→Oppose: replying to Pol430 |
→Oppose: replying to Kiefer.Wolfowitz about the wasting of time |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
#::::Not an ignoramus? [[Democratic centralism|Guilty]] [[21 Conditions|as]] [[Criticisms_of_communist_party_rule#Political_repression|charged]].... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
#::::Not an ignoramus? [[Democratic centralism|Guilty]] [[21 Conditions|as]] [[Criticisms_of_communist_party_rule#Political_repression|charged]].... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
#:::::Thank you for the positive confirmation. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">|</font> [[User:Uncle Milty|<font color="#000051">'''Uncle Milty'''</font>]] | [[User talk:Uncle Milty|<font color="#005c00">talk</font>]] <font color="#ffffff">|</font></span> 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
#:::::Thank you for the positive confirmation. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">|</font> [[User:Uncle Milty|<font color="#000051">'''Uncle Milty'''</font>]] | [[User talk:Uncle Milty|<font color="#005c00">talk</font>]] <font color="#ffffff">|</font></span> 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
#:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, <span style="text-transform:uppercase">'''I have never ever wasted the time of other editors'''</span>! 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. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
#'''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 [[Demetrio_Stratos#Phonetics_research_studies|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 [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Pjoef AfD voting record] has only 20% matching the result. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
#'''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 [[Demetrio_Stratos#Phonetics_research_studies|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 [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Pjoef AfD voting record] has only 20% matching the result. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
#'''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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] <small>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</small> 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
#'''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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] <small>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</small> 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:23, 30 April 2013
Pjoef
(talk page) (3/20/5); Scheduled to end 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
Pjoef (talk · contribs) – The user has made over 40,000 edits to the English Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits in the mainspace. Pjoef has a Wikipedia editing experience of about 6 years and, in my opinion, can be trusted at least not to abuse the admin tools. smtchahal(talk) 12:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am honoured to accept the nomination for adminship here on the English Wikipedia and I would like to thank Smtchahal for nominating and supporting me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Time permitting, I would like to take part in all of the administrative activities and offer my services to Wikipedia and its community.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I cannot answer your question, but I hope I was helpful enough and I also hope to be able to continue to offer my modest contribution to Wikipedia and Wikimedia sister projects. I am actively participating in some collaborative projects, with the result that I have edited a moderate (or unmoderated) number of pages in all namespaces and for a wide variety of reasons.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: As far as I can remember, I was once involved in a 3RR (three-revert rule) violation, but it was at the very beginning of my Wikipedia "experience/life" and it was more an edit conflict than a 3RR violation; all happened in a few minutes and I was not aware of 3RR —yes, I know, "dura lex sed lex" (the law is harsh, but it is the law)— I was just trying to expand an article about a song of The Clash; I got whipped by the same editor at that same time (c. 20–22 February 2008) for working on the band's Sandinista! album. In February–March 2011, I was partially involved in an edit dispute about Mathematics in medieval Islam. I was participating to the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive ("Mathematics in medieval Islam" was #111 in my list) and I stopped editing that page. This is all I remember about conflicts over editing and I forgot how much they were stressful; they certainly have not been a pleasure. I will deal with it politely and I will try to make editors feel a welcome addition/contributor to Wikipedia, helping them to feel at home. I will always try to reflect the consensus of the community through my editing, actions, and discussions, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- Additional question from Salvio giuliano
- 4. Imagine you're already an admin and, while patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, you find the following three articles. Each one of these has only been edited twice – once by the page creator and once by a new page patroller – and none duplicates an existing topic; what do you do? First article, second article and third article.
- A:
1. Maritime safety information really is information that is broadcast to mariners:
2. Speedy deletion of Jane Doe (Hindu holy leader):
3. Mont Gosford correctly redirect to Mount Gosford, which is a mountain located in southern Quebec, Canada.
In any case, following Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
- A:
- Additional question from Vejvančický
- 5. You display {{User:UBX/Communist}} userbox on your user page. What do you think about the crimes commited in the name of this ideology?
- A: My opinion is irrelevant. No comment.
- Additional question from Piotrus
- 6. I am not happy with the answer to Q1, too general. Can you name at least one specific activity that you would do with some regularity (at least few times a month) with the tools that you cannot do now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- A: I cannot answer your question without first trying to handle them. All the procedures regarding page editing, moving, merging, deleting/undeleting... and also block/unblock editors and resolving/closing disputes.
- Additional question from Boing! said Zebedee
- 7. Q1 is an opportunity to sell yourself, and to explain the areas of admin activity where you have the most experience and where you think you could put your abilities to best use - and it gives the rest of us some idea where to look to see your relevant work. With that in mind, would you care to reconsider your answer?
- A: Same as before (#6). I will have to try them out. I don't like to talk about "my relevant work" here on Wikipedia nor to sell myself, eventually to serve. I participated in all Wikify (except for the very first one) and some Disambiguation drives. These [very good] practices (I'm refererring to the WikiProjects drives in general) have allowed me to work on a large number of articles in the mainspace, on any subject, from stub to FA. My style of editing varies greatly depending on the situation. Sometime I save a succession of small changes on the way, other times I use a sandbox. With WP:Films, WP:Punk, all existing articles related to The Clash in all namespaces, and with the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team I have assessed and reviewed thousands of articles. Most of my 900 deleted edits are pages that I've created for Wikipedia:Motto of the day that are automatically deleted by a bot after a certain period.
- Additional questions from Ultraexactzz
- 8. In the past, editors have opposed candidates for adminship who displayed userboxes seen as offensive or in bad taste. The concern, generally, was that an admin who displayed such a userbox might not be seen as a neutral party, and that there may be an appearance of bias. It is a truth that some editors have a negative view of Communism in general, and communists in particular. Do you believe that identifying yourself as a communist could have a negative impact on your ability to be an effective admin?
- A. If it is not appropriate on a user page, then it is better to delete it. What I can say about communism is that it is very very difficult that I edit pages related to communism and when I do I pay 1000 times the attention that saving an article requires and deserves.
- Additional question from Mabdul
- 9. I guess you want to handle unblock requests (Q6), would you unblock the user after following request and if not, please write a decline rationale for GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs) [1].
- A: I will NOT unblock this user and the rationale is somethiong like this:
You have been engaged in edit warring and have repeatedly violated the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which leads to your block. I'm sorry, but you will have to wait for your block to expire. When in doubt, please do NOT revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and ask for help at Dispute resolution requests.
- 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.
General comments
- Links for Pjoef: Pjoef (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Pjoef can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- The question by Vejvančický (talk · contribs) is highly inappropriate and should be deleted. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Are you familiar with e.g. the party discipline practised by Leninist organizations? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Support
- Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support. When you see an editor with almost 10,000 Wikipedia space edits - none of them (that I could find) involved at AN or ANI, you notice. The fact that the candidate had to go all the way back to 2008 to find drama in their history is also telling. But the flipside to that coin is that this candidate does not appear to have a great deal of experience with processes such as ANI, AIV, XFD, and CSD. I don't think a lack of experience with drama will damage Pjoef's ability to deal with drama, but it's a point of data to consider. It is balanced by what appears to be a high level of clue and equally high level of reasonableness - both of which will serve this candidate well. If appointed, do tread lightly and slowly - and you should have no problems. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Meh - I think I'm going to remain at support, even if it's only Moral Support at this point. There are valid concerns below, however, and I look forward to seeing responses to them. It's possible that this nomination was premature, and that the candidate might benefit from some discussion about what RFA generally looks for. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support — This is obviously not going to pass, and I think Pjoef would be best adviced to withdraw and try again at a later date after getting some more experience in administrative areas. Although I find the discussion referenced by Keifer 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)
Oppose
- Reluctant oppose I was hoping to support this one, but Pjoef says he wants to work in all Admin areas and with only two edits to AIV and 11 to unique pages at AfD (that I could find). I don't there is enough evidence that Pjoef would know how to handle himself properly in these areas. Sorry. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've never edited Wikipedia before my first edit, of course. From then on I've contributed to Wikipedia massively. What's the difference? As a computer scientist I have "real life" experiences in administration (sys, db, [Inter|Intra|Extra|...]net, web apps and more) and I think I could be of some help. I can say that I did not request this position, I am not an admin or sysop, and for this reason I have participated to AfD and other administrative tasks very-very little. But the fact that an user activley participates in administrative procedures (usually discussions) does not automatically mean that he/she is suitable for this position and viceversa. It is the use of the administrative tools and "privileges" that makes the difference, the difference between a good administrator and an excellent one (in my humble opinion, of course). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose. Candidate wasted time of serious editors, and has failed to convey the breadth and depth of his damage in the above statement. I suggest a withdrawal before the mathematicians learn about this candidacy. Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators" Holy cow, I know this is RFA and seemingly anything goes, but not only is that harsh it's just plain wrong. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your "Boy Wonder" emotional response is less informative than, say, any counter-example would be. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, then. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not an ignoramus? Guilty as charged.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the positive confirmation. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not an ignoramus? Guilty as charged.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, then. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:29, 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)
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I have never ever wasted the time of other editors! If anything, and in that special case, I would say exactly the opposite. One of the involved users was "the perfect example" of an administrator misusing its administrative tools and privileges. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators" Holy cow, I know this is RFA and seemingly anything goes, but not only is that harsh it's just plain wrong. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose. The point of being given admin tools is to be able to contribute to improving Wikipedia in a more specialized, high-level way. It isn't to be able to log on to Wikipedia and see all the neat things you can do to the site. This user's area of expertise and experience is in content creation; an area that requires no admin tools to contribute better in. The highest permission this user would need would be the autopatrolled right, which I would definitely support. However, this user seems to want admin tools simply to have them. That, combined with not being able to say what the user would use the tools for, combined with a lack of demonstrated knowledge of the policies in the fields that admins need to be extremely fluent in, constitutes my opposition. Deadbeef 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose - the candidate evidently has no clue about adminship... Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose per lack of experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose While enthusiastic, it appears he lacks the skills required to be an admin. Canuck89 (talk to me) 08:31, April 30, 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Neutral
- 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)
- 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)
- Neutral. Long story short, per Rocksanddirt. Mop and bucket are not a big issue, but I'd like to hear the candidate discuss at least one specific example/area where they'd want to use them. Feel free to ping me if this is done and I may revise my vote. Good luck otherwise, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral. Nice amounts of edits. Content creation and wiki maintenance is always nice. However, I'm concerned that the candidate is not focused on a specific set of admin work and lack the experience needed in any. I suggest that the candidate apply for Wikipedia:Admin coaching. It won't guarantee getting the mop but at least you can safely learn the ropes of adminship from there. I also don't think it is wise to judge the candidate based on his beliefs but rather on his actions. --Lenticel (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)