Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pjoef

Pjoef

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (7/35/11); Scheduled to end 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Pjoef (talk · contribs) – The user has made over 40,000 edits to the English Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits in the mainspace. Pjoef has a Wikipedia editing experience of about 6 years and, in my opinion, can be trusted at least not to abuse the admin tools. smtchahal^(talk) 12:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am honoured to accept the nomination for adminship here on the English Wikipedia and I would like to thank Smtchahal for nominating and supporting me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Time permitting, I would like to take part in all of the administrative activities and offer my services to Wikipedia and its community.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I cannot answer your question, but I hope I was helpful enough and I also hope to be able to continue to offer my modest contribution to Wikipedia and Wikimedia sister projects. I am actively participating in some collaborative projects, with the result that I have edited a moderate (or unmoderated) number of pages in all namespaces and for a wide variety of reasons.

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: As far as I can remember, I was once involved in a 3RR (three-revert rule) violation, but it was at the very beginning of my Wikipedia "experience/life" and it was more an edit conflict than a 3RR violation; all happened in a few minutes and I was not aware of 3RR —yes, I know, "dura lex sed lex" (the law is harsh, but it is the law)— I was just trying to expand an article about a song of The Clash; I got whipped by the same editor at that same time (c. 20–22 February 2008) for working on the band's Sandinista! album. In February–March 2011, I was partially involved in an edit dispute about Mathematics in medieval Islam. I was participating to the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive ("Mathematics in medieval Islam" was #111 in my list) and I stopped editing that page. This is all I remember about conflicts over editing and I forgot how much they were stressful; they certainly have not been a pleasure. I will deal with it politely and I will try to make editors feel a welcome addition/contributor to Wikipedia, helping them to feel at home. I will always try to reflect the consensus of the community through my editing, actions, and discussions, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

4. Imagine you're already an admin and, while patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, you find the following three articles. Each one of these has only been edited twice – once by the page creator and once by a new page patroller – and none duplicates an existing topic; what do you do? First article, second article and third article.

A:
1. Maritime safety information really is information that is broadcast to mariners:
2. Speedy deletion of Jane Doe (Hindu holy leader):
3. Mont Gosford correctly redirect to Mount Gosford, which is a mountain located in southern Quebec, Canada.
In any case, following Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Additional question from Vejvančický

5. You display {{User:UBX/Communist}} userbox on your user page. What do you think about the crimes commited in the name of this ideology?

A: My opinion is irrelevant. No comment.

Additional question from Piotrus

6. I am not happy with the answer to Q1, too general. Can you name at least one specific activity that you would do with some regularity (at least few times a month) with the tools that you cannot do now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I cannot answer your question without first trying to handle them. All the procedures regarding page editing, moving, merging, deleting/undeleting... and also block/unblock editors and resolving/closing disputes.

Additional question from Boing! said Zebedee

7. Q1 is an opportunity to sell yourself, and to explain the areas of admin activity where you have the most experience and where you think you could put your abilities to best use - and it gives the rest of us some idea where to look to see your relevant work. With that in mind, would you care to reconsider your answer?

A: Same as before (#6). I will have to try them out. I don't like to talk about "my relevant work" here on Wikipedia nor to sell myself, eventually to serve. I participated in all Wikify (except for the very first one) and some Disambiguation drives. These [very good] practices (I'm refererring to the WikiProjects drives in general) have allowed me to work on a large number of articles in the mainspace, on any subject, from stub to FA. My style of editing varies greatly depending on the situation. Sometime I save a succession of small changes on the way, other times I use a sandbox. With WP:Films, WP:Punk, all existing articles related to The Clash in all namespaces, and with the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team I have assessed and reviewed thousands of articles. Most of my 900 deleted edits are pages that I've created for Wikipedia:Motto of the day that are automatically deleted by a bot after a certain period.

Additional questions from Ultraexactzz

8. In the past, editors have opposed candidates for adminship who displayed userboxes seen as offensive or in bad taste. The concern, generally, was that an admin who displayed such a userbox might not be seen as a neutral party, and that there may be an appearance of bias. It is a truth that some editors have a negative view of Communism in general, and communists in particular. Do you believe that identifying yourself as a communist could have a negative impact on your ability to be an effective admin?

A. If it is not appropriate on a user page, then it is better to delete it. What I can say about communism is that it is very very difficult that I edit pages related to communism and when I do I pay 1000 times the attention that saving an article requires and deserves.
That userbox indicates to other editors that there should be a potential conflict of interest between me and my edits on articles related to communism. It states that all my edits on this "subject" are and will always be —at least— in good faith. I know it is best to hide that userbox, but I think it is more correct to show it. In my humble opinion the "com-impact" can range from neutral to positive, and never negative.

Q'. Please list the articles on Communism that you have edited most or that have had disputes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Mabdul

9. I guess you want to handle unblock requests (Q6), would you unblock the user after following request and if not, please write a decline rationale for GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs) [1].

A: I will NOT unblock this user and the rationale is somethiong like this:

You have been engaged in edit warring and have repeatedly violated the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which leads to your block. I'm sorry, but you will have to wait for your block to expire. When in doubt, please do NOT revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and ask for help at Dispute resolution requests.

Additional question from MJ94

10. If this is successful, where do you see yourself using your tools first? Is there any administrative task you would not feel comfortable handling at this time?

A: As I wrote before, I need to try the tools to respond fully to your question, and no, I do not know if there is any administrative task where I would not feel comfortable. I can probably be (and I hope to be) of some help with all the operations on pages within the main namespace.

General comments

• Links for Pjoef: Pjoef (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Pjoef can be found here.
• Stats on talk page. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 09:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• The question by Vejvančický (talk · contribs) is highly inappropriate and should be deleted. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Why? Are you familiar with e.g. the party discipline practised by Leninist organizations? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Is there some reason to ascribe guilt for the transgressions of Leninist organizations to this particular candidate? Membership in a group is not itself something to be sanctioned. Ask him whether he can edit articles about communists in neutral fashion, as I (mostly) did above. Oppose him because you do not believe he can separate his pro-communism bias from his neutral role as an admin - though that argument would be all the weaker without diffs of Pjoef editing in biased fashion. But it's distasteful to rail against this editor for the acts of Leninist organizations with whom this candidate has no obvious ties whatsoever. I also submit that an editor posting such a userbox is an editor interested in being up front with the community about their background and beliefs, such that editors can judge those edits on the merits. Nothing compelled Pjoef to post that userbox. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  How can anybody be a (capital-c) Communist and not belong to a Leninist organization? The user does not describe himself as a Marxist or (small-c) communist. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Having commented below, I'm not comfortable removing the question - but I agree, it's not pertinent to an RFA. Now, asking if the candidate believes having the userbox will impact their ability to be seen as an impartial admin? That's a reasonable question, one that has come up before in reference to userboxes. Possible bias, perceived or otherwise, is fair game for discussion. Atrocities committed by others, not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of having it deleted, it could be struck through and replaced by a question along those lines. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that the candidate has already responded to the Question from Vejvančický, I've added a new question that aims at the bias issue. There are areas of the project where an admin who identifies as a communist might be seen differently than one who is not - for good or ill, the perception of bias can be more important (and more overwhelming) than the presence of actual bias. We've had admins who changed their username during RFA when editors expressed concerns, and concerns about admin userboxes are well documented. So we'll see. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the response was appropriate too. Looks like no further intervention is needed. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

<partly copied from my user talk page> I asked because the answer could reveal something about how responsive, perceptive and open the candidate is to potentially unpleasant questions. As an admin, sometimes you have to face unpleasant questions. There was no attempt to associate the candidate's political orientation with any crime – read the question again. It was just a question out of curiosity, no more and no less. Why don't you let the candidate decide if it is appropriate or not? It is my right to ask and it is candidate's right not to answer. The candidate had many options to choose from. They decided not to respond. To me, it is enough to make a conclusion. However, it wasn't needed. I think that this application is a big misunderstanding from candidate's other comments, and I'm sorry for that. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

1.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. When you see an editor with almost 10,000 Wikipedia space edits - none of them (that I could find) involved at AN or ANI, you notice. The fact that the candidate had to go all the way back to 2008 to find drama in their history is also telling. But the flipside to that coin is that this candidate does not appear to have a great deal of experience with processes such as ANI, AIV, XFD, and CSD. I don't think a lack of experience with drama will damage Pjoef's ability to deal with drama, but it's a point of data to consider. It is balanced by what appears to be a high level of clue and equally high level of reasonableness - both of which will serve this candidate well. If appointed, do tread lightly and slowly - and you should have no problems. Good luck! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Meh - I think I'm going to remain at support, even if it's only Moral Support at this point. There are valid concerns below, however, and I look forward to seeing responses to them. It's possible that this nomination was premature, and that the candidate might benefit from some discussion about what RFA generally looks for. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Weak support — This is obviously not going to pass, and I think Pjoef would be best adviced to withdraw and try again at a later date after getting some more experience in administrative areas. Although I find the discussion referenced by Kiefer Wolfowitz in the oppose section to be concerning in that it speaks to a possible lack of maturity, it's from over two years ago, so he has likely grown quite a bit since that time. Six years of active editing with over 40,000 contributions shows dedication, and while his answers to the standard RfA questions were tangential at best, they do not necessarily suggest that Pjoef is unaware of what adminship entails. He also strikes as a keen learner with a positive attitude, so I suspect he would learn the ropes fairly quickly without rushing into things. As it stands, this RfA will not be successful, but I strongly encourage Pjoef to continue on as he's been doing, perhaps gaining some experience in areas such as deletion, vandal-fighting, etc, and then re-apply within six months time. I suspect he'll have better luck then. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Changing to straightforward oppose. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Support per experiance and number of edits. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. I have interacted with Pjoef on various occasions during my time on Wikipedia (particularly over Garageland (song)), and he has demonstrated a good grasp of policy and a large amount of experience. I feel he can be trusted to serve Wikipedia responsibly. benzband (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
5. Just trying to do my part to counteract 1/3 of one of the many stupid "temperment" opposes below; because he used ALLCAPS once, he has "temperment issues"? Morons. AFD experience may or may not be a legitimate issue, I haven't looked, but demanding AIV "experience" is dumb. AIV is not rocket science, people can pick it up on the fly. And why do people feel the need to pile-on oppose an RFA from a good-faith long-term contributor that's already not going well? Those of you who spent less than 3 minutes looking at this candidate (you know who you are, and I can guess pretty well) suck. Thanks for volunteering, Pjoef, sorry it isn't working out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Completely per Floquenbeam TheStrikeΣagle 04:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per Ultraexactzz. I do not think the points mentioned in oppose would prevent his positive contribution as an Admin. Given his experience and record, i doubt he would wander into areas before having the proper information. the oppose seem to be unsatisfied with his knowledge of the admin role, which may be setting the bar too high. many of the best admins in wp are the janitors, those tirelessly doing the dull repetitive housecleaning, so do we really need to verify someone is versed in every area of the admin role? a large percentage of admins never contribute to a large portion of admin duties, rather tend to focus on a specific area. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant oppose I was hoping to support this one, but Pjoef says he wants to work in all Admin areas and with only two edits to AIV and 11 to unique pages at AfD (that I could find). I don't there is enough evidence that Pjoef would know how to handle himself properly in these areas. Sorry. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   I've never edited Wikipedia before my first edit, of course. From then on I've contributed to Wikipedia massively. What's the difference? As a computer scientist I have "real life" experiences in administration (sys, db, [Inter|Intra|Extra|...]net, web apps and more) and I think I could be of some help. I can say that I did not request this position, I am not an admin or sysop, and for this reason I have participated to AfD and other administrative tasks very-very little. But the fact that an user activley participates in administrative procedures (usually discussions) does not automatically mean that he/she is suitable for this position and viceversa. It is the use of the administrative tools and "privileges" that makes the difference, the difference between a good administrator and an excellent one (in my humble opinion, of course). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   The point is that in order to give you the ability to delete pages and block users we need to trust you'll only use the mop when appropriate. I'm not saying you'd willingly misuse the tools, but even good-faith mistakes can have serious consequences: that's why some of the RfA voters require experience in admin-related areas before supporting. My advice would be to withdraw this request, choose one or two areas that you'd like to work in as an admin (for instance WP:NPP: familiarise yourself with the policy and, then, start reviewing newly created articles), gain more experience and run again in six months. After all, no sysop does everything: everyone of us has niche areas of expertise and then relies on others to complete the tasks he's not familiar with. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   In the unlikely event that this happens and I have the right to access and use administrative tools, it is more than clear that I'd be careful at least one million times before using them and I would do it only if I am 101% sure about what I'm doing. I cannot answer the question about what area (administrative work) would appeal me more (most probably the mainspace/articles part) because I am not an administrator of the English Wikipedia. What is certain is that I am willing to serve Wikipedia also in these administrative tasks, which is hard work. But, if my help in this area is not needed, then there is no problem. I know very well all policies, guidelines, essays, procedures, ... because of my long term participation to WP:MOTD where we need to link mottoes' words or phrases to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm sysop, db/server/sys/net/web admin (and also programmer in many many languages) since the 1990s (20+ years ago) and I know very well how "stressful" administrative tasks are. I've never ever asked for this position, and —most probably— I never will. Thanks for your reccomendations Salvio giuliano. Did you notice that there is a double space in your signature between the first and the last names? There is nothing wrong with it. All the best and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose - I'll go with Pol430 for now. I'm not trying to make myself sound a ton better than Pjoef, but I have more edits to AIV and related reporting venues than he does. If I see him answer a few good questions and refactor what admin work he would like to take place in, I'm willing to move to support. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Candidate wasted time of serious editors, and has failed to convey the breadth and depth of his damage in the above statement. I suggest a withdrawal before the mathematicians learn about this candidacy. Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   "Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators" Holy cow, I know this is RFA and seemingly anything goes, but not only is that harsh it's just plain wrong. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Your "Boy Wonder" emotional response is less informative than, say, any counter-example would be. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, then. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Not an ignoramus? Guilty as charged.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for the positive confirmation. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Indeed? Even if the premise on which your straw man is built happened to be right, it would still be an association fallacy. It also arguably constitutes "the use of someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". ~ benzband (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Benzband, McCarthy was attacking liberals and social democrats as being Communists, specifically members of Leninist organizations. Please remove your cowardly ignorant personal-attack. Why don't you ask ArbCom to remove the ban on Scientology employees editing Scientology-related articles from their workplaces, if you believe that affiliation and identification with a total institution is compatible with good editing? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   You were attacking a Wikipedia editor as being Communist, specifically member of a Leninist organization; however displaying a userbox identifying oneself with communism (which is a pretty broad term as it is) does not necessarily entail membership of a total institution.

   Your question is based on the premise that I believe that affiliation and identification with a total institution is compatible with good editing, but I did not state that. Rather, I was pointing out that Pjoef is not necessarily a member of a total institution, and that he does not necessarily share the same values as you think a communist person must hold.

   As for the easter egg, I have struck it per your request. It was to do with your extravagant yet precariously defended accusations, not your personal integrity. Please also remove your personal-attack (for while the first part of your rationale was linked to Wikipedia facts, the second part in which you suppose another editor is dishonest and stupid is disgraceful), or at least respond in a coherent manner to the arguments being put forward against it. benzband (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   I have trouble paying attention to logical lessons from somebody simplifying the expression "NOT (A AND B)" incorrectly, not as "(NOT A) OR (NOT B)" but rather fallaciously as "(NOT A) AND (NOT B)". This is a waste of my time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Where did I imply such a simplification? You're right, this is a waste of time though. I'll stop replying to this thread until whenever you feel like engaging in reasonable discussion. benzband (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   You wrote, "you suppose another editor is dishonest and stupid" (italics added). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I have never ever wasted the time of other editors! If anything, and in that special case, I would say exactly the opposite. One of the involved users was "the perfect example" of an administrator misusing its administrative tools and privileges. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Kiefer, can you be more exact? You've given us a huge link, "(76 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)", and made a bold judgement about waste of time and huge damage. A clarification would be helpful.--Razionale (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   How is displaying a Communist userbox in any way related to the candidate's competence as a potential admin? 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Kiefer, what if Jimbo identified as communist (not saying he ever would)? Would you think he was dishonest and unintelligent too? Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Can't you people read and distinguish "and" from "or"? If you begin a supposition with a falsehood, all Hell breaks loose, so please don't waste time further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Has made 40,000 edits and can't say what his best contributions are? How about Demetrio Stratos, with a whopping 543 edits? The section on Phonetics research studies is a mixture of puffery, gibberish, and odd formatting (why are the subsections in columns?). There is even an unattributed quote that is itself gibberish: “By this way the subversive sovereignty of the voice as an event, pharmakon communication challenge leaves the subject in an ingenuous anthropolatry somewhere between unconditioned enjoyment and consumption.” Also, the very short AfD voting record has only 20% matching the result. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   It was a long time ago (2008–2009) when I was not "experienced" and needed a large number of edits. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Maybe that isn't your best work. The problem is, the only rationale that your nominator gave for granting you the mop is that you are a good content contributor; but quality matters more than quantity. Perhaps you could tell us what is your best work. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose The lack of experience in most every admin area is worrisome. The lack of experience in AFD is very troublesome. Looking at your rationales during the few AFDs you have participated makes it more so, although most are old enough I could overlook if there were some recent ones to offset them. I'm not comfortable with the idea of you having the delete and block buttons with virtually no experience in those areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose, regardless of the subject of this RfA's political position(s), the subject says that he/she wants to be active in all admin areas. Although the subject has a large number of content edits, the individual does not appear to have the experience in areas which regularly involve admins, including AfDs. Therefore, at this time I am not going to support handing Admin tools to this good content creator.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose Candidate's answer to what admin work they want to take part in and what experience they have appears to be that he wants to receive admin tools and then test them out. This is not how to use admin tools. Admin tools are not a sandbox. User appears to be great at content creation and editing. However, has no experience in the admin area. Also, half of what the user said he wants to do with admin tools in Q6 can be already done without admin tools. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Oh no, I would like to test myself over the use of those tools. As the saying goes, "when in doubt, do nothing." –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

8. Unfortunate oppose I don't think the editor even understands what the role of an admin is. I'm all in favour of gnomes being admins, but they need to know what the extra bit entails. I've never seen this editor at any of the areas that require Admin attention, and answer to Q1 is a "umm...this is a the time to be specific here, just in case you didn't notice" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I'm really not confident in the candidate's answers to questions. You can't just have a go at admin and see what suits you - you need to understand what you want to do, have done some preparation, and be able to show why you are to be trusted with the admin tasks you want to perform. I'm also seeing a problem with communication, and I'm really not sure what Pjoef is actually trying to say - clarity of communication is essential for an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   I agree with you, the clarity of communication is essential for Wikipedia and its community. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I am sorry, but I don't believe yo have enough experience in admin-related areas to be given the mop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose. The point of being given admin tools is to be able to contribute to improving Wikipedia in a more specialized, high-level way. It isn't to be able to log on to Wikipedia and see all the neat things you can do to the site. This user's area of expertise and experience is in content creation; an area that requires no admin tools to contribute better in. The highest permission this user would need would be the autopatrolled right, which I would definitely support. However, this user seems to want admin tools simply to have them. That, combined with not being able to say what the user would use the tools for, combined with a lack of demonstrated knowledge of the policies in the fields that admins need to be extremely fluent in, constitutes my opposition. Deadbeef 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    I've never asked for admin tools. At the moment, and free from administrative tasks, what I need most is the possiblity of viewing deleted pages. Sporadically, this should be of some help to me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Then why didn't you say so in answer to the questions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Pjoef is enthusiastic but lacks experience in admin-related areas. A basic level of experience is required before we should entrust editors with the admin tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    My "enthusiasm" is due to the fact that Smtchahal has nominated me for RfA and NOT for the RfA itslef. Smtchahal and his/her support made me feel very very happy. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

13. Oppose - the candidate evidently has no clue about adminship... Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose Based on his answers to the above questions, I would not trust him with the admin tools. - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry Camyoung54 but what is trust and what is a trusted editor? My number of deleted edits tends to zero, and the 900 deleted edits on over 40,000 are pages created for WP:MOTD and regularly deleted by a bot. Isn't this enough? I have never been involved in edit warring or other destructive tasks, and my only semi-case of 3RR break was an edit conflict while we were editing the same page at the same time. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

15. Oppose per lack of experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose. While there are generally no "right" or "wrong" answers to the standard RfA questions, the responses to Q1 & Q2 have not been given enough thought and that makes this RfA seem like a hat-collecting exercise. Coupled with your limited admin-type experience at AfD etc, you simply haven't given us a strong enough reason to have confidence in bestowing the tools upon you at this time. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 07:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose While enthusiastic, it appears he lacks the skills required to be an admin. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 08:31, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

    Okay, thanks Canuck, but please, do not tell this to my customers or it will be a disaster :). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

18. I know the questions are optional, but such non-answers to Q1 and 2 disguised as answers don't sit well with me. Also, "not done" is not a decline rationale. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry filelakeshoe, "not done" has now been done. (please, see Q9) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

19. Oppose: To be fair to the candidate, I don't think he was actively seeking the tools; rather, he unwisely accepted a premature nomination. He seems like a nice guy and I see no reason to imagine he would abuse the tools, but he clearly doesn't know what he wants them for, and he isn't ready yet. (Some friendly advice: RfA is no time to be coy, you need to have convincing answers to Q1 and Q2; your signature is so constructed that searching a page for your username (with ctrl-F) doesn't locate your signature, making it much harder to locate your comments when reviewing AfDs and the like; that bouncing ball on your talk page is unpleasantly distracting; your userpage is 579kB and takes ages to render.) --Stfg (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Ahahahaha thank you so very much Stfg! I don't ask for administrative tools and privileges —lol— but, I can assure you and all other editors that I will be very careful with them (in the unlikely event :D). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Is it? Ctrl-F works just fine for me. I think it might be a browser issue. Regardless, I'm not meaning to nitpick against this gentlest of opposes, just saying the signature isn't broken for everyone. The globe logo reminds me of this old childhood memory, maybe I'll make a Wikipedia-oriented remix of it some day. —Soap— 15:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Could be a browser issue, yes. On IE8, ctrl-F for "joe" finds the sigs but for "pjoef" doesn't, presumably because of the span. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

20. Oppose' I am not satisfied with any of the answers to the questions. In my opinion, some of them do not demonstrate the necessary maturity and/or clue required for adminship. This in particular concerns your answer to question 8.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose — I'm sorry, but the above response to Kiefer Wolfowitz (among others) demonstrates a serious lack of diplomatic skills and maturity. Whether or not Kiefer's rationale was politely worded or fully accurate is debatable, but that response will not go a long way towards diffusing the situation, to say the least. Administrators must be good communicators, and Pjoef is clearly lacking in that particular attribute. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    "Communication Breakdown, It's always the same, / I'm having a nervous breakdown, Drive me insane!" –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

22. Oppose lack of maturity, skills, and experience in admin related areas. Mediran (t • c) 11:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

23. Oppose for now. Needs more experience. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose His use of capital letters and bold in response to Kiefer makes this a quick fail.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose While the particular manner of Kiefer Wolfowitz's objection was less than civil, it did serve to shed interesting light on the temperament of this candidate. Ray^Talk 15:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
26. Strong oppose - Just looking at opinions 1 and 3 as well as see him shout in bold is enough. Arctic Kangaroo 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Not mature enough, and does not show an appropriate understanding of the role of an admin. On the other hand, the comments about him being a Communist are utterly and completely irrelevant. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Does not have the experience (in relevant areas, that he hopes to take part in) of -- from what I can see -- the attitude I would hope for in an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Lacks experience and temperament from what I can see. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Q1 and Q2 are null answers. That's a poor start. Q3 has some detail but isn't satisfying with respect to understanding and dealing with conflict. With 42K edits, I'd expect many incidents and some perspective about dealing with them. Other places to look are sparse, so I cannot get a sense of judgment or reserve. Consequently, the application leaves me in the dark, and I'm just not comfortable there. RockMagnetist's (4) quotation is troubling, and I don't know what the response "needed a large number of edits" means. The reply to DeadBeef (11) is also odd. Pjoef may be a good candidate, but I need more evidence of perspective. Glrx (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose Per answers to the standard questions and ongoing communication issues. It's impressive that you're an expert in so many programming languages though, especially assembly—there's something you don't see every day Jebus989^✰ 21:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose Not enough experience with administrative tasks. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Oppose. The answers to questions 4 and 9 demonstrate a lack of competence on rather basic administrative issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Not satisfied with the candidate's answer's to many of the questions (Q1, Q2, Q6, Q7, Q10) — a RfA candidate should explain these sorts of things clearly. Perhaps the candidate should request other permissions, like WP:Rollback, WP:Reviewing, or WP:File mover. Using these permissions wisely might show other editors that the candidate is able to handle the trust given to an administrator. I agree that this nomination might have been premature. - tucoxn\^talk 04:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Oppose Salvio's comment under Pol430's oppose sums it up for me, I believe the editor is well-intentioned, but answers to questions like #4 leave me concerned about inadvertent damage. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    Joe Decker, do I delete the wrong page? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I don't feel like supporting or opposing, but the answers to the questions give the impression of checkbox filling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral Waiting to see more. Mind you, the 'communist' box makes no difference to me any more than an atheist, Christian, Democrat or Republican one would. Everyone has some fault somewhere.... Peridon (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Long story short, per Rocksanddirt. Mop and bucket are not a big issue, but I'd like to hear the candidate discuss at least one specific example/area where they'd want to use them. Feel free to ping me if this is done and I may revise my vote. Good luck otherwise, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Nice amounts of edits. Content creation and wiki maintenance is always nice. However, I'm concerned that the candidate is not focused on a specific set of admin work and lack the experience needed in any. I suggest that the candidate apply for Wikipedia:Admin coaching. It won't guarantee getting the mop but at least you can safely learn the ropes of adminship from there. I also don't think it is wise to judge the candidate based on his beliefs but rather on his actions. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
5. Neutral pending any (apparently unlikely) further explanation of why the candidate wants the mop and what he plans to do with it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
6. The candidate does NOT want or claims for any mop. The candidate reluctantly accepted the nomination and placed all his maturity (I'm 47 y/o and an Illustrious Looshpah), skills, experience, and knowledge at the service of the community, in a very difficult field. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Candidate is clearly not ready for adminship. Refuse to oppose due to Keifer's "statement". Wizardman 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Did you intend, "Due to Kiefer's 'statement', refuse to oppose."? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you Kiefer, you are my greatest supporter. Without you I would have had the worst record in RfA history, with tons of NO! :) All the best and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

8. Neutral I will not pile on; some of the comments above are bear-baiting, pure and simple, but I think the candidate (with whom I've worked on WikiProject Wikify} will take from this a better sense of what having the mop entails and begin to think about where they want to work when the day comes. Miniapolis 01:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks Miniapolis, I'm glad to see you here. I have not asked for this nomination and I have not been informed before, but when I accepted I put my service at Wikipedia disposal. That is all. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

9. Neutral Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. At this time, I can't bring myself to support this nomination (see User:MJ94/RFA Rationale) but I also feel no desire to add on another oppose. MJ94 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   There is no need to thank me MJ94, it was my pleasure. Cheers! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

10. Neutral I am basically unsure. This user, pjoef has been working so hard on this project but then some people do have very agreeable points for opposing. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 09:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Neutral I know this user like Ankit and saw working hard. But Seeing the opposing and supporting reason I don't know what to do.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)