletion on discussion page; what struck me was that it wasn't deleted in the heat of the debate but 3 weeks later. I cannot exactly put my finger on why this troubles me so much - is it evidence of harboring a grudge? or having to have the last word? or deleting something unsavory after people are noticing it are no longer paying attention because the debate has moved on? I don't know but it to me is really troublesome and none of the simple explanations is good. I really fear that giving him/her the tools will ultimately spawn an RFARB to take them away. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose RfA was once a too intimidating place. I, for one, believe that it has now swung too much in the other direction. I will not reiterate every troubling aspect of this candidacy, but I have no confidence that at this moment, this editor can be trusted to wield the mop credibly. Xiner (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose Dreadstar's nomination. His "performance" editing the ESADE entry is a depressing one and hardly inspires confidence. One of the qualifications for an editor must surely be knowledge of the subject matter and Dreadstar glibly admits that he has "zero interest" in it. While enthusiasm may be a necessary condition for this post, it is hardly a sufficient one. Dreadstar has only proven his inability to make sensible use of the powers he has acquired - what point is there in conferring even more on him? Deedstar 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your "zero interest" quote referring to this edit in which Dreadstar discusses with an admin your disruptive editing of the article you named, through such practices as persistently adding unsourced critical content? not to mention self-published sources (which are considered unreliable per WP:RS) as detailed at User talk:Deedstar? Looks to me like he was defending the wiki against your disruptive editing. --Yksin 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an obvious WP:SPA, blocked for username block as well. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Dreadstar's correct approach, politely informing you of the many policies you were breaking with your edits at ESADE notwithstanding, I wish to note that the user above has a total of 11 edits, three of them to this RfA; and judging from its contributions history, it seems highly likely that it's a SPA. The similarity between this username and Dreadstar's must also be noted. Phaedriel - 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural question: since Deedstar has been blocked for username, is this a valid vote? Note also that this user somewhat disrupted this RfC page too, by twice placing his/her vote in the wrong section of the page. (First time a mistake maybe; second time seemed pretty purposeful.) --Yksin 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And notice that Deestar seems to be a parody of Dreadstar. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's why Jaranda blocked him. Based on this, Deedstar created that account after doing SPA editing of the ESADE article from an anon IP, & being cautioned by Dreadstar about innappropriate edits. --Yksin 00:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) -- Also apparently a sock of Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs), prior IP edits as 83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs). --Yksin 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) -- And what looks like a couple of new socks, As Tidies She (talk · contribs) & ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs). Think I'd better make a sock report. --Yksin 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened a sockpuppetry case against this user; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar. I'm still hoping for an answer to my procedural question: is this user's vote valid? --Yksin 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented it. Whether it's valid is up to the closing bureaucrat.--Chaser - T 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as per arguments by Neil. AKAF 08:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Although I have no sympathy with Deedstar's way of going about things (slighting Dreadstar's user name is hardly good manners, nor is poking fun at his yen for the paranormal), I have to admit he has a point. While I believe there is no single clinching argument for opposing Dreadstar's canditature, the case for turning him down is pretty conclusive when one puts the points together. Without attempting to exhaustively summarize the objections raised earlier, these might be stated as: (1) apparent ignorance of Wiki policies; (2) a strong pro-paranormal stance (anti or pro - it makes no difference, it's still POV); (3) evidence of lack of civility, good humor and knowledge; (4) a gift for escalation; (5) evidence of removing traces of blocks imposed for edit-warring. Put baldly, why take the risk when there is no shortage of excellent candidates for this position? Gareth 1985 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)> Comment struck out by me after blocking the account as a single-purpose account and highly likely sockpuppet account of Deedstar. Pascal.Tesson 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I resent the false inference that I have anything to do with Deedstar - evidently I am unfortunate in sharing the same Internet provider but since the Spanish market is virtually a Telefonica monopoly, there is little I can do about it. Choosing another provider is simply not a reasonable alternative. I have therefore re-instated my comments. I should like to take this opportunity to make a further observation - as an assiduous user of Wikipedia, I have a legitimate interest in who runs it. None of my arguments have been refuted and I believe I am as entitled as the next man to receive a reasoned response, admin. privileges or no. This is Gareth 1985 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Out of courtesy to Yskin, I have left his mistaken conclusions intact. To err is human, to forgive divine.[reply]
    Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) is a new username with four edits to its credit -- all of them to this RfA. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith with this vote, & suspect this user of also being a sockpuppet of Deedstar (talk · contribs) whose other sockpuppets (at least those who were known) were all blocked last night. --Yksin 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (2nd) -- Gareth 1985 & another new account that edited at ESADE have both been indef blocked as probable socks of Deedstar. --Yksin 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, here we go again. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (3rd) --Yksin 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that over two days later, this latest suspected incarnation of Deedstar has still only made one edit -- to this RfA. (See hidden note on the sock report for why it hasn't closed yet.) -- Yksin 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort expressed above. Zaxem 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Weak oppose Not convinced the editor would be an even-handed adminstrator. Cardamon 04:22, 15 September 2007. Changed to weak oppose. Cardamon 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose - Due to my past experiences with the user. He and another user came within a hair's breadth of becoming parties to an arbcomm request based on flagrant misrepresentations, mistruths, and just a general mess of POV pushing, which I (and others) ended up just disengaging from. (I'm not linking to the discussions intentionally. It's just not worth dredging up the past, except to explain my oppose. Besides, it's spread out over several user talk pages, several article talk pages, and the AN and AN/I boards.) In hindsight, it seems to me that there was more than a little of an attempt at gaming of the system by a user who obviously was trying to. I just have sincere doubts about this user as an administrator. - jc37 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Somewhat convinced by Wikidudeman's comments, but not enough to oppose. I think contesting a questionable block, while not really productive, is certainly understandable. I think Dreadstar was calling the kettle back slightly in discussions like this one, but I think that's pretty minor. I'm most concerned with the removal of comments on talk pages that Wikidudeman outlined, as I think most of those instances were not clear bad-faith comments and attempting to silence editors can be taken very negatively. Still, I think it's relatively minor. Candidate might make a valuable administrator -- hard to predict preemptively. — xDanielx
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