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

J Di

[edit]

Final (54/0/2) Ended Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:34:32 (UTC)

J Di (talk · contribs) – I came across this user on the Big Brother WikiProject and he was one of the first users I connected with, even so far as to nominate him for RfA back in July (perhaps prematurely). The main problem there appeared to be his conflict with another user, which he unfortunately gave up on too quickly. I believe he has reformed excellently since July – a great mix of maintenance and article building is in his contributions, working in areas such as recent changes patrol and articles for deletion. He basically runs the Big Brother WikiProject, keeping all things like current AfDs and peer reviews there up to date. With over 15000 edits, a firm grasp of policy and a regular editor since April I believe this user is more than ready to have the extra buttons. --Alex (Talk) 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. jd || talk || 16:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would help out at WP:AIV, especially when it is backlogged as letting reports mount up here, for whatever reason, can seriously hurt the project and causes a lot of disruption. I would also help out at WP:CSD, another place where there seems to be a never-ending backlog. I would closely monitor CAT:PER, and would work through WP:AFDs that haven't been seen to.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pretty pleased with my contributions to the Big Brother WikiProject, and most of my edits seem to have been made on the Project page and Big Brother articles. I can't really say that I've made many major contributions as I like to think that my edits are small but beneficial.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: When I started editing more frequently, I got in a lot of conflict on the Big Brother articles, and was unintentionally disruptive. I learnt quite a bit from all of that, and the incident showed me how much remaining calm and civil at all times helps prevent things from getting uncontrollably out of hand. I'd like to think that all my of interactions with other users since then have been civil, and that my actions have been non-disruptive for the most part.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Could you elaborate further into your desputes with 9cds? Yanksox 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to know? jd || talk || 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just explain what happened between you and 9cds, and how you devolped past it. Yanksox 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9cds and I disagreed on a lot of things. My first interaction with her was on Talk:Big Brother 7 (UK), when I was still a fairly new user and wasn't familiar with any the policies or guidelines, despite having had a welcome message put on my talk page. I was intentionally hostile towards 9cds because of a disagreement over her redirecting an article with another because it was too detailed. After that were other disagreements after that about mostly minor things, and I felt at the time that the many warnings I was receiving from 9cds were left in bad faith, in an attempt to aggravate me. I opened a mediation case, but that ended with me wanting to leave Wikipedia because I was dissatisfied with the end result. After more disagreements, I decided to start editing other articles, so moved from Big Brother UK articles to Big Brother Australia articles. 9cds hadn't edited these articles before then, so I thought that she was stalking my contributions. More arguments followed after 9cds made major changes to the article that I disagreed with and reverted. I downloaded an IRC client and tried to speak to her about a major change she wanted to make to a Big Brother Australia article that I was opposed to, and one of the first things she said was that I was "wikistalking" her. After this, I thought that trying to remain civil was pointless.
After 9cds was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, I felt as though most of my problems had been sorted, and that I could edit freely. I didn't think much about how badly I handled the situation or where I could have improved until after my first RfA, where it was pointed out that I may have given up too easily on mediation and civil resolution. Looking at it now, I can see that I handled something badly, and because I assumed bad faith at the time and made up my own mind about what 9cds was like based on one encounter, months of unnecessary arguments and disruption occurred when it didn't have to. Because of this, I have tried to remain civil at all times, as I do not want for something similar to this to happen again. I've also used talk pages more to discuss major changes instead of just doing them, and I've stopped revert warring over changes I disagree with. jd || talk || 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely optional and open-ended question from Konstable

5. What do you think is the biggest problem that Wikipedia has right now?
A: I think the biggest problem at the moment is that there are so many articles with unsourced statements, or without any references at all. While I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, I can't help but think that there sometimes isn't enough strictness involved in enforcing WP:V, and articles can potentially be left to exist for months without a single reputable reference. Good articles also suffer as a result, and ultimately so does the rest of the encyclopaedia. jd || talk || 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I can see WP:IGNORE being a good thing when used only very occasionally, if policies prevent a user from doing something that would benefit the encyclopaedia, but I can't see it having many benefits over a non-biased community consensus and existing policies. I think the policies are pretty thorough and they seem to cover a lot of situations anyway.
WP:SNOW may be good for some things, but I'd never use it as all I can see it doing is preventing a discussion from being allowed to properly develop. Previous consensus does not guarantee consensus in a later discussion, and closing a debate early also prevents opinions that could affect the votes of others from being added. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: If a punitive block is thought to be appropriate, I see no reason for not trying to discuss the problem. If, when asked to stop, the person persists, a block to prevent disruption would probably be the appropriate course of action. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A: I would consider something speedy deleteable if the article only promoted a company's products or services, if it would need a substantial rewrite to fit into the encyclopaedia, and if there was no non-copyvio content that asserted notability. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

J Di's editcount summary stats as of 17:10, October 28 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Everything seems in order.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, great user. --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Everything seems ok.--Húsönd 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. G.He 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. support You are a generally nice guy to be around and I think you'll make a great administrator and be able to use the mop and bucket wisely :D user:wossi 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom Doc ♬ talk 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This editor appears to have learnt the lessons regarding civility and good conduct that they had to endure at the beginning of their time here. I don't think that the admin tools will be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support Willing to learn from past mistakes. Nishkid64 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good user who can definitely be trusted with the buttons. Good luck! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good luck.-- danntm T C 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems a responsible person per the User's Contribs  Doctor Bruno  23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good guy, bad internet ST47Talk 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per the above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Sure. KrakatoaKatie 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - very honest about the dispute with 9cds and a good edit count too. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:12 29 10 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. DarthVader 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, a good user. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good user.--Konst.ableTalk 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yay – about time. — FireFox (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2006
  21. Cliche — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom. John254 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Nothing really to criticize about. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Moneyballing 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No major concerns here. A very honest editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Clear Support - I've only had good interactions with this user, and can find no reason to oppose, yet plenty to support. Martinp23 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. GeorgeMoney (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mike | Trick or Treat 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Very good user, giving my support. Hello32020 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Administratorfy. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Shine On per nom. Impressed with answer to Question 5 too. Heligoland 13:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The user possesses the right balance of firmness and fairness for adminship. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per nom. Tra (Talk) 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support no issues here --Steve 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Excellent all round contributions --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
  40. Support. Spams the IRC chats with join/quit messages. ;-) Misza13 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, will make good admin. --SunStar Net 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support, isn't likely to abuse tools. —Xyrael / 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- Tawker 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support - I'm actually lying in a hotel room at the beach but need to interrupt my 10+ day thus far wikibreak to support this man. Loooooong overdue, and an early welcome to the team mate, great to have you on board :) Glen 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - good luck with the mop! Budgiekiller 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Great editor. NauticaShades 20:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Looks like J Di is ready for adminship. Wouldn't dare hold bad net connections against him.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Michael 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I appreciate the concerns raised by Joanne and Mr Sox. However, my observations of J Di since the dispute have been positive and unless someone wishes to provide some diffs, I feel comfortable in supporting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Mustafa AkalpTC 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support FireSpike 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Spams the IRC chats with enter/quit messages. — Rewired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Why does IRC has to do with adminship, also is there any proof of that? Moneyballing 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing bureaucrat: this is this user's 6th edit, out of a total of 12. --Alex (Talk) 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too do not see this as relevant. It's not his fault if he has a faulty connection. — FireFox (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2006
Neither do I - joins and parts are easy to ignore in most IRC clients, so J_Di's connection shouldn't need to bother anyone. In any case, it's not hard to just phsically ignore it! The closing bureaucrat might also like to note that Rewired posted a disruptinve and potentially offensive RfA, since delisted. Martinp23 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well user was blocked indef for trolling, the vote is safe to crossout. Moneyballing 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he's telling the truth. J Di does spam channels with enter/quit messages. Its a problem with her ISP. Send them an abusive email. :P — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, actually I'm a guy... jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Has clearly shown a turn around, but I am so deeply troubled by the extend of the dispute that he was involved in. It was so bad that it resulted in him "retiring"[1]. I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy with this blantant fact looming over the candidate. Yanksox 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I would have strongly opposed a few months ago, for several reasons. I see a lot of support votes and as I haven't been around much lately I'll have to take their word for it that he has changed. However, his talk page, for one thing, still worries me. The ´don´t remove vandalism´ sign is quite egoistical to me: J Di, do you want all readers of your talk page to see every penis or whatever kind of vandalism that is placed there if you don't happen to be around for a bit - rather than have someone remove it like everywhere else? Also, why the 'no messages on the talk page' thing? This makes it more difficult to judge the improvement - as even after reading the archives, I don't know what J Di did with those comments or questions from people that have complied with the request and emailed. These things might seem minor but against his background, they worry me. As I said, I haven't been around all that much in the last few months, so I feel hesitant about opposing, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with this candidate as a future admin either. --JoanneB 22:20, 2 November 2006 (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