Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeeJay2K3


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

PeeJay2K3
[ Voice your opinion] (4/19/4); Scheduled to end 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

- I am a student from the United Kingdom, with a wide array of interests, ranging from Soccer to Star Trek, Rugby to Doctor Who. I have made a great number of contributions, all of which I have felt to be positive in enhancing the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. I have great attention to detail, and very rarely will I delay in editing erroneous data. PeeJay 11:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: As an experienced editor, I sometimes come across circumstances such as edit wars and irrelevant articles that I cannot deal with as a regular Wikipedian. As admin, I would be able to resolve such instances with the use of my own initiative and without having to make requests to other admins for a third opinion over a matter.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are my contributions to the Manchester United F.C. article, as I am a fan of the club, and have gone to great lengths to try and make it as good an article as it can possibly be.


 * 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 have been in one or two edit wars, the first over where the column split should be on the First Team squad list on the Manchester United page, and the second regarding what I believed to be extreme bias in the article 2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict. Neither of these incidents have caused me stress, as such, but I don't think I controlled either instance as perhaps I should have. In future, I will be slower to start an edit war, remembering the three-revert rule, and quicker to call upon a third opinion.


 * 4. Please elabourate on your answer to Q1, regarding edit wars. How exactly do you plan to use administrator tools to deal with edit wars? Will you apply such tools when you are involved in the edit war? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I don't suppose I would as much use the admin tools as use my status as an admin to act as an arbitrator, but those are just my feelings at this present time. Once I get the hang of the admin tools, I'm sure I would get to using them more often and more appropriately. If I was involved in the edit war myself, it would have to depend on the circumstances. I think in that situation I would probably have to call on the assistance of a fellow admin so that people don't think I'm abusing the admin tools for my own benefit. PeeJay 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 5 "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Well, first of all I think I would leave the material as it is, perhaps appending it with the template, as I believe removing it could only cause the editor to add it in again, which could lead to an edit war. I would then get in contact with the editor and ask them if they could take a look at their edit and provide a better source, or even a source of any kind if there was not one there to begin with. If they could provide one, then it would be added to the article as a reference. If not, then the material would be removed, and any further action taken to re-insert the material by the editor would be treated as vandalism. PeeJay 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information?--Docg 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. Are you saying that, in this situation, the person who the biography is about has asked for it to be deleted? PeeJay 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

7. Optional question by  Snowolf (talk) CON COI ' - '': Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)'''
 * A: Yes PeeJay 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See PeeJay2K3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for PeeJay2K3:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PeeJay2K3 before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support - a very good contributor to Rugby and soccer related articles and "Wikipedia Edits" is not important even though its a bit too low and would make good use of the tools if given a chance..-- Cometstyles 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support - adminship is no big deal. Although the answer to Q1 sounded like the candidate was prepared to use admin tools to gain advantage in edit wars, I'm sure that's not what s/he meant to imply.  Wal  ton  Need some help?  12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment about possibly using the admin tools to gain a personal advantage, I refer you to my answer to Deskana's question above. PeeJay 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with that answer, and have struck out my concerns. Wal  ton  Need some help?  17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Cometstyles reasonsOo7565 02:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nothing wrong with this candidate. Admin should be no big deal.--Osidge 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support &mdash; no actual flaws with relation to how well s/he could use the Mop ~ Anthony 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but you only have 17 Wikipedia-space edits and you have only used edit summaries in 25% on major edits and 26% of minor edits. Both of these should be increased before I support. Captain panda  12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Less than fifty contributions each to the user Talk and policy spaces show that you need to interact more with editors and demonstrate a knowledge of policies and guidelines with participation in XfD debates, RfA topics, WP:AIV reporting, WP:AN/I reporting, etc. You're on the right track and the points of improvement mentioned above, coupled with time required to do so will see a successful application in another few months' time.  Try forcing your edit summary contributions in your preferences for a start.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 13:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Sorry, not enough evidence that you're sufficiently experienced to be trusted with the admin tools. You need to increase your Wikipedia space participation, as well as your edit summary usage. Hús  ö  nd  13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm concerned by the editor's contributions to Talk:2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict and the subsequent Request for Arbitration which was rejected as premature. There are a number of complaints of non-neutral editing against this user on their talk page. Together it looks like PeeJay2K3 doesn't fully understand the notion of a neutral point of view. He also isn't doing a stellar job of remaining calm and civil when discussing these issues. There was a recent uploading of Image:Ryan giggs.jpg which was deleted as a copyright violation. The user rarely uses edit summaries. Add all this to the answer to Q1 and I am concerned that PeeJay might use the tools to promote his point of view in conflict disputes and not communicate well with those he is in dispute with. Gwernol 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - reasonable answer to Q1, however when you find articles that are irrelevant, I would suggest nominating them for deletion. Overall, you are on the right track and suggest you reapply in 6-8 weeks. Addhoc 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry, the are a fre reasons I am going to oppose for as listed below:
 * Very low edit summary usage
 * Your answer to Q1, you can help in dispute resolution without the extra buttons.
 * Your Wikipedia space contributions are lacking, I suggest building them up a little
 * I wish you the best of luck but I think you need a little more participation in different areas of Wikipedia, I suggest some work at WP:XFD. #:Best of luck to you! The Sunshine Man 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Very low wikispace edits and your answer to question 1 isn't very satisfying-- $U IT  18:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per The Sunshine Man. Boricuaeddie Talk • Contribs  •  Spread   the love! 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Low edit summary usage, also edits not quite consistent, only about 4 months of solid editing not including this month. Also Q1 seems a little off.   Or f e n     User Talk |  Contribs 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not enough experience, and rarely uses edit summaries. Increase both and I can then support.  Come back and try again in a few months. Jmlk17 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Only 20 edits in Wikispace and 4 in wikitalk do not indicate that you will be adequately familiar with policy in these areas which an admin must be familiar with. Edit summary count is low - you camn set your preferences to force you to add a summary.--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Q1 is a little troubling, frankly. The use of your "status as an admin" just makes me uncomfortable. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial Bold"> Jody B talk 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Q1 is bad, but the stance on BLP is confusing and arbitrary: one sentence the nominee says leave it, the other says delete and discuss it. BLP is there for a reason, and we shouldn't leave obvious libel around with a fact tag and no sources for any more time than needed. -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "contentious" in the question. Of course, if the material added to the article was obviously libelous it should be removed immediately. PeeJay 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I hate to be negative, it's not my thing, but there are many things that trouble me about the nominee's candidacy. There is the limited experience, seemingly only being built on in the last few weeks. There is the fact that the range of articles to which the candidate has contributed is frankly limited. There is the fact that I think that much of the edits in the past few weeks have been minor, seemingly in the attempt to bolster the nominee's credentials... and there is the responses provided to the RFA questions, which range from the bizarre to the perturbing. I wish the best of luck, but I certainly cannot approve this RFA now. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, per answer to question 5.--Docg 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Edits and experience are decent, but I'm not sure you understand exactly what adminship entails, due to your low projectspace count and a rather poor answer to question 1.-- Wizardman 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I find the answer to Q1 a bit troubling; you need to build your experience more. Sr13 (T|C) 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Your answers to questions suggest you don't understand what being an admin is, and you appear to have insufficient experience in user interaction and policy for us to understand how you'd handle difficult situations. Bone up on policy, interact more with other users in a helpful way, participate more in XfD discussions (WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:MfD, WP:RfD etc.), proposed changes to policies, etc., and come back in a few months. You should be aware that it is frowned on for admins to use admin powers to further their own edit wars. It is not the job of admins to act as arbitrators (admin poswers should be a last resort, particularly in disputes between expereienced editors, and informal communication and voluntary mediation is helpful). Your answers should clearly reflect that you understand this. --Shirahadasha 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, on the grounds of the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. You say you're an "experienced" editor, but it's safe to say that you only really started significantly contributing some four months ago, in February. -- Phoenix  (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose not enough experience. — <font color="50C878">The Future 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Answer to Q5 illustrates that this candidate has insufficient a) knowledge and b) desire to protect the project from harm. This is the type of user which creates problems for the WMF, and I cannot do anything but oppose giving this user the mop.  Daniel Bryant  00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Q5 and the low amount of talk usage. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral: Have some more experience and come back later, then I'll alter my decision. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - The evidence provided does not make me confident enough to support you for adminship. I would recommend you re-nominate later on when you have more experience and have improved your edit summary usage. Camaron1 | Chris 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral although here since 2005, 70% of your edits are within only the last 10 weeks DGG 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral/Swaying - The amount of edits you made are not that many in numbers compared to some other sucssesfull administrator nomanations. Come back with more experience, and you may see your results change. Assasin Joe 03:31, 6 May 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.