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

Closing bureaucrat's comments: This RFB was a close call, probably the closest in recent history. The support comments are just that, supports and they are all positively in favour of promotion. There were basically 6 editors who were not in support of promotion and these can be grouped into three different positions; 1) too many crats already, 2) too aggressive and confrontational an attitude and 3) lack of understanding of consensus in the RfX process. Diffs were requested to show examples of confrontaion in the candidates dealings with others but were not really forthcoming apart from a single example which can be taken differntly by different readers. Whilst no comments have been discounted those of the nature of "too many crats" have not been taken as an objection of the candidates ability to be a crat and have thus been weighed in that light. I feel this RFB falls within the descretion of a bureaucrat as taking all the preceeding into account it is very close to call. The oppose comments that have had the most influence on the closing of this RFB are numbers 2 and 3 above. These have come from two editors and I feel that whilst they should be an area of improvement by the candidate in the future, they do not overcome the support given by the other members of the community. I have therefore decided to exercise discretion and promote the candidate to bureaucrat. I hope the community respects my reasoning. fr33kman talk 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion overturned, with removal request made on Meta. Removal of bureaucrat flag done by steward DerHexer. Chenzw  Talk  11:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion restored - (DJSasso successfully promoted); there was no reason to overturn the decision of a bureaucrat. --Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso

[change source]
Djsasso (talk · contribs)

I've been observing Djsasso for a bit, most especially s/his judgement. I believe s/he would make an excellent addition to our crat team here. Thank you for your consideration. Has clue... that is all I ask of crats... is clue. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End date: 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Candidate's acceptance: I had to think about this one. I went down in a blaze of glory last time I had an Rfb. I am sure I will get plenty of there are too many 'Crats comments especially after the recent promotion of fr33kman, and that is ok because everyone use entitled to their opinion so you won't hear boo from me if that is your reason. But anyways as for why I am accepting it, I am accepting it because I am always willing to help the wiki in any capacity I am capable of. A few extra buttons will allow me to help in some new ways, renaming (which I notice a few have sat for quite a while recently) or bot approvals etc. Is there a pressing need for me to have these tools with all the other crats, no there probably is not, but that doesn't mean having an extra person around can't help. I think my record with my admin tools shows I won't abuse any tools. And I like to think that I show that I have clue as NVS mentions above. I have also tried to fix some issues that were raised at my last Rfb about needing to have a more open mind about things like IRC, and as the regulars on there will see I am on there all the time now, I still push to make sure decisions leave a paper trail on wiki, but I see no problem on people using off-wiki tools for community building. So have at me and give me your worst. -Djsasso (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Has clue. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also... I want to note that crats and admins who discuss are well preferred. As far as the too many crats... I don't think this is an issue at all. If there are three, or ten. It makes no mind to me. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trusted user, has sufficient common sense. Doesn't really matter to me if half the users on-wiki are crats. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is absolutely no harm having too many 'crats. It's the question of eligibility and trust, which Djsasso fits in both criterion. I hereby support Djsasso. Please, I implore on the community to decide on Djsasso's ability, not on the number of bureaucrats here. Thank you!-- Tdxiang 05:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Exert 07:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Every admin who has shown they "have clue" should automatically become a 'crat Soup Dish (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - You didn't expect this, did you? Can't be bothered to argue you shouldn't be one, sure you'll do fine. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 09:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Djsasso has my complete confidence. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Per my nom last time. Clueful and experienced. Shappy talk 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doesn't matter if we have many 'crats. I agree (regretfully) with BG7 about your temper, but that's ok . ;) You do have a lot of clue. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Although the oppose votes do have merit, I support per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. This is a copy and paste of my comment on Fr33kman's RFB. RFA/RFB are designed to reflect upon an editors skills, edits, and positive/negative contributions to the encyclopedia and to decide whether we can trust them with some extra buttons. Not to decided whether more crats/admins are needed. whether we need more or not I think is irrelevant to Djsasso contributions and ability to work with the tools. In my opinion at least.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. I find that you are too confrontational and impolite to be a 'crat. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with telling people things bluntly, but I think that a lot of the time you lack the things that I expect to see in a 'crat. Now, this isn't anything to do with your ability, just the fact that I think you lack the communication that a 'crat needs. This will probably pass anyway, and i'm not too worried, but I just want to make my concerns known. Goblin 09:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
    Could you provide some diffs to backup such damning comments? Soup Dish (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in the same... that is serious accusation this is such a strong thing to say about the candidate. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Majorly. There's one. And what's a "serious accusation"? Go say that to Majorly too, he says similar things. Or are you still wikistalking me? Goblin 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
    You changed my comment. So I have stricken the portion I did not intend to publish, and reinserted the wording that I desire. As for wikistalking... remember, you can be actioned for repeated violations of certain guidelines. Failing to collaborate does not help this project. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, sorry about that. It appears we edit conflicted and I copied too much in. Didn't mean to change anything at all there. Remember, you too can be actioned, and i'd like to suggest that for the forseeable future we completely ignore each other - don't comment on each other's comments etc etc. That way there can be no misunderstandings. Goblin 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
    If accidental, then is ok. No, I won't ignore you on wiki, I am well within my own right to request diffs... if you don't provide them then that is your option. Actioned for what? I generally assume good faith. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per all my other opposes to RfBs: We have enough crats. Currently we have 6 out of about 30 active users with this flag. That's too much. No need for an other one. Nothing against you, Dj. But we don't need more users with this tools. I trust you and if you become elected, you have my trust. Good lock and don't take this amiss. Best Barras (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians, I'm afraid. I think a number of us are forgetting what we're actually here for, and that's to build an encyclopedia. I was disappointed to see that Djsasso has only made 892 mainspace edits in 14 months, about two a day, constituting just over a quarter of all of his edits. I'm very concerned that this Wikipedia is being used to "collect hats" rather than build a body of work. We're very top-heavy and we're not working hard enough on articles. This oppose isn't, in any way, a personal dig at Djsasso, but his low mainspace contributions is indicative of where a lot of us are going wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said I am not commenting on the too many crats part of your oppose as I respect your opinion on that issue. But I must disagree to using edits to determine if we are helping to build an encyclopedia or not. There is more to building an encyclopedia than just writing articles. I personally think we need to work alot of things out at this wiki before we create a bunch of articles. Not much point in writing the articles if they are just going to be deleted when the wiki is shut down because we haven't solved our other problems first. I also choose to not create lots of stubs like others so perhaps its just a difference of opinion on what is considered building an encyclopedia. -Djsasso (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which particular "other problems" will be solved by becoming a bureaucrat? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I didn't mean they would be solved by becoming a crat. I just meant that only counting mainspace edits as building the encyclopedia is a bit of a misnomer. Things like discussions on simple talk are also part of building the encyclopedia. -Djsasso (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you said "Not much point in writing the articles if they are just going to be deleted when the wiki is shut down because we haven't solved our other problems first." Some questions:
    1. What are the "problems"?
    2. What part of becoming a bureaucrat will help solve these "problems"?
    3. What would the 'crat flag do to help you "save" our Wiki?
    4. Beyond the odd name change and RFA promotion, how would you consider your weighty number of contributions to Simple Talk part of the "survival plan"?
    5. Why would your potential promotion benefit this Wikipedia?
    6. Why wouldn't making great, simple, accessible articles be part of your contribution plan?
    7. Do you just want to patrol and monitor this Wikipedia rather than build a body of excellent, well-sourced work? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My answers will be short for the time being as I have to leave in a couple minutes but I will expand when I get back in a few hours. 1> The biggest problem I see here is a lack of focus, what is and what isn't the goal of simple wikipedia. This is probably the biggest thing that should be decided so people don't waste alot of time creating things that in the end won't fit in with what the wiki has as its goal. And example of this is the few thousand stubs we just deleted which while not the greatest articles by any means they represented many many hours of work by a few editors. With a clear goal all of this time could have been better spent on something that would not have been removed. 2> As for what part of becoming a crat will help solve this problem, being a crat has nothing to do with any of these problems and wouldn't help anymore than a "normal" editor can help towards fixing them. 3> See answer to #2. 4> I believe in things being discussed so that a consensus can be formed at which point then implementation can happen. I find that coming up with ideas and finding areas that should be improved in potential plans to be something I am good at, as business analysis is what I do on a day to day basis off-wiki. 5> Because I bring some more experience to the table and an extra pair of hands so to speak can always help. 6> Creating articles is part of my contribution plan, my point above was that its not the only part of my contribution plan. 7> I do both. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Bluegoblin7. Comments in this discussion, for example, are needlessly aggressive and adverserial "I find that an amusing comment from someone who trumpets the need to have a good reason to oppose", especially. Additionally, the comments show a complete misunderstanding of the RFA process - that it's up to the supporters to provide some sort of "case" that someone should be promoted. Promotion to admin is meant to be "no big deal" and a natural progression, unless of course there is good reason not to. So RFAs are really for providing reasons why not, rather than why. I fear he might go discounting support votes that don't give a rationale. Majorly talk 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I maintain my support, I do see your point there as "support" is basically "innocent until proven guilty" and the opposers are the ones who need to fulfil the burden of truth, not the supporters. Though I do maintain the RFB process should be brought down to "have they been a decent enough admin for three months, if so, promote" Soup Dish (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If RFB is to be brought to a lower level (like Meta) it should be done on a more automatic basis rather than an official vote. Since it isn't, I am still going to vote as I normally would. I don't have stricter standards at RFB than RFA, as they are different roles completely. Majorly talk 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never discount a vote because they didn't put a reason. I just think someone should atleast put in the effort to say "per nom". -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My other points still stand though. I'm sorry. Majorly talk 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, don't you think editors who discuss and are bottom line, up front, are more desired in this regard? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But far too often I have seen him dismiss opinions based on who said it or whether he agrees or not. There is just far too much brusqueness. Majorly talk 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your oppose better, but let me speak it back to you so that you can tell me if I'm getting it right. Basically, the comments and attitude are too abrasive, in your opinion? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, yes. I have no problem with his admin work, I just feel his ideas about RFAs clash with what I consider to be the norm. I do not want another Creol (talk · contribs). Majorly talk 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You tell me I dismiss others opinions but you go on to say because I have an opinion different than yours basically that I am no good? Is that not exactly the same thing you are accusing me of? -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinions are at odds with how RFA works. I could never support any person for bureaucratship whose ideas were so opposite to how things work. This is not my opinion, this is how RFA works. Majorly talk 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, because I believe in the spirit of how Rfa is supposed to work I am no good. I should just be a sheep and accept that Rfa is now a vote and no longer a discussion. I shall remember that. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll make one thing clear - it's snarky remarks like that I find most concerning. I could have overlooked your odd outlook at RFA, and assumed you would close these discussions fairly (it's not difficult), but simply put, the attitude is all wrong. Majorly talk 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you could have assumed that. But you didn't. You assumed bad faith. You implied that I would run amuck and do things against consensus and abuse the position when my track record does not show that I would do that at all. Yes I make snarky comments when people are snarky to me, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I will abuse the tools. If anyone opposed with the stuff you opposed with on a candidate you supported you would rip into them. I just think you need to stop having a double standard for people who you just don't like and have a more open mind. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that respect, you should be supporting me for bureaucratship too. I have the rights on another wiki and have not abused them. But I doubt that you would. In any case, I impled nothing except that I felt your comments on RFA were at odd with what the community expects. This is not just about abuse of tools. Creol never abused the tools, but his attitude, especially at RFA was all wrong - "it's up to both sides to provide an argument". Wrong. Oh, and as for "If anyone opposed with the stuff you opposed with on a candidate you supported you would rip into them" - complete nonsense. Heh, and you think I don't like you? I don't have any opinion on you, really, though your repeated insulting remarks to and about myself are really wearing my patience thin - from fabricating situations in order to sink my RFA on enwiki, to your sarcastic remarks on here about things along with ad hominem arguments. I'm about as open minded as you can get. I've opened my mind, and believe that while you wouldn't abuse the tools, you would take a heavy-handed approach to things, as evidenced by your RFA comments, comments around the wiki, and attitude displayed all over. Frankly, I'm surprised you have as much support as you do. Majorly talk 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you are clearly wrong then as I supported your CU request which is a much more dangerous position in terms of seeing private information than that of a crat. I fear he might go discounting support votes that don't give a rationale. is what I meant when I said you implied that I would abuse the position. ie that I would ignore supports of people who didn't leave a reason and that I would discount peoples votes based on who gave them. All of that is implying I would run around forcing my opinion on people. I didn't fabricate situations in your Rfa either, the situation happened and I interpreted it differently than you did. (and still agree with based on the fact your are bringing it up as a reason to oppose me since I opposed you) -Djsasso (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CU is nothing like bureaucratship. So I'm not clearly wrong. I said bureaucratship for good reason. Now, discounting votes without a reason is certainly problematic - but in a close call situation, it could very easily fit under a bureaucrat's discretion. So it's hardly abuse, unless you did it routinely. And I don't recall saying you'd discount a vote based on who made it. And you did fabricate it - I'm opposing because you did. Try running for oversight - you might be surprised. It's a completely different role to bureaucratship, but I'd be happy to support you there. You need to get out of this ridiculous idea that I'm out to get revenge. I have good reasons to oppose you, and didn't even bring that up till now. And I didn't even need to. Majorly talk 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, I feel that we already have (possibly too) many 'crats. I feel that too many crats can sometimes be a bad thing. —MC8 (b · t) 20:44, Sunday July 26 2009 (UTC)
    • You did not need to. Griffinofwales was pointlessly mass-welcoming people for some reason, and really should not have been. Anyway, I don't understand why admins can't grant flood flag. Majorly talk 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • I'm not sure I understand the concern that we have "too many" bureaucrats. What's the harm in having a couple extra ones around? If Djsasso is a trustworthy editor, I really don't see a reason to deny him the extra tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really agree with "too many bureaucrats" but I certainly understand it - we definitely do have plenty, and perhaps some feel that they don't want excess user rights that simply don't get used. And while Djsasso may be "trustworthy" I do find his approach to RFA at odds with norms of what a bureaucrat should do. Majorly talk 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My approach to Rfa is that it should be a discussion and not simply a vote. This wiki simply votes to much and doesn't discuss. I would think the desire that things be a discussion of merits and demerits would be the sort of quality one would want in crat rather than someone who can just count numbers? -Djsasso (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a discussion as well, which is why some RFAs have passed that did not meet the normal level of support. It's up to a bureaucrat what is and what isn't relevant discussion on an RFA candidate - e.g. "Oppose - he has an e in his name" isn't going to get counted by any bureaucrat, but "Oppose - doesn't have enough edits" might. My problem is I believe you would count every oppose, regardless of its merit (well, perhaps not the first example). What I've seen of your comments on RFA disagrees too much with what a bureaucrat should act like. Majorly talk 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok you are welcome to your opinion. I was just looking for clarification. I will just say that I think my requesting of people having reasons would show that I am looking for valid reasons for supports/opposes. If you would like an example of my views on valid/invalid opposes just the other day NVS was concerned about having a COI if he voted in BGs Rfa and I told him that as long as he had a well thought out reasoned and backed up vote that it wouldn't be an issue, whereas if he just voted "He sucks." then there would be an issue. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious Djsasso, you don't have to answer, but what do you think of this RFA? As you'll notice most of the support votes don't have a reason, what do you think of this? How would you have dealt with this? Exert 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly community consensus to promote despite being no reasons, so it would be a promote. Its not the job of a 'crat to demand anything, they are just to interpret community consensus. I may prefer people give reasons, but I can't insist on them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You stated that you would never discount a vote because they did not give a reason. However, would you way them less? Is there a difference between a vote with no reason and one that is simply "per nom"? Exert 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I couldn't see myself giving it less weight unless it was a drive by editor who hasn't edited here much or for a long time. We get alot of drive-bys which are never good. And I would do the same for opposes that were drive bys with no reasoning. As I said, I just like to encourage discussion in all areas.-Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category