Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pjoef


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

Pjoef
''Final (19/43/17); ended 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) - Nomination was withdrawn by candidate My76Strat (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– 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.  smt cha hal  (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have a substantial number of edits (43K; 9K within the Wikipedia namespace), a reasonable amount of time spent for the project (6 years), or a willingness to do repetitive work (at least weekly on Wikipedia, more often in "real life"). I am an uncivilized barbarian, and I spend all my time here on Wikipedia in personal attacks, POV pushing, vandalisms, and edit warring (Ø). I am regularly involved in AfD's, CSD's, and other deletion matters (c. Ø). Furthermore, I do not know what an edit summary is, and I am not inclined to help or interact with others or to observ consensus. What's consensus? For all these reasons I've decided to withdraw my nomination. P.S.: I'm really sorry for my use of boldaface. It was never intended to be in other way than to make new and edited/updated answers clear and distinct to the eye. Thank you all for participating. All the best and happy editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: 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. –p joe f (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: I have always hoped for my non-election, but I did not expect it to be this great success! :)
 * 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.
 * A2 (10:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)): None. As an admin and programmer with 2 decades experience, I know how hard and difficult this job is. I never had the intention to appear here, and I do not think I ever will. I was invited to take part to this nomination, without prior information (this was not a problem for me). This thing has flattered me a lot (ie the fact that a person, a fantastic person, saw in me someone who can help the project). Given my modest but long-term experience in this and related fields, I thought that it was the time for me to lend a hand and help out also in this difficult area of Wikipedia. So when I say "in all parts" I mean that, like any good dad, I'd look around before deciding how I can help and what administrative work I am able to undertake.


 * 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.

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 Criteria for speedy deletion and Deletion policy.
 * 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?,  and.
 * A:

(updated 10:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)): I am firmly against any kinds of crimes, no matter who committed them. "But many a crime deemed innocent on earth Is registered in Heaven; and these no doubt Have each their record, with a curse annexed. William Cowper (1731–1800), The Task: A Poem, in Six Books (1785), Book VI"
 * Additional question from Vejvančický
 * 5. You display 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&#124; 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 Motto of the day that are automatically deleted by a bot after a certain period.

(updated 11:55 30 April 2013): 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.
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * A. I will provide you the list as soon as possible. One of the last was a correction on poet Vladimir Mayakovsky about his film The Young Lady and the Hooligan.
 * from 18:30, 10 January 2013 until 13:12, 2 May 2013 (c. 5,000 edits in the article namespace)
 * 12:17, 14 January 2013 (+23) List of anti-war songs → (Disambiguated: Joe Jackson → Joe Jackson (musician))
 * 11:50, 11 January 2013 (+13) Cuba → (Disambiguated: Asian → Asian people)
 * 07:50, 11 January 2013 (+30) Che Guevara → (Disambiguated: The Motorcycle Diaries → The Motorcycle Diaries (book))
 * (12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)) as per your request, I got the complete list of my edits in the Article namesapce, from my very first (14 March 2007) until 11 January 2013. It's a long list, there are 18,700+ lines. It will take a while to cut down the list. What we want to do with it?

"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 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GhiathArodaki&oldid=546566530#Unblock].
 * A: I will NOT unblock this user and the rationale is somethiong like this:


 * 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.


 * Additional questions from Secret
 * 11. I'm very sorry how this RFA is going, but I do want to ask a few questions. Are you willing to be open to WP:RECALL and are you willing to have an administrator coaching you slowly the different areas of administrative work slowly but surely if you do pass? If not, would you be open to some sort of administrative training?
 * Oh, no Secret, please, don't be sorry! No worries, it is going in the best way possible (for me). We are in the race to get the worst result in RfA history! Isn't this enough? :) Thank you very much for the information. WP:RECALL seems to be a place (or procedure) where administrators of the English Wikipedia place themselves "open to recall", and I think that it does not apply to me. I am open to any sort of training (and other experiences) in any area.

General comments

 * Links for Pjoef:
 * 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 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)
 * Short and correct answer: "by not joining one." Carrite (talk) 22:09, 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)
 * Vejvančický, I think that your question is inappropriate and unacceptable, but I can answer easily. Maybe, if you take a look at my other userboxes you will notice that I'm friendly and helpful, for peace and against war, for the abolition of weapons, anti Capital punishment, pro environment and sustainable living and etcetera and etcetera. As already mentioned, your Q has nothing to do with this procedure. Just to let you (and others) know, I'm NOT part/member of (or affiliated to) any organizations, parties, clubs or other communities/groups/aggregations/whatever related to communism. It's my religion, but that's another story. Crimes commited by humanity make us the most destructive species that has walked on this planet. The only one that is capable of doing bad things and experience pleasure from them. The worst thing in this world —something that makes me cry and feel really bad and unproud of being human— is the fact that every three seconds a child dies of hunger, and this is intolerable. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC) –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I read your question in the same way as I would have read "You say you're a Catholic. Man, how about that boy rape?" Here, the only two responses were "I'm unaware of crimes committed in the name of communism" which shows ignorance, or "I'm aware of such crimes", which implies acceptance or endorsement. As written, it's a gotcha sort of question. I get that that was not your intent, but that's how I read it - and, apparently, how others did as well. I think the issue has merit, but not that bit of it - that's why I followed up with Question 8. I agree about the misunderstanding, though - this whole RFA feels premature, which is a shame. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church differs from the membership conditions of Leninist organizations, which I previously linked and with which you should familiarize yourself. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. I'm saying there is no evidence at all that shows that Pjoef has edited contrary to policy in furtherance of some bias in favor of communism or communist ideals. You also state that displaying such a userbox demonstrates a lack of honesty and intelligence. You might be right, in that someone might have mentioned to the candidate that such a userbox might become a point of discussion. But here, you seem intent on opposing this candidate merely because of his membership in a group; the Catholic example is a counterpoint to that, because it would be a similar oppose - not based in any evidence or pattern of behavior, but solely because of a userbox indicating membership in a group. I would, frankly, be embarassed to publicly advocate such a position, and the fact that you are so vigorous in your defense of this obvious bias is telling as well. Utterly distasteful. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review my oppose, which is based on the candidate's bad editing.
 * I noted his Communist avowal later. Your latest fatuous error is claiming that I am opposing "merely because of his membership in a group".
 * Have you examined his edits? His edit to the film (related to communism) added an unsourced falsehood about a novel (which novel I have forgotten). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know, "Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate" seems to be a pretty clear statement about the candidate's membership in a group, wouldn't you say? I did not take issue with the other bits of your oppose (though some have), because the diff you initially provided (76 revisions or some such) was unclear and indecipherable. And that one edit to some unspecified film wasn't mentioned at all. So yes, I've read your oppose, and I find its rationale wanting. We seem to be going round and round, to little avail - your position is clear, the candidate's rfa will be closed as unsuccessful, and life will go on. I don't expect to convince you of anything, nor do I expect to change your mind (or anyone else's). But I could not let such a position stand without comment. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're opposing someone's RfA because he's a communist? Is this 2013 or 1953? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 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 &mdash; 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)
 * 1) Support per experiance and number of edits. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Support Completely per Floquenbeam  TheStrike  Σagle   04:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Weak Support: The comments below are a bit harsh. Do not give up. Some of our best admins have have been smacked down hard before they were successful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Moral support - you're not going to get through, and to be honest I think that's the right decision. Work at what people have said and come back in 12 months. The reason placing my !vote here is largely because the question was Vejvančický was fucking atrocious and patently unfair; some of the opposes which explore a similar vein are equally disgraceful. They should all be ashamed. GiantSnowman 16:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you support a candidate prominently displaying another totalitarian userbox---e.g. Nazism or the view that women editors should only be able to edit with the supervision of a male relative---or would you consider that espousing Nazism could be relevant to a judgement of the candidate's qualities: e.g. maturity/seriousness, etc.?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any candidate displaying a Nazi/misogynist userbox which indicates such blatant bias and discrimination would (rightly) not get appointed. The same cannot be said for a Communist. If anything, it's the exact opposite. GiantSnowman 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I pal around with a few real live Commernists... They would all make excellent Wikipedians. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the Nazi and Communist userboxes are comparable because my background and perspective is different. Not everyone here must be politically hyper-correct. I don't blame the candidate of anything, I just asked a question. Please don't be hysterical. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support Can the opposers stop beating the dead horse, cases like this is why people are afraid to try RFA because of a huge pile-on of opposes near the end of the oppose sections that sounds opposing the candidate just for the sake of it, with the exception of Beeblebrox when the first 15 or so oppose votes already explains what the editor needs to work on. Secret account 19:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. If we're condemning someone for their political views then our chances of upholding that policy in article space (where it matters) are tenuous at best. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support i like the user's suggestion that admin stuff happens, "time permitting." i am unconcerned about their edits or style, etc., because with 20k edits, if they were a problem, we'd not be having this conversation. i am not fussy about pov or ideology in editors as long as they play nice and remember this is about the articles, not the red tape. ... aa:talk 02:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support I think that he is a fine candidate for adminship, but I expected better answers of the questions especially Q1.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   05:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral support - Candidate is clueful, mature and experienced in many areas. Yes this RFA is unlikely to pass, but rather than be defeated by this experience, take the positive suggestions, broaden your exposure the other facets of WP and come back in 6-12 months. You've got all the right qualities. Regards Manning (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as nom (I didn't know earlier that nominators could also vote; yeah yeah, another indication of my lack of knowledge about RfA discussions). Of course my vote can't prevent this one from failing, but I'm sure that if a second nomination after a few months' time takes place when Pjoef has gained enough experience in admin-related fields, he will likely get the mop. That Pjoef does not have much experience in these fields is the only valid reason I could draw from the discussion why anyone should oppose him. Opposing him for being a communist is quite unjustified. I wonder why a discussion was needed to conclude that it's not a valid reason. I'm sure that many of us spend our real-lives in a different way than we do here on Wikipedia or even anywhere online. Any Wikipedian (including admins) can hold any views in real life, as long as these views don't affect his/her behaviour on Wikipedia.  smt cha hal  (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support You are clearly very committed to Wikipedia. Pug6666 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Pug6666! If Wikipedia is not the best project ever, certainly it is part of the inner circle of the best initiatives in human history. I love it and I'm trying —in my own small way— to contribute to this significant project utilising my humble skills and experience in the best way possible. Happy editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support, keep up the hard work, and the bit will comeTazerdadog (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think the candidate would do adequately, despite the admitted inexperience with most of the administrator functions. I would strongly urge another try in a year or so, even if it had not previously been considered before the nomination here. I would normally word this as "Neutral" or at best "moral support" -- I am wording this as a straight "Support" because i wish very emphatically to deny  the proposition raised here that political opinions make one inherently unsuitable for the position. Some of the people I respect most around here I know privately to have positions very different from mine; some I know privately to have similar.I have not observed it making a difference in their work. It could of course make a difference, regardless of the specific opinions, but any good editor here does edit in such a way as to not show their bias, and I think this candidate is included among them. (Do I know of some people whose bias on a particular issue -- political or otherwise -- interferes? Yes, and a few of them are even good editors otherwise, but if they do let it interfere I would not support them for adminship.)  DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I completely agree with DDG.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose
Although it is possible to blank or remove part of the contents from users' talk pages (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines→User talk pages→"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages") I've never ever done it, and all comments posted on my talk page are in my archive. (For more information on how to archive a user talk page please see Help:Archiving a talk page). A question: Who is worshipping Ayn Rand and Lenin? Best regards. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). –p joe f (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! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! It was not a great issue but, in some cases, when spaces are converted to underscores, it could produce an error. Best! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  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. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  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. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  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. –p joe f (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? 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff 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)
 * That doesn't address the issue. You state that having a Communist userbox disqualifies Pjoef because adminship requires intelligence and honesty, implying that Communists are unintelligent and dishonest. This is obviously a fallacy; just because certain Communists in history have been (supposedly) unintelligent and dishonest does not mean they all are. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "unintelligent and dishonest": Your lack of fluency in English connectives (or Boolean algebra) is the least of your problems.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What's your point? 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody worshipping Ayn Rand and Lenin simultaneously is beyond my imagination; but c.f. Herr Naphta. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, your "serious editors" have led a B-Class article to Stub (it is Start-Class, right now; please see the its revision history around February 2011), proving that they did not understand (or tried to circumvent) Ownership of articles and No vested contributors &hellip; what a waste of my time it was.
 * Kiefer, your "serious editors" have led a B-Class article to Stub (it is Start-Class, right now; please see the its revision history around February 2011), proving that they did not understand (or tried to circumvent) Ownership of articles and No vested contributors &hellip; what a waste of my time it was.
 * I have no opinion on this candidate, but I do have an opinion on this oppose. It is disgraceful and should be struck out. —  Scott  •  talk  11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you share Giant Snowman's exception for Communists and his willingness to discriminate against Nazis and others who don't share his opinions? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * END THIS - Kiefer Wolfowitz's assertion that someone with a communist userbox is disqualified from AFD is obviously not correct in a general sense - no userbox can ever disqualify anyone from AFD. If that userbox disqualifies the candidate for KW personally, then fine, that's his own opinion and he is entitled to it. Beyond that, this is turning into a pointless, irrelevant argument. Hence I will strike any comment that follows that is not directly related to this candidate. Manning (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. –p joe f (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)
 * I am not the right person for judging my contributions. I try to do my best in everything I do for Wikipedia and I hope that all of them are "good" edits. What I can say is that the experience that I liked the most was my multi-participation in the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention all articles about The Clash (421 articles to which I have more or less contributed), and I've also started The Clash WikiProject and The Clash Portal. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Dennis Brown, if an user does not take part in AFD and etcetera does not mean that it does not know the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia and that it does not know how to apply them correctly, and vice versa, a frequent contributor is not at all said it will be a good administrator. I'm an inclusionist and in my opinion all must be included into Wikipedia because human knowledge is so scarce and also to push forward the meaning of "encyclopedia". But my opinion does not count and if consensus wants to delete an article —as an administrator— I delete it even if I disagree with the decision. Just to let you know, using administrative tolls, but also write them, is my job and I know how stressful this job can be. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet I don't know you personally, so I'm forced to look at your history. Demeanor in admin areas and style of participation in AFD are two factors I consider paramount.  Others may use whatever criteria they chose.  In your situation, I don't see enough evidence to get that warm fuzzy feeling that you will be light with the stick and quick to discuss.  It doesn't mean you wouldn't, but there is insufficient evidence you would. As for the Communism tags, that has no role in my decision, I just think you need more experience in the admin-y areas before having the bit.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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." –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. Dea  db  eef  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. –p joe f (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)
 * In order to safeguard my own interests. ;) –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - the candidate evidently has no clue about adminship... Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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 :). –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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) –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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). –p joe f (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)
 * 1) 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)
 * Oppose &mdash; 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!" –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm familiar with Led Zeppelin. =) Kurtis (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For some years I worked as a salesman and, from my point of view, everything is going in the right direction. :) I hope you enjoyed that fantastic song on your player! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh... OK, I'm switching to neutral. Kurtis (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose lack of maturity, skills, and experience in admin related areas. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 11:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. Needs more experience. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * It's the opposite, because, I hope to fail :) indeed; it is a hard and stressful work, I would not recommend it at all. For several reasons I am familiar with the procedures and practices in all areas of Wikipedia. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Lacks experience and temperament from what I can see. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * In your own words "with 42K edits, I'd expect many incidents", you said it all, thank you so very much Glrx! I've some 900 deleted edits but a huge percentage of them (c. 90% - 99%) are from my participation to WP:MOTD. "I needed a large number of edits" means that my mastery over the medium has hopefully progressed. If I was making it now I would use a sandbox and 30/40 edits max. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the thrust of Stfg's comment above: you were offered a nomination and accepted it, but you did not understand what an RfA entails. Consequently, you've been run over by the bus. An RfA is not simply a long tenure and a high edit count. For me, a six month tenure and 3,000 article space edits are enough (and I've supported with less), but there needs to be evidence of other, more important, skills. Q1 and Q2 are important not so much for what they say directly but that they show an understanding of adminship and what the RfA audience wants to see. You were not prepared there. Q1 should have limited scope: it should say here's a task that interests me and why I can do it; that statement gives context for evaluating a record. A candidate who says he will work on closing AfD but has only 10 AfD edits will we shot down -- as will the candidate who says CSD but has a poor CSD tagging record. Q2 describes the candidate's contributions and also involves some self-awareness and self-assessment. Not "getting" those questions sends a strong not-ready signal. Many admin duties involve dealing with disputes and difficult people, and the purpose of Q3 is showing the candidate's readiness there. After 3K edits, I expect a candidate to have been personally involved in a few conflicts and to have learned from them. I even like to see tales of the candidate messing up and realizing he did the wrong thing. However, there are candidates with tens of thousands of edits who have somehow escaped those conflicts and lessons. I get that sense with you. Your Q3 suggests a surprisingly small number of conflicts with almost no takeaway. WP:3RR is not right. A few days ago I crawled through a lot of the medieval math episode, and I'm not sure what you learned; your Q3 suggests the lesson was walking away from conflict. Did you understand the sides? Where there WP:SPAs? I've been in many conflicts, and I've seen other editors do some masterful jobs in dealing with them. I was dealing with a difficult WP:SPA last year and was humbled by User:Shearonink's response. I'd give her the admin bit for just that response: it shows that she understands policy, is even-handed, and can deal with editors politely but forcibly. A candidate needs to show focus, an understanding of policy, and an understanding of how to deal with other editors. Good communication is also an issue. Glrx (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear explanation Glrx. I've modified a bit my answer to Q1. I find Q2 embarrassing. As it is said: "never ask a barber if you need a haircut." :) Just for your information and going by memory, all articles about The Clash see my active/massive participation. I've also created the related WikiProject and Portal. Yann Tiersen, Miriam Makeba, most of the articles listed in my short watchlist and in my "favourite subjects"... and I am an active member of several WikiProjects. My best WP experience was the opportunity I had to work with the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I have no problem dealing with people from all ages and backgrounds, indeed. I have adopted this kind of communication for various reasons; this strategy serves a purpose, a goal, an aim. ;) Thanks for your message and advice. All the best! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough experience with administrative tasks. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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 with Stfg, that this nomination might have been premature. -   t  u coxn \ talk 04:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) 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 deckertalk 06:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe Decker, do I delete the wrong page? –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - On the surface I think this is a good candidate, but the answers to questions demonstrate a lack of genuine understanding and desire to take on the admin role. Perhaps think this over and seek nomination in 3-6 months. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, with advice for next time: RFA is when you are expected to demonstrate that you can handle the responsibilities of an administrator. If you can't even say what areas you might do admin work in, you are not going to pass. Period. You need to demonstrate that you are able to actually help with admin tasks, not just say "I've been here a while so I must be qualified, give me the tools and I'll figure out why later". Work with WP:CSD, clerking at WP:RFPP, helping clear out bad bot reports at WP:UAA, participation at WP:AFD that shows some understanding of consensus and deletion policy, these are the type of things non-admins can do to demonstrate they can handle the mop. If you don't want to do any of those things, you are not going to be good admin material. We don't just ride around on horses shooting bad guys, a lot of admin work is very routine and boring. If you don't want to help with that work there is no reason you should be an admin and you should just stick to content work, which is where your focus seems to be already anyway. So, you have a choice to make about where you want your wiki-career to go. Keep focusing on content and maybe one day you will be churning out featured articles, or focus on admin work and maybe you can pass RFA at a future date and become a member of the administrative corps. A few manage to do both at the same time, but they are the exception, not the rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above, although I do give this user a lot of credit for sticking through this RFA, and I look forward to seeing you around in the future because I think that you have a lot of valid critiques above and I hope that you will take them to heart for your next run. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Reluctant Oppose The initial reply to the first oppose raised concerns with me. Arguably, I think anyone will agree that everyone started Wikipedia at some point and may have gone on to make valuable contributions, but that has been after a fair length of time, having made many mistakes, and having done a lot of learning in the process. Adminship is access to a set of tools where you have knowledge of how to appropriately apply them. The second concern for me was that this editor wanted to 'try' the tools before deciding where their interests lie. I would feel more comfortable if the editor learned more about the areas where the tools are used before asking for the ability to administer them. The answers to questions 1, 2 and 6 were troubling. On another note, I am somewhat horrified that this editor is being persecuted for accusations regarding their beliefs! Mkdw talk 06:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a libertarian socialist, an agnostic secularist with anti-religious ideals, a staunch feminist, an opponent of war in principle but supportive of military intervention when necessary (eg. Libyan Civil War, Persian Gulf War, World War II), and an advocate of a mixed economy where the government provides for virtually all forms of public infrastructure (health care, postal services, etc) and enacts legislation to prevent the development of a plutocracy, all the while permitting the existence of a free market with as few limitations as possible (within reasonable bounds, of course; certain kinds of goods or services should require a license). If someone stated on their userpage that they agreed with the Iraq War, have a favourable opinion of George W. Bush, would like to depose the regime in Iran through military force, and believe that the world was created within the past six thousand years or so, I would still be willing to support them for adminship if they were qualified for the role. Unless their beliefs are so radical as to be divisive and offensive (eg. they believe that some races are superior to others, they have a positive opinion of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, they support NAMBLA), the very notion of taking a candidate's ideology into consideration is patently absurd. Kurtis (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Kurtis, I don't follow. Are you agreeing with my statement about being horrified that this candidate is being persecuted here for their beliefs when it's clearly irrelevant, or contesting what I said in choosing to reply to my !vote opposed to making a comment of your own separately? Mkdw talk 08:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unless their beliefs are so radical as to be divisive and offensive (eg. they believe that some races are superior to others, they have a positive opinion of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, they support NAMBLA), the very notion of taking a candidate's ideology into consideration is patently absurd" &mdash; in other words, your sentiments have my complete, 100% agreement. Kurtis (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry to pile on to this already long list of opposes, but the candidate's attitude isn't good enough, and I would certainly be worried if he decides to work on all areas as a newcoming admin. I'm also disappointed by some of the answers to the questions, particularly 4, 6, and 9. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 09:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Needs more experience. Plus, I worry about his ideology of Communism (or Marxism-Leninism). He saved the suspense for Q#1 and possibly Q#5. However, the edit count is fine with me, as he edits in multiple areas. Pits  Confer Guests 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what his personal beliefs would have to do with access to adminship tools. Mkdw talk 01:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * hey, at least the user made transparent what their "objection" was. call it a blessing. ... aa:talk 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Requires further experience, concerned about the answer to question one. Furthermore, there are some very valid arguments provided above. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Boing, Beeblebrox, Wikins, and Dennis Brown have already said what  I  would have added, so  this is not  a pile-on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose The manner in which the candidate answered the questions disqualify him. I'm sad to vote against the candidate's nomination because that's the outcome it seems he is looking for.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:17, 5 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&#124; reply here 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not want to use them, but I have been nominated and I gladly accepted. I use administrative tolls every day including Saturdays and Sundays. Thanks for your kindness Piotrus, but I do not think I'll ping you. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 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)
 * I believe admin coaching is defunct. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, that's depressing. I learned much from the coaching... -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral pending any (apparently unlikely) further explanation of why the candidate wants the mop and what he plans to do with it. Cheers, LindsayHello 07:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.  Mini  apolis  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. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - I am rather worried about the oppose rationales, even though this user is a great editor. So I'm staying neutral for now.  Zappa  O  Mati   13:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral to avoid pile-on. Admin candidates are people too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - Pretty clear temperament issues — not that there's anything wrong with that, the same could be said about me or 999 other regulars at WP.... More than adequate tenure and edits, probably should be a NO BIG DEAL situation. Not sure why the pitch for the toolbox was even made, you don't need validation here, my friend. Continued success to you writing content. Best Clash album: Give 'Em Enough Rope. Really, K-Wolf, you of all people should know better than to come within 20 miles of an approach that can be construed as redbaiting... Carrite (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Brother Tim, redbaiting is calling a liberal or social-democrat a communist; calling a Communist a communist is tautological. In solidarity, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much Carrite. My favourite of them is Sandinista! and it could not be otherwise. :) –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Half a great LP successfully hidden on three discs. "The Call Up" was a very, very important song to me at the time though, needed ideological fortification for a tough decision that I had to make... It helped me to choose correctly. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh... that we might need Carrite here to defend KW, or vice versa. Let's all grow up a little, and imagine that people's political views (right or wrong) are not the first thing we think of when evaluating them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, your record of dishonesty makes you a poor arbiter of polite discussions. You are the one who smeared a liberal free-speech advocate for having a national socialism user box, without mentioning his having hundreds of contradictory user boxes. You are the one who smeared Volunteer Marek for contributing to a Wikipedia-ocracy, attempting to smear him with a deleted comment of another user at that site. You are the one who accused me of editing Penn Kemble ideologically, accusing me of removing material that I had just moved within the article.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  06:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on this RfA and your behaviour here. I wasn't commenting on your pal who had the Nazi userbox, nor anyone else who has curious ideologies on Wikipedia. You've made twenty-four edits to this RfA so far - perhaps it's time you gave it a rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Variations on "per KW" or "KW's comment and the candidate's response illuminated [an issue]" are frequent at this RfA and others. Nobody here refers to your simpering drivel, such as your latest smearing lie. New RfA participants who examine search your user-name can understand why your yipping after my or Marek's heels is ignored by the community, here and elsewhere. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KW, since your own block log is about three times as long as Demiurge's, and since this RfA will not pass anyway (see Moot point), I urge both of you to refrain from further posting here at this RfA, just to avoid anybody flying off his handle. Please. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, never heard of you, and I' won't read what you write, given your acquiescence to Demiurge1000's latest false accusation that "my pal" had a Nazi user box (and fretting over block logs). Where are the administrators enforcing civility and NPA letting this piece of shit again malign Lihaas? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I think the candidate is fine but I tend to agree with most of the opposes that the user should really have some more admin related experience. At least more edits in the admin related boards to show they understand what adminship is and what the tools are for. I would recommend trying again in a few months after working on some admin type stuff. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Switzerland - I just wanted to chime in on the allegations of bias. People forget that bias works both ways. If you are a capitalist you would be biased against communism. You need class struggle (sorry) between both sides to write a neutral article. If bias is a threat to Wikipedia, it's as systemic bias, not a few lone contributors . Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how tempting it is right now for me to submit a neutral vote as "Austria" or "Sweden". Kurtis (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, what the hell? I think I'll go Ireland on this one. He's obviously lacking experience and seems to be lacking in maturity from what I have seen thus far, but that's probably more from his lack of participation in Wikipedia space than anything. It's almost a professional environment, so his nonchalance is based on inexperience rather than a genuinely frivolous approach to editing the site. I'm also aghast at the oppose rationales that take his support for communism into consideration &mdash; and I say this as a frequent editor of articles pertaining to the Cold War (Mass killings under communist regimes, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc). Kurtis (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There comes a time when it is prudent to acknowledge the overwhelming emergence of a consensus, even if it doesn't align with your opinion. Regarding this RFA, that time came days ago. The candidate would elevate his stature, in my opinion, by withdrawing from this RFA, further increasing the likelihood of success when RFA2 transpires (in about 6 months). My76Strat (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I never asked for this position and I never will. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 May 2013 (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.