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


Djsasso[edit]

(46/1/0); Ended 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso (talk · contribs) - Djsasso is another one of those wikignomes who can do so much more with admin tools. He mainly works with Wikiproject ice hockey and he does many small maintenance tasks that keep the project running smoothly. His move log shows that he often moves pages to proper titles per guidelines, often over redirects. Sometimes, he needs the tools to properly make the move, if there is a problem of some sort. Djsasso uses NPwatcher to patrol new pages. Djsasso has written many articles, as well doing maintenance tasks.

Djsasso first edit was about three years ago, but he has been contributing very steadily since last December. I think he has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policy and he will be using the tools. He has, most importantly, demonstrated than he can be trusted to not abuse the extra buttons. Maxim(talk) 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nom. -Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 27 December 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: I would most likely help with WP:CFD and WP:RM as they seem to not have as much attention focused on them as does WP:AFD. I am always watching for vandalism and reporting to WP:AIV if they have passed a final warning. More often than not I am the first person noticing them so I don't make it to WP:AIV but I definately do get them reported there when there has been multiple offences. I would also try and help with the seemingly permanent backlog on WP:SD/Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. I have relatively recently started to try patrolling new pages as well to try and catch issues before they are around to long and to help give new articles that jump start that they sometimes need. --Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia would probably have to do with many of my contributions to WP:HOCKEY. I am often involved there in discussions that help to shape the the standards we use for pages in different situations. I like to think of it as creating order out of what could potentially end up in chaos with the hundreds if not thousands of pages that fall under our project were to just be left to their individual methods. On a more editing related basis, I tend to focus on the cleaning up of articles, be it WP:MOS issues or adding missing categories or adding important information to articles that is missing. --Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 guess it would depend on what you consider a conflict, I have not had any personal issues with any given user in the past. However, I have had many debates with users as most of us have over a given policy or perhaps an Afd. In most of those situations I just try to clearly state my case and listen to their case as best I can and create a middle ground if it is just between the two of us. If it is a wider issue as diacritics seem to be within our project I tend to try and gather a concencus on the issue and then go with the majority. In general I am a pretty laid back person so I don't get too stressed over wikipedia as I use wikipedia as a fun way to spend time and maybe relieve stress. --Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Harland1 (talk · contribs)
4 I'm curious, in your edit count it shows that you had a gap of 11 months where you made 3 edits, was there any reason for this, and would this be likely to happen again in the future?
A: That was quite awhile ago, so its hard to say exactly what the reason was as I was still pretty new to wikipedia back then. Most likely had to do with work as I was working two jobs during that time and did not find as much time to use the internet. It's very unlikely that it would happen again as you could say I am somewhat addicted to Wikipedia now and check into it a few times a day. Perhaps it was the time away that made me come back and edit so much more when I returned. -Djsasso (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Corvus cornix

5. What is your opinion concerning the "this admin is open to recall" controversy? Would you offer yourself up for recall if you are an admin whose actions have been questioned?
A. Well that is an interesting question. I do believe there needs to be some way to recall admins who are abusing their powers or have had questionable actions. So I definately support the ability to recall admins. I do believe however that there needs to be a clear set of standards for what constitutes an apropriate time to put an admin up for recall, as I believe there is a tendency to have kneejerk reactions to a single mistake. So that being said yes I am open to recall once there is a more established way of doing it that is the same for everyone. Not just a jumble of random guidelines that each individual has. -Djsasso (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Dorftrottel

6. According to your nominator, you should not be an admin because you agree with the idea of recall. What do you make of that?
A. I am not sure I see where he says that anywhere on this page. Do you have a diff of him saying this? -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do see where he says it now, on other peoples Afds. I think my answer is different to the answer of those that he opposed that are currently up for nom in that I agree with the idea of recall, but I don't agree with the current process. Perhaps that is the difference he sees? I don't know. -Djsasso (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim has withdrawn his opposes on this basis, and anyway - it has no bearing on the candidate. Avruchtalk 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the eye of the beholder. I dorfbaer I talk I 09:58, January 1, 2008

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Djsasso before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - No reason not to. :) Rt. 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. --Maxim(talk) 17:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't you be opposing because Djsasso agrees with the concept of admin recall? I dorfbaer I talk I 00:30, January 1, 2008
  3. Support - Working in areas not many others do makes for a good admin IMO.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Working in other areas does help. Soxred93 has a boring sig 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - good admins are always welcome, and especially those who can add different talents to the team. EJF (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It's users like you that we need to keep Wikipedia working behind the scenes. Keep it up! Icestorm815 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My experiences with him as been positive, need more sports editors as admins Secret account 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support. I've seen this user around, always doing good things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. You will do great. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Looks good. Avruchtalk 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks good, meets my standards. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, Wikipedia can always use more gnomes with the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Support, per EJF. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, great contributions and keeps a level head during discussions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I find no reason to oppose him. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I would like to see the usage of edit summaries a bit more consistent and higher (78% major, 80% minor) for last 150 each, but the candidate has shown a sufficient (for me) need for the tools in moving pages. -MBK004 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very Strong Support - Seen this user around on the Ice Hockey Wikiproject, does great work and is very good at keeping a level head in discussions. No reason for him not to level up. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. The Transhumanist 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, looks like a quality editor who will do a good job with the mop & bucket. --Stormie (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support (from Neutral) - Appears to have a good approach and will benefit the project more as an administrator. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Oppose reasons were unconvincing. Liked nom's response to Harland's oppose. "It's all good," tells me nom is able to handle disagreement or opposition with aplomb. Good answers to Q's 1,2,3. Dlohcierekim 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A good user. --Sharkface217 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes, they're willing to help out in mindless areas where no admin dares tread. east.718 at 23:49, December 28, 2007
  25. Support, good contrib history, and per east718. BLACKKITE 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support would make a good admin. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good editor, helpful and knowledgeable would do good with the tools. Harland1 (t/c) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Snowolf How can I help? supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  29. Support looks fine to me. Hut 8.5 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support John254 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No objections for this nomination --JForget 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support oppose per Dlohcierekim. This candidate will be ready for the mop. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Looks good to me, give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Very Strong Support Extremely level headed in his edits that I have seen. Great work with WP:HOCKEY. Would make a fine admin. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --'n1yaNt 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I have much respect for this user. --Krm500 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per agreement with the concept of admin recall. I dorfbaer I talk I 00:30, January 1, 2008
  39. Strong support A very active member of the Hockey project who has done a great deal to improve the quality of the articles he edits. Already takes on numerous tedious tasks on top of being one of the better vandal fighters on the roster. An excellent candidate for the mop. Resolute 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Like he said at my own RfA, he is also very level-headed and need more users like him, ones who keep Wikipedia running. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - yes indeed, should be a good addition to the pool. docboat (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - for every single reason listed above. Thricecube (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Based partially on a positive observation of Djsasso making the right decision here; many editors can't swallow their pride when proven wrong in cases like this and keep trying to push things through. Humility and a willingness to learn and work for the greater good of the wiki are important admin traits. By the way, don't forget to inform others when posting an AfD via the edit summary, which you forgot to do here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as meeting most of my standards, but I'm a bit concerned about lack of edit summaries. However, we could use another expert from WP Hockey, and a WikiGnome who likes moving articles to boot. So on the whole, I could trust this one with "the mop". Bearian (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Always level headed when I've dealt with him on WP Hockey. Patken4 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Good user. Acalamari 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — While the kind of work Djsasso does is essential, it also tends to foster a fortress mentality that is an unacceptable trait in an admin. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the first thing you said Kurt, but it is essential maintenance which Djsasso has been doing, and will be mostly continuing to do as an admin. As the user has, as far as can be seen, not been involved in major disputes, I don't feel he/she will be too bitter, paranoid, resentful or vengeful to take on this role. EJF (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove that, Kurt, seriously you are going too far. Secret account 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Prove his opinion? Is that necessary here? (not that I actually understand what he is talking about) Avruchtalk 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt, how does it tend to foster a fortress mentality? The Transhumanist (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we have to pester Kurt all the time about this? He is making unfounded assertions which do not help build an agreement; as such, they do not affect the outcome of this discussion. --Maxim(talk) 13:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Until my question's answered. Cheers! Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Two thing, Harland, opposing because an optional question hasn't been answered is hypocritical and second, Djsasso only started editing much in December 2006, and his edits before that don't affect his ability to be a good admin much, IMHO. Maxim(talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind if he chooses to do it this way. He will make his mind up when he reads my answer. Until then its all good. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. Harland1 (t/c) 08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Djsasso for your faith in me! In answer to your two things, Maxim, these questions may be 'optional' but in my view they are compulsory. Compulsory that is if you want to get any where with your RFA. Have you ever seen a successful RFA where the nominee didn't answer the questions? I you look at this RFA then you will see that people opposed because of the length of the answer to Q.1. My question says 'and would this be likely to happen again in the future?' this was the last and the most important part of the question, as I personally would not support an admin who is likely to take breaks of this length in the future. Maybe I should have phrased my oppose slightly differently, something like this perhaps: 'Oppose until given a convincing reason for this break and told whether it would be likely to happen again in the future ‘ (To the reader This is not an oppose). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harland1 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 December 2007
    So if you want an answer for sure, dont't mark them as optional. Maxim(talk) 13:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry maybe I should have written 'Compulsory question from Harland1 (talk · contribs)' or just 'Question from Harland1 (talk · contribs)'. I just thought that the done thing was to keep up this rather silly pretence of 'optional' questions. I am fairly new and I don't want to upset anyone or annoy anyone. For all I knew there might be some important Wikipedia policy saying that all RFA questions have to be optional. In future I think I will not ask any questions or oppose based on answers or absence of answers to questions, it makes everything so much more simple! Anyway it was one oppose which I have subsequently removed as I always intended to do if the answer to the question was satisfactory, lets not let this get out of hand! Thanks. Harland1 (t/c) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

# Dunno, but could do with looking through important policies such as WP:BLP and should want to discuss rather than revert where possible. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definately like to discuss issues, usually at nauseum on issues such as might be brought up due to BLP or any other such issue. A good example is the constant disagreements on whether diacritics should be used on English Wikipedia or not. Through working with all the other editors in WP:Hockey we managed to come to a compromise on how they should be handled on hockey related pages. This was definately a situation where multiple reverts could have and more often than not by other editors did come to revert wars. -Djsasso (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category