Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/Djsasso

< Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Djsasso change

Djsasso (talk · contribs)

End date: June 9th, 2009

Djsasso is a new admin here, but I believe he is trusted enough having been promoted (17-1). He is an admin on more than one project and has plenty of experience. He is also of age and willing to assume this role, given the communities acceptance.

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination. (But consider it on hold until the others are all transcluded) I feel I would be able to operate in this position as I have been an admin on multiple projects so I believe I am trusted with not abusing tools. I am also willing and able to identiy to the WMF. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support change

  1. Good luck. :) Synergy 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I trust Djsasso with oversight. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why the hell not –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Porque no? Vhaeraun (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Brand new user, vote indented. Majorly talk 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change

  1. Oppose the fact that we're having elections so soon, with barely discussing if its even required. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely no need whatsoever for oversighters. We've had what, a dozen oversights done in five years? Also, I've found the candidate is a very poor communicator, and recently tried to embarrass me in an RFA after completely misinterpreting a conversation on IRC, in which he falsely claimed I was going to get my "own back" on someone for opposing my RFA. This baseless allegation was very upsetting for me, as I would never be so childish as to do that, and the fact he didn't even bother to discuss it with me privately instead opting to try and embarrass me in public, simply strengthens my oppose further. Majorly talk 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Need I point you to my RFA on here where you opposed me because I opposed you? (You later withdrew your oppose when others got upset) But that combined with me seeing you make a comment like you made in IRC. It was only logical to assume you actually were serious. If I wanted to embarass you I would have linked you actually doing retaliation voting which I did not. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. I opposed you because you opposed with poor reasoning on mine (and others') RFAs. I did not oppose you just because you opposed me. I expect you think this oppose is retaliation as well, when clearly it is because I think you are not sensitive enough for a role like this. You get the wrong end of the stick way too often for my liking. Majorly talk 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you just opposed me for that reason. But it was clear from the way you phrased your oppose that it was retaliatory. It was clearly a strike back. I find it ironic that you tell me to be more sensitive yet you walk around calling people trolls constantly. That is unsensitive. -Djsasso (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all retaliatory, not a "strikeback", try to not put words in my mouth in the future, thanks. Majorly talk 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Concur in entirety with Majorly here. That said, I heart Djsasso, I just think this is needless. :) — neuro(talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concur in entirely with Majorly here Soup Dish (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Majorly. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - this idea needs discussing with the full complement of active editors prior to just beginning a vote. (Nothing against the candidate) fr33kman talk 19:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Majorly and my views on IRC. Goblin 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Djsasso very rarely uses IRC.  GARDEN  09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not so. Though I agree it's a weak reason and I shall expand when I haven't got an exam at in 4 hours ;). Goblin 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pfft, whatever.  GARDEN  09:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, too many oversighters currently ... and we don't have any.  GARDEN  09:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too many administrators oversighters currently. (Credit to User:DougsTech from enWP for the famous quote. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. sorry but not need --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

Per ST, the decision was to archive all these requests and remove them from the transclusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversightship/Djsasso&oldid=1574909"