Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Di 2

Supporting votes

• Support Archer7 - talk 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support --M7 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• You beat me at your own nomination! I was going to support you! Uh oh, I gave it away. I was going to nominate you, rather...-- Tdxiang 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. He has been an experienced, hard working editor, and I trust that he will continue to do so as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Psh, how'd I miss this? PTO 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Switching, in light of the points raised below. PTO 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - What I said last nomination still applies; they have shown themselves to be worthy contributors, active at fighting vandals. Providing sysop access for thisa user would perhaps solve the provlem User:Creol outlined above. --Eptalon 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• support no reason for contra ;) --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral votes

• Neutral. Looking at this and this, I was starting to think he already was one... Might as well, just make it official I guess as he already seems to have usage of the tools.-- Creol(talk) 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved my vote to Neutral, in light of civility issues. -- Creol(talk) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I only had temporary access to the administrator buttons because administrators were needed at the time but none were available (see this). J Di 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Neutral-- switched my vote too, per Creol's reason. Blockinblox - talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I've seen J Di do some good work around here, but per civility I don't know if I can fully support. Browne34 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I'm a real concensus-guy, and it appears the community doesn't support giving this user the extra tools he has requested. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, you're in the neutral section, but you support? :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I would originally believe that the editor should receive the sysop tools, although I would be cautious in doing so; unfortunately, the concerns in this section (not to mention oppose) are of far to great a volume to support. Administrators require trust from the community and while that trust should not be sourced from other wikis, it is clear there is still bad blood at simple - an unacceptable trait in an administrator charged with protecting the Wiki through blocks, page protects and deletions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposing votes

• Strongly oppose Auroranorth 10:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC) <note>: 0 edit in ns-0 --M7 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose a nasty, bullying attitude on the English Wikipedia, plus personal hatred of me and he refused to explain why. I don't believe he will abuse the tools, but don't think he'll use them beneficially either; he's burning out on en and I fear that'll happen here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never said that either. Do you all mind not speaking on my behalf? J Di 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Never said what? Refusing to explain why you decided you didn't want to speak to me again? I don't believe you ever did. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That I'm burning out. J Di 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You don't need to say you are burning out for it to happen. Your activity level has gone way down. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't say I had to say it for it to happen, I'm saying I haven't said that I am and that the change in my activity could be, and is, due to other reasons. J Di 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well forget the burn out thing then. Everything else still applies. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - J Di has a disgusting attitude which I have observed at en.wiki. I have no doubt he will abuse the power for his benefit. J Di is unstable (check his en.wiki user page deletion log). MatthewFenton 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) - Vote not counted - no other actions except to oppose this RfA Archer7 - talk 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that I do not actively edit here, I am however active at en.wiki, which is where I know J Di from. MatthewFenton 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I too will have to oppose this RfA. I really can't trust someone who is unstable (see his excessive deletion/restoration of his userpage). He's had a total attitude change, and has become a totally different person. For these instability issues, I cannot support this RfA. Nishkid64 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you folks mind giving examples? Thank you.-- Tdxiang 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Log for his user page
    • Dismisses a user's request with a vague "Good for you"
    • Dismisses the fact he unlocked the George W. Bush page, despite it being vandalised earlier that day
    • Reverted comment with no explanation whatsoever then attacked another user asking why.
    • Inappropriate block threat
    • Curt, abrasive replies to an otherwise polite and civil (new) user
    • Refusal to respond to a reasonable request

Hope they help. I know they aren't on this wiki, but no doubt that attitude will transfer here as well. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Basically J Di is "playing the game", I have no doubt he will be rude and abusive here as well. MatthewFenton 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion on those links is that a lot of it isn't really that serious, and I think his rather distinctive attitude may be causing a few people to misinterpret his comments. That could of course become a problem over here. The block threat was inappropriate, and there are obviously some civility issues at times, but I seriously doubt whether it's going to actually become a problem over here. Archer7 - talk 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Those reasons precisely are why he is an inappropriate candidate. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Whoops, I accidentely missed one of those links. This one is particularly worrying. I still think his 'promotion' would be of benefit to the project, but the civility isn't looking good. Archer7 - talk 12:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think he does a great job here too, he'd certainly get things done. However, his attitude ruins that in my opinion, and I'd like potential admin candidates to have more patience with new users. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I choose not to have a user page, but for a while I was uncertain. The last deleted revision of w:User:J Di that I considered keeping was on January 15 2007, a month and a half ago. I have since deleted and had deleted by others recreations of the page, and it is now protected to prevent further recreation.
• Wikipedia's civility policy says that editors must act civilly towards each other, but it doesn't say that they need to like each other. If you look at the edit history of Template talk:Spam, you'll see that I didn't start the incivilities (I know, it's incredibly minor), and at least some of you will be able to understand that it is difficult to remain 100% civil all of the time, especially when it requires effort. I didn't dismiss the user's request, I looked into it and, a few days later, attempted to resolve the issue.
• Simple answer to the revert on my user talk page is, everybody is allowed to remove content from their own user talk page so I didn't do anything wrong. As for the incivility that followed, again there is no policy saying I have to like everybody and if you see other interactions between myself and Majorly since our friendship broke down, you'll see that for him to get involved in my problems unnecessarily and a generally vindictive attitude towards me is the norm, even if it is likely to create incivility (see this discussion; my user page deletion log, this discussion and Majorly's comment here; this discussion; and this partial posting of private logs that misrepresented a situation). I don't want to turn this into a bigger mess than it already is with this comment, and I have tried to stay out of Majorly's way for a while now, but there is no "personal hatred" and any recent problems between us were instigated by him.
• I did not think the block "threat" was unnecessary; the user I "threatened" had moved a page using copy and paste twice and my "threat" was preventative, so that they wouldn't do it again. The user was not blocked.
• Shaggy9872004 and I have had many previous interactions, and I wouldn't have called them a new user at the time. I was civil with them and tried to help them, but the user was quite uncivil to me before I was the slightest bit uncivil towards them. See this discussion; this discussion, which shows that I am not the only person that had a problem with the user; these diffs, which show the user reporting me and another administrator on en:Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; and the one month long block that they received.

I'll admit there is occasional incivility, but it's only in a few cases. In the large majority of cases, I am able to remain civil, and I have never used administrator rights to benefit myself (except in my own user space). That said, I can understand that these comments are likely to change people's minds, and this one here may well have an adverse effect, but at the end of the day me not being an administrator here isn't going to be the end of the world and I can always try again at a later date, when people's opinion of me have changed for the better. J Di 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously think you do a great job here, and I guess you'd make a good admin too. However, we've had our differences, and I stick by the points I raised. Just try to be a little more politer to people you dislike, and it won't reflect so badly on the good work you do. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some of the links above worry me. Administrative rights do not give you any special status in the community. PTO 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Switching once again to neutral. I'm not pleased by the links provided, but I don't want my !vote to be the reason why J Di isn't promoted. PTO 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never said they do. J Di 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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.