Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Djsasso

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

Djsasso

Djsasso (talk · contribs)

End date: 1:38, 10 May, 2009

Ladies and gents, it's my pleasure to present Djsasso as a candidate for becoming a bureaucrat. DJ's been active here for around nine months, and an admin for almost four. While I've disagreed with him in the past, he has been a very steady admin. He is a source of wisdom in community discussions at both Simple Talk and ANI. On Simple, he has over 2,500 edits, and has created several articles He's also an admin at the I could only see him being a net positive as a bureaucrat, especially since we've lost Kennedy. It also wouldn't hurt to have a bureaucrat in the Americas who would close RfXs when Eptalon, TRM or Vector are asleep or when Chenzw is at school. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: While I will admit some surprise at this nomination as I haven't set out looking for such a position, I will definately accept the nomination for the position as I am always here to try and help and improve the wiki. As Shappy mentions I do have experience both here and on en.wiki as an admin. I have experience closing discussions on both wiki's based on the consensus that has formed and I have no problem closing discussion with the opposite result than the one I might personally want. Shappy is correct in that it could be usefull to have a 'crat in the Americas in order to not only close rfxes but to stop flooding if needed. I would also be able to work with Bot requests since I run a bot myself and have some knowledge of bot coding. -Djsasso (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

We need an American crat. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Djsasso is usually one of the biggest voices of reason on here, and certain one of the editors with the most level head. Either way (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Djsasso is a great role model for our editors and admins. Seems to be a very mature editor. Also, how can I say no to a fellow Canadian? EhJJ^TALK 02:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know why you have an "eh" in your username. :P Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatic support as I believe all admins should be made 'crats. Also, sensible views on off-wiki decision-making versus community building. Also, to expand following some of the opposes below, sometimes the truth hurts. Yet the mollycoddling/gently, gently approach used to CM16, rather than kicking him out on the spot, has caused more hassle than just being honest. If a user acts like a child, there is nothing offensive with saying so. If an admin appears to delete things without much thought, it should be said! Those comments are not insults, they are merely observations Soup Dish (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I believe the more bureaucrats the better. Someone with his maturity level and understanding would make a fine addition to the bureaucrat group. — RyanCross (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong oppose - No, sorry, I can't support. The user is uncivil, will only take yes for an answer (meaning you better agree with him or else...). I do not trust this user, and can't see him being a bureaucrat now. Also, three and a half months after your rfa here, seems a little rushed. Then, 2500 edits, even though they may be quality one's (to be honest, I haven't been through them) seems to be a lot less then the other bureaucrats, maybe showing a lack of activity, I don't know. Also, when you talk to people you disagree with, some of your comments are quite/very close to PA's; stay cool, it's not as though you're going to die over one of your ideas failing, or somebody else's passing. You have a strong opinion (I admit, I have too) and when you state I have no problem closing discussion with the opposite result than the one I might personally want., I find it quite hard to believe. Anyway, no for now. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 08:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some examples of the incivility and "quite/very close to PA's" that you feel exist? Thanks, Either way (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not, candidate refused to provide any proof at all on Aeam's rfa after I asked him at least 3-4 times. Not worth the hassle. Until he asks me personnally, a few time, I won't give any. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a discussion, not a vote. And I think others on here would be interested in seeing the evidence you raise so that they may make a better decision about the candidate. Your rationale for not providing any evidence is extremely immature. Either way (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, evidence comming shortly. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I won't play games with you like it seems you are trying to goad me into doing via this comment, you don't want to provide examples then don't, or do, it really is up to you. But closing decisions you don't agree with when the community has spoken is easy. When you aren't going to be the one closing a decision you are going to let your opinions shine through while you debate the topic, that is the point of a discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The examples Either Way asked for:
Calling me lazy didn't please me at all. here

People also often fail in Rfas when their nominators start badgering people (seems to me as he's referring to me nominating Shappy, though I may be wrong).

Saying that Certainly see why people list you as the number 1 reason they don't edit here. (to Majorly, not so nice either).

Majorly then complains According to Djsasso, I am the "number 1 reason people don't edit here. Either this is just another one of his petty attacks on me, or it's true, and I'm damaging this project. If people don't want me here, I'm happy to leave, and let this project fail. Majorly talk 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is a type of editor that Wikipedia prefers, its called a non-disruptive user who isn't just here to cause havoc. - (though I may agree with this, not sure it's very civil)

See the diff

Here me pointing out a mistake, telling him to be more carefull. His response No the comment wasn't aweful, you need to stop being so childish. (I didn't like that comment, and I don't think It's very nice accusing somebody of Sockpuppetry :p ; Habeas Corpus man :D )). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were being lazy, links were already posted in the conversation and you refused to use those ones. You wanted me to retype out the exact same links. You were being rediculous. The second point, I don't know the context of how I said that since you only cut part of a quote, but I probably meant in a general sense since its very common for people to fail rfas once their nominators start attacking opposes at en, and somewhat here as well but not as bad. 3rd point was true, I had a couple editors tell me that, it was a statement of fact. As for the type of users wikipedia prefers, again you cut a quote out of context so I can't see who or what I am replying too but again its a true statement and not sugar coated. For the sockpuppet comment it was a mistake and reverted immediately before anyone even responded. People make mistakes they are human even me. And my response to you well you don't have to like it but you were acting holier than thou. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the issue here is that being civil is being confused with being nice. You don't have to be nice to be civil. For example being uncivil would be something like "You are a stupid little jerkface kid." Whereas a civil but not nice comment would be "You are acting childish." -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Now, I understand that 'instinct' doesn't work over the internet, but you seem a bit iffy. Edits like this are discouraging, swipes like this add nothing to the discussion and just raise the thread temperature, and endless digs at the fact that we shouldn't use IRC borders on the point of 'POV pushing'. If Djsasso was running for adminship, I would oppose, let alone bureaucratship. —MC8 (b · t) 12:38, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)
People here do often walk around trying to be politically correct all the time, where has it gotten us? To a disfunctional wiki. More people needs to start being straight forward and speaking the truths and facts as they see them. Things will start moving forward once people do that. If you want to call them swipes or discouraging comments, that is fine. But people ignoring the situation like has been happening is slowly eating away at the wiki. As far as the constant digs at IRC, I don't really know where that is coming from as I have only made a few comments about it. Usually justified like the whole drama that was caused because of IRC chatter with Yot and Majorly a couple months ago. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these links make Djsasso sound like another Creol - he might well be right in what he's saying, but the way he expresses his opinion on certain issues is often rude and insulting to other editors. I have as noted been on the receiving end of this sometimes, and it did make me feel very uncomfortable. I'm really not happy with his attitude to things like "badgering" either, which we've had issues with before. A bcrat needs to be more neutral and a little more respectful to his fellow editors. Like it or not, a bcrat is often seen as a role model for new admins. I don't consider him to be much of a role model. And a final point, too often I have seen him oppose over trivial things like not being here a set number of months. Again, I do not want another Creol as a bureaucrat. Majorly talk 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, while I don't agree with them you are certainly welcome to have them. Though since I don't know what exactly was bad about Creol other than he had different views on things than you I can't really comment on it. I do have one question, and I don't mean it to be facetious I am just curious, you often comment how Rfx is all about whether someone will abuse the tools or not. And not about personality etc, I want to be clear that you think I will abuse the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'd abuse the tools. It's just the authority position I don't like. An RFB isn't the same as an RFA. Majorly talk 20:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just wanted to make sure I was clear on your reasoning. I don't really believe a crat has any more authority than any other user, but I do agree they can be looked up to so I do see what you are saying. -Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With four bureaucrats, I don't see an urgent need. Moreover, some quarrels seen about blocks and editing, already emphasized above, and a sort of attitude, especially in response to criticism, IMHO render this user unsuitable for that function. I sincerely hope that in the next future he will be able to have a higher degree of collaboration and trust among all users. --M7 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, just as valid as anyone elses opinions. While we do have 4, one is not active and the other three are on the other side of the world. Others have mentioned in the past that we need better coverage from 'crats so I do see some need, however not an extreme need. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much as per everyone else. Yotcmdr raises some points that I am worried about, and I too don't see a dying need for any more b'crats. What can be so urgent that needs them spread across the world? If an RfX is closed late, so what? Renames, most users don't expect them to be in the same minute as they posted them. There is no pressing need for another 'crat - unless we go with a blanket policy of all admins can become 'crats after xxx months. Regards, Gob lin 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, there isn't such an urgent need for 'crats here per Bluegoblin7. Also, you have made some discouraging comments on RfA's, which by Majorly says "b'crats need to be neutral". One such example would be in this very oppose section, at the top, "Well you were being lazy, links were already posted in the conversation and you refused to use those ones." to Yotcmdr. If you want to become a 'crat, please consider levelling down your tone of opinion amongst other users. иιƒкч ? 10:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except a 'crat doesn't need to be neutral, they only have to be able to close discussions neutrally. Just like an admin has to. -Djsasso (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per most of the others, noting especially Majorly's comments about perceived authority. I would have no objection to giving Djsasso the tools if this was something that was commonly given to admins. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think he is the best candidate for the job. I also think that he has not done well to dispell the oppose reasons, as his responses are a little confrontational. Kennedy (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that we don’t need another ‘crat here on simple at the moment. Sorry, but I don't think you are the best candidate to be a bureaucrat. The next thing is that a ‘crat should be always nice to others. But you didn’t show it here. This was not a good reply of a future ‘crat. Barras (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure I like his stance on off-wiki communication. We have a very active IRC channel that most of the regular editors use. 95% of the time it's off topic banter, and only about 5% do we ever seriously discuss anything on the wiki. I think you seem to be of the "anything off-wiki is evil" crowd, which is a bad thing in my view. A bureaucrat ought to be more open minded, and accept that off-wiki communication is used frequently, without any issues. Majorly talk 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Off topic chatter is one thing, all for community building. It's the forming groups and making decisions off wiki which I don't agree with. Mostly because there is no accountability and there is no publicly viewable archive to refer back to. If logs were posted somewhere I would probably change my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment on a current RFD worried me, it seemed like an unnecessary personal attack: "Why am I not surprised that you nominated an ideology that rejects the Judaic teachings of Christianity. -Djsasso (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)". I know CM16 could be frustrating but I would want to see a cooler head on a crat. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really consider it a personal attack, but that is probably a matter of opinion. For someone who claimed to not be pushing POV to nominate another religion for deletion. Seemed like a resonable response and an attempt to get them to explain their position more. -Djsasso (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add a quick note about our bureaucrats: Currently three of them (Vector, TRM, and myself) are in Central Europe (GMT/GMT+1 time zones, not corrected for daylight saving). Chenzw is is Asia. From this point of view it might look tempting to have one from the US as well. Please note however, that basically crats can award bot flags, and promote users (to admin or crat), none of these actions is usually time-critical, that is they can usually wait the time till the sun shines onto the other half of the world. Note also that Vector is currently less active than the rest; in that respect it might make sense to replace the crat who recently stepped down (for personal reasons). --Eptalon (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would also add that on this particular Wikipedia, there seems little reason to have an expectation for 24 hour coverage on RFA/RFB, renaming and bot flagging. Right now I find myself checking in here from 0700 to 2300 GMT. If Chenzw can cover the rest then the argument to have global coverage seems pretty weak. This statement, however, is in no way whatsoever a comment on DJsasso's potential ability as a 'crat. This comment is merely intended to allow others to understand that a requirement for a geographically disparate 'crat is dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree, I was mostly just mentioning it since Shappy brought it up. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]