Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeeJay2K3 (2)

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

PeeJay2K3

(talk page) (19/37/13); Withdrawn by candidate at 08:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) - PeeJay is a hard working editor. 21,485 edits since October 2005. He edits mainly football-related articles and did a lot of little hard work that the community often fails to appreciate. Cleanup, categorization, disambiguated links etc. is his middle name. Admins are supposed to do similar work, they are kind of janitors and PeeJay would be a great wiki-janitor. Admins are also supposed to revert vandalism, PeeJay has a lot of experience with that as football articles are very often a target of frequent vandalism. PeeJay has been nominated almost exactly one year ago and his nomination failed mainly due to his lack of experience and WP namespace edits, but he made a substantial progress during that year and I think he is ready for adminship. You decide. Darwinek (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted. – PeeJay 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. – PeeJay 08:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original nomination was a speculative self-nom that, I believe, really helped me to grasp some of Wikipedia's core principles. Before, I might have viewed adminship as a bit of a big deal or as something of a trophy title, but this is no longer the case. In fact, until today, I was quite content with being one of your average Joe Wikipedians. I can fully accept that my disciplinary record is far from spotless, having been blocked for 24 hours on two separate occasions, one as recently as last week for a 3RR violation. In that case, I believed I was in the right with my reverts, but I should probably have sought a less confrontational way of resolving the dispute. Nevertheless, I believe my edits speak for themselves, regarding my constant vigilance over vandalism, and my continuing efforts to keep Wikipedia organised. I hope that you will all judge me on my merits and give me a fair review. Thanks. – PeeJay 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In my experience of tidying up the rabbit warren of sub-categories under Category:Football (soccer), I have come across many different articles and lists that have required a change of title or even deletion. Through these, I have gained quite a bit of experience with deletion discussions and move requests. Because of this, I believe that the majority of my admin work would take place in these areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As User:Darwinek noted in his nomination statement, a lot of my contributions go unnoticed, particularly the creation, sorting and population of categories under the banner of WikiProject Football. I often go through club and competition categories, making sure that articles have not been improperly categorised, or moving articles to a more appropriate daughter category. In terms of my content contribution, however, my contributions to articles related to Manchester United F.C. are quite important to me, as are my contributions to the season articles of various football competitions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have come into conflict with some editors in the past regarding the addition or removal of content, or even the wording of an edit. Often, I will discuss edits that I believe to be incorrect with the editor, and we usually come to an amicable solution. Unfortunately, however, I sometimes come across editors who are just as hard-nosed and stubborn as I am, and the discussion will descend into each of us asserting the belief that the other is wrong. When this happens, I usually leave the discussion for a while, before coming back with a clearer understanding of the conflict. I find this also allows the other editor time to consider the situation and, if the situation hasn't already sorted itself out by then, we are each in a better position to work it out together.

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod

4. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?
  • A: I think the most important thing I've learned is that the opinions of everyone involved in a discussion should be respected. When everyone is given a chance to speak, and not be shot down for their opinion, I find that it is much easier to find a solution to a problem. I have also learned that disputes do not have to be resolved immediately and that, while preferable, Wikipedia does not have to be 100% correct 100% of the time.
5. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Jirgrfdsfg9764 requested that you:
  • 5a. Need to block a certain user?
  • A: If a user suggested directly to me on my talk page that another editor needed blocking, I would first suggest that the report be placed through the proper channels, such as WP:AIV or WP:AN3. If an appropriate reason was given for the requested block, I would then consider each of the events leading up to the block request, in order to determine for myself whether any offence was committed. If so, then I would determine an appropriate length of block (24 hours for a first offence, or a longer block for a repeat offender) and apply it.
  • 5b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?
  • A: Could you please clarify what you mean by "linked to the main page"?
  • Comment - By "linked to the main page" I mean, for example, the featured article or an article which is featured in the news on the main page. Hope this helps. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I would probably look at the frequency of negative edits to the page in the last 24 hours (or 7 days, depending on whether the article was "In the news" or just the day's featured article). If the number of negative edits exceeded the number of positive edits (not including reverts of negative edits), then I would consider applying semi-protection to the page. The duration of the semi-protection would depend on the circumstances, but I would usually suggest 7 days as an appropriate duration. – PeeJay 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Supposing your RfA fails to pass this time round, how long do you expect to wait before reapply or consider accepting a renomination?
A: Judging by what other users have suggested, it will probably be several months before my next RfA, assuming this one fails. Of course, there is always the chance that I may never reapply. In fact, that was the plan until User:Darwinek nominated me this time around. On a related note, part of me actually believes that it can come across as being a bit arrogant when users nominate themselves for adminship, so I hope that I can keep myself on Darwinek's radar =D – PeeJay 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Are there any users you look up to on Wikipedia? If so, who and why?
A: I think it would be a bit unfair to name names, just as it would be unfair to name any users that I look down on. What I will say, however, is that I respect any editor who has the ability to resolve a dispute merely by presenting the facts of their case. These people obviously command the respect of the editors they come into contact with, and it is an ability that I could do with acquiring myself. – PeeJay 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

8. Do you believe that chimpanzees that have been taught to communicate with humans should be allowed to have their own Wikipedia accounts?
A. I don't see what relevance this question has to the matter at hand. However, I don't see why a chimpanzee should not be allowed to have its own Wikipedia account. In fact, I don't believe any animal should be denied a Wikipedia account. I may just go and create an account for my pet tarantula right now. – PeeJay 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from TravisTX

9. When patrolling speedy deletion nominations, I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. Has each article been tagged correctly? If not, please explain how you would handle it. (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)
a. Sam Jones
A: I would suggest that, although this article has been rightly tagged for speedy deletion, the criterion used to justify the speedy deletion is incorrect. The article's content is not incoherent, but it does fail to properly assert the subject's notability, which leads me to believe that criterion A7 would be more appropriate. – PeeJay 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b. Rob smith
A: This page seems to be more of an "attack page" than "patent nonsense". The majority of the content seems to have the intention of disparaging the subject, indicating that criterion G10 would be a more appropriate CSD tag. – PeeJay 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
c. Aliens on earth
A: The above article reeks of copyright violations, peppered with the odd POV statement. However, the title of the article shows potential for conversion to a half-decent article, so I would reject the CSD based on the fact that the criterion chosen is inappropriate. I would then tag it for a major overhaul and then give it some time to be improved. If no improvements occur within a certain time limit, I would PROD the article. – PeeJay 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question By Zginder

10. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A: Ironic as it may be, I think the 3RR policy is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, as it prevents unscrupulous editors from trying to forcefully impose their views on the project by a simple brute force attack. I also consider WP:CRYSTAL to be an important policy, particularly in the field of association football. Rumours and speculation regularly crop up in the British media with regard to various aspects of the sport, and some editors take this as the gospel truth, without considering the bias inherent to the media, resulting in these speculative reports making their way into various players', clubs' and competitions' articles. Thanks to WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:VERIFY) we have an accepted policy to fall back on when reverting such edits. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from InDeBiz1

11. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account? --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first we have to consider that there are many reasons why an editor may be blocked. These can range from simple disruption to block evasion through proxies and other methods. Since none of these are usually enough by themselves to warrant a permanent ban, I don't see why the perpetrators can't eventually win back the trust of the community. I believe that they should probably be subject to a probationary period following the expiry of their block, with the duration of the probation being determined by the severity of the original offence.
In the case that a previously banned editor has managed to convince admins to reinstate their account, I would personally question the convictions of the administrators. If an editor is banned, then I believe that they should be permanently denied editing privileges. Their original offence was obviously bad enough to warrant a ban, which suggests to me that they did not deserve to have the privilege of contributing to this encyclopaedia in the first place.
In summary, blocks can be come back from, but bans should be permanent. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q: Why do you believe you will make a good admin?
Q: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
Q: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
Q: Is it appropriate for an admin to block a user who is acting incivil toward him? Why?

General comments

  • See PeeJay2K3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

WP:SNOW - Anyone? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, PeeJay has the right to have this RfA remain open if PJ wishes. He has enough support NOT to close it early.Balloonman (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're a bit too snow-happy around here at times. If you feel that it should be closed prematurely, ask the candidate on their talk page to willingly withdraw their RfA, or wait for a bureaucrat to make that decision. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After this amount of time, and given the number of supports from respected users, I'd wait this one out to the end. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it was just a comment :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually considering suggesting WP:SNOW here, but I think it would be best for all of us if I could take in a few more comments from other editors, which I could then use to improve myself for next time. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect answer. If I wasn't already supporting, that statement alone would have made me change my mind. — iridescent 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*blushes* – PeeJay 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had hoped to keep this open until the end, but I think it's probably time to knock it on the head now. Looks like I'm only going to get a certain type of response from now on, and I think I've learned all I can for the time being. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion, particularly those who offered me advice, and I hope to be more successful next time. – PeeJay 07:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the option of withdrawing the RFA instead. Simpler way. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that was what I was doing. How do I do that then? – PeeJay 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just strike out your acceptance statement, and replace it with "I withdraw". That's if you want to. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nominator. - Darwinek (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Normally those 3RR blocks would be a red flag to me, but having seen for myself the volume of editwarring at even the relatively stable Norwich City F.C., I can only imagine what it must be like keeping Man U in order. I'd rather have someone who occasionally does something wrong but listens when they do something wrong than a bot-human hybrid driveby editor in a position of trust. — iridescent 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support I do not think a tarantula should have an account unless it is capable of creating the account itself. Keepscases (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support in my experience, PeeJay has made nothing but positive edits to Wikipedia, and would make a fantastic admin. GiantSnowman 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Yes, the recent 3RR block is bothersome. But, people do make mistakes and they learn from their mistakes, and it is only proper to allow people to move beyond their minor errors rather than define them by such aberrations. The editor comes across as inteligent and dedicated, and I have faith that he will be an asset to WP as an admin. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as I do not recall any personally negative experiences, although I do understand why my colleagues are concerned about the block. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support You've learnt fropm your mistakes. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Offers a strong defense against vandalism on a number of rugby and football articles.Londo06 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, WTHN? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to harass the supporters, but a history of edit warring (including a 3RR block about a week ago) is an answer to the "why the hell not?" question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say the exact same thing. – PeeJay 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL...Balloonman (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support 3RR worries me, but I've been down that road before, so from experience I can assume your intentions were good. Also per WP:BOLD. I mean, seriousley, going for RfA just after a block? That's like a convict gets out of jail and the next day he applies to be a cop. That takes balls, dude.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remind you that it was actually User:Darwinek who nominated me for this RfA. Believe me, I was as surprised as many of you were, especially considering how recent my 3RR block was. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Good enough for Darwinek is good enough for me (even if he calls soccer football). 3RR??? Besides, the best cops weren't always cops! They may have fractured the occasional law in their youth. —MJCdetroit (yak) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. People make mistakes. You seem to have accepted and learnt from yours in regard to the 3RR block, which is all I need to see. Other than that, no evidence this user would maliciously misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Support - Although we have bashed heads on template issues I have found him to be a very productive editor and seems to be aware of a great number of rules, regulations, MOS and various other details. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Zginder 2008-05-20T13:00Z (UTC)
  16. Support per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
  17. Support seems pretty involved in a number of issues. Knows his stuff, seems congenial enough at times. Alexsanderson83 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support almost bordering on Neutral The recent block is worrysome, but I see no reason to believe that this user would edit-war with admin tools. Indeed, I very seriously doubt he will edit war at all in the future, especially after this RFA. I actually started typing in the Neutral section 4 times, but each time, I hit cancel and thought about it some more. I ended up putting this here after reading User:Scetoaux's post in the Neutral section. J.delanoygabsadds 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - this editors contribution to football and rugby related articles is impressive and blocks really don't matter, it just shows that the editor is active and willing to make harsh decisions whatever the circumstances...--Cometstyles 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I'm sorry but i'm far too worried about how recent that block was and the fact you've been blocked more than once in a year. It doesn't really inspire me with confidence about your knowledge of policies or the way you carry out your edits. That said, you are very open about it and you appreciate your mistakes but i'd need more evidence that you won't make the same mistake again. Reapply in a few months, perhaps? Good luck and happy editing. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose. I don't have time to take a close look at your contribs yet, as I'm in the middle of studying, but being blocked one week ago doesn't bode well. I'm going to look at your contribs in a while, but it'll take some amazing work to overcome that, at least in my mind. Useight (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Placeholder oppose? You can't just wait until you've reviewed someone's contributions before you make the decision? :/ naerii - talk 00:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak oppose after I had some time to review the editor's work thoroughly. I didn't like this edit summary or this one. Nor did I like what you said in this edit. However, those were quite some time ago, so I can let those slide. The block last week was not some time ago it is overshadowing all of your excellent mainspace work. And the "Placeholder Oppose" was because I knew I was going to oppose unless I found something absolutely outstanding to counteract that block and I prefer to provide diffs when opposing (yeah, I know I often don't), and I didn't have time to search out diffs earlier. Useight (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - [1]. No, I'm sorry I can support someone with a history of edit warring and 3RR violations, at least not at this point. This makes me question the user's neutrality and composure, and makes me uncomfortable with him/her possessing the block button. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Sorry I have to oppose, but the block based on Manchester United F.C. was just over a week ago, and having, if I'm counting right... 9 reverts in a single day goes way beyond 3RR. Looking at how well you do keeping things in order on the Football side of things though, if you try again in 6 months or so and haven't had anymore blocks in that time, I'll definately support you. Jsmith86 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I just say, I don't think that two blocks in two and a half years on Wikipedia is really that bad, even if one of them was only last week. – PeeJay 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not two blocks in two and a half years, it's two blocks in 8/9 months. Besides, if you had only one block and learnt from your mistakes the first time round, I doubt many would oppose. It's the fact you've recently been blocked again and it's too soon after to definitely show you've learnt your lesson. I'd encourage you to continue on Wikipedia for another 5/6 months, participate in loads of namespaces and then reapply. Good luck. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify my earlier reasoning, it is not just that the block was last week, or that you've been blocked multiple times, but also the large number of reverts on a single page within one day. I just don't feel comfortable handing over the admin tools yet. Your other contributions are great, and if it weren't for that block being so close to this Rfa, I would definately strongly support you. Like I said above, go for another 6 months or so without breaking the 3RR and you have my support. Jsmith86 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regretful oppose -- Block was less than a month ago. --SharkfaceT/C 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongly oppose: this user is often involved in edit wars and personal attacks --Jcer80 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You just had a block! I'm lacking the shovel on this one. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Good contributions, but that does not necessarily imply one is ready for the admin tools. After reviewing your block last week, it doesn't look like you acted the way I would expect an admin to act; thus, I'm not comfortable supporting you at this time. Keep up the editing and try back in a few months. --CapitalR (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Sorry, but two blocks are two too many for my taste. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 00:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose too soon after a legit blockBalloonman (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sorry, it's too soon after your 3RR block for me to feel comfortable with you having the tools. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I'd like to point out that everything else I'm seeing here suggests you'll be a fine admin... at a later date. If you give it a few months, I would be none too surprised to see you get the sysop bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per your 2 blocks and recent 3RR violation. It seems you have good contributions but I suggest waiting a few months before coming back per your blocks and 3RR. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose The block that occurred the same week as this RFA was filed is highly concerning. I look for a clean block log or at least a 6 month window of good editing since the last block. MBisanz talk 06:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose -- please try to keep a clean record (3rr and edit warring) for a few months and then I will support. Sorry! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, I've noticed WP:OWN issues around many football articles with PeeJay, and am unsure giving him the admin tools to further enforce this would be a good idea. Neıl 龱 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Albeit regretfully. I just can't support a user who has been blocked in the past week, as there is too much chance for abuse of the tools. In an RfA, two blocks is three too many. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No mitigating reasons for very recent block provided. Daniel (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. User needs to establish a clearcut and thorough understanding of dispute resolution, in theory and in practice. While user's involvement in contentious articles might be commendable, they would be more so if he was mediating resolutions and compromise solutions instead of just doing what he thought was right. There needs to be more communication through edit summaries and talk pages and less edit warring. It might be best to back away from articles of contention and expand horizons before seeking the block button. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Please learn to resolve disputes constructively. There is absolutely no need to breach 3RR. Ultra! 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose Although I know PeeJay is making good contributions to wikipedia, he is far too willing to revert rather than discuss. The recent 3RR block was due to 5 or 6 reverts within a 24hour period. I think his dedication to certain articles, could be seen as ownership. I would like to see far more willingness to discuss and to accept the edits of others, before he was even considered for adminship. Sorry if that seems harsh. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Significant concern over recent edit activity. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - too soon after the block for my liking. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose To try and not sound like a broken record here, I want to say that you do appear to have done some great work for the project and that should not be looked over, but unfortunately (here is where I sound like a broken record :D) your recent block and 3RR violations take weight over all the great work you have done. My recommendation is to not continue edit warring, but instead continue to do great work for the project and come back in a year and try again. Tiptoety talk 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I generally refrain from opposing candidates that have an honest desire to help the project unless necessary, but I feel I have no choice here. The deeply concerning trust issues highlighted above make this a no-no at this time. Thank you, however, for offering to help, but at this time, it's for the best if you didn't fill an administrator role at this time. You may wish to look at seeking out an admin. coach to help develop your skills, if you are especially keen. Anthøny 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    So what do you think is best at this time? Keepscases (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose. In question 3 you seem to admit being stubborn. Perhaps you could clear up what you mean here? I don't think this is a quality an admin should have. The recent block is also a concern. Jack?! 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, I might say that "stubborn" was perhaps the wrong word to use there. "Strong-willed" might have been better, or just that I had a strong belief in my opinion at the time. Without wishing to exonerate myself from the 3RR violation, I had made several requests in the previous month or so to refrain from writing an extensive review of Manchester United's 2007-08 season in the "History" section of the article. However, after United won the Premier League title on 11 May, there seemed to be an overwhelming urge for people to write an inappropriately long-winded review of the season (which has still yet to end, by the way), and I was merely trying to maintain a sense of order within the article. User:Sennen goroshi took offence to this and reported the 3RR violation. Perhaps it seemed like I was trying to take ownership of the article, and I don't deny that my actions could have given this impression. Nevertheless, at the time, I believed I was acting in the best interests of the article in question, despite the edits I reverted not technically being vandalism. Like I say, I do not wish to exonerate myself of the fact that I completely flouted a Wikipedia policy, but I felt that this was the right time to try to explain my actions. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that this is your RFA and not a 3RR report, however since you are putting my name in your comment and talking about specific incidents, I think it is only fair that I comment. I and others made an edit, which you did not agree with, it was obviously a content dispute not vandalism, however you reverted the edits with a RVV comment in the edit summary. Even in your above statement you say that not technically being vandalism implying that you still consider your edits to be justified, the only thing you seem to regret is that fact that you were reported and blocked for 3RR - not only was it not technically vandalism, it was nowhere near vandalism, it was just something that you alone did not consider suitable, while other editors did not it suitable. It is not your article. You were made aware of the fact that you were in breach of 3RR, and after this you continued to revert, putting your own opinions regarding the article, above the opinions of others and above 3RR. Infact you made six reverts within a 24 hour period. Even now, I wake up to find that you have reverted me yet again on the Manchester United article, you were aware that we had a difference of opinion regarding an edit, however you still find it hard to stop yourself from reverting, rather than accepting the opinion of another editor especially on that article, even mid RFA. From this I get the feeling that you lack respect for the opinions of others, and the regulations which we are all obliged to abide by. I think you are a good editor, however you are unwilling to accept the edits of others, making reverts before obtaining consensus, as such I think it would be unwise to trust you with admin tools. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's keep discussion of yet another separate issue out this RfA. If you want to continue the discussion, could you at least reply on my talk page. – PeeJay 08:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering my question. Changing to strong oppose. Jack?! 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong oppose - You were blocked a week or so ago, and as such I do not trust you to be an admin. asenine say what? 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Neil and 3RR. I feel that the candidate needs to be a bit more detached from the content, and a bit less stubborn. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose It seems that you are not yet ready for the tools due to your recent block.--Lenticel (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 'Oppose due to recent block. Sorry, --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Sorry, based on 3RR and block. SpencerT♦C 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - I have to chime in. Recent block history is incompatible with a successful RfA. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose PJ is a contributor which makes the edits at good faith at all time. But the recent block case showed he may break rules unintentionally. It may harm the honor of the administrators when he break the rules again. I could trust him, but he still have to be observed. Raymond Giggs 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose The Block logs concerns me too. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look closely, the log only shows two blocks, one got amended three times, one was made null and void by the blocking admin and then their is the most recent one. Woody (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - A good editor, but yet in Project Football PJ cannot show that his techniques of dispute resolution is good enough for a sysop. Compounded with the common practice that an editor whose account was explicitly blocked recently due to rule violation (some accounts are autoblocked because of IP, others blocked for technical reasons etc, I have to exclude them) should not be granted adminship within a certain length of time, I am opposing this particular request for adminship. --Deryck C. 08:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Opose sorry but I'm going to oppose per your block logs. Can you really be trusted with the tools? I say close your RfA early, proove youself a worthy candidate and try again in a few month. Everyone has the right to prove themselves. Don't let this get you down though ——Ryan | t • c 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, per those above. I really have nothing to add, but I feel it is entirely possible that you will make a good admin candidate at a later date. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Far too much content in block logs. Celarnor Talk to me 05:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I also voted an oppose, I wish to clarify this technical issue: Although the block log is long, PJ was only subjected to two blocks throughout entire history. The rest are only technical amendments, and a block which was later cleared by the blocking admin for being a mistake in judgement. --Deryck C. 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. The recent block concerns me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I don't really feel that I can give support here given the two blocks in one year, one of which was only a week ago. However, you were rather open about the blocks, and you explained them well enough that I don't quite feel I can oppose; you have numerous positive contributions to the project in addition to this. I think that even if one's position is "right" in such situations, it's still much better to consult other editors, and await consensus before jumping into an edit war; vandalism can be reverted indefinitely, and anything less than this won't hurt to stay up until consensus is reached. I don't think I can give support until some time has passed without incident, thus showing that one is calm enough to wield the tools without any problem. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I would oppose due to that block, but interactions with the user have been very positive. I'll abstain from this one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. The 3RR violation was the reason for the block. Consider that if PeeJay had had admin tools, he would have had other means at his disposal to solve the vandalism problem. jmcw (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, his reverts were not vandalism reverts, but a content dispute, so giving him extra tools (best case) could not possibly have helped, and (worst case) could have resulted in tool abuse. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. The block breaks it for me. In 6 months, I will support for sure. Sorry, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you'er leaving this open for advice, I'll try to give you some more than "don't get blocked". I would suggest expanding your activities to include commenting on other's RFAs (for experience), and doing a little bit of vandalism patrol (because you will often be asked to make blocks and fix vandalism as an admin). I hope that helps a bit more than my previous neutral. Malinaccier (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. A good editor, but doesn't seem to realise the importance of avoiding edit wars. Epbr123 (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - The blocks, particularly the fact that one was very recent, would normally lead me to oppose. However, I like the answers you gave to the questions, particularly the ones I posed, to which your analysis is spot on. Regarding 5b, though, per policy, featured articles on the main page are rarely protected. (I ignored the chimp question, for obvious reasons.) Keep yourself out of edit wars and follow your own advice per 5a, i.e. use the proper dispute resolution processes, and I will probably support in the future. —Travistalk 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Obviously this one is going to fail, so my !vote isn't important, I'm just here to respond to the candidate's "average Joe Wikipedian" statement. PeeJay, you're not an average Joe Wikipedian, you're a great Wikipedian, and someday when you get the mop, you will still be a great Wikipedian, and it won't have anything to do with getting the mop. You won't get adminship this time around because you're making technical mistakes, and small admin mistakes become big Wikipedia problems. Keep doing what you're doing, get some training, and come back in a few months. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think saying "Obviously this one is going to fail" is necessary. We can have our opinion, but we don't want to discourage anybody. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, don't worry. I'm not discouraged by Dank55's comment. In fact, it makes me all the more determined to come back next time as a polished Wikipedian and finally get that admin post. Obviously this one is going to fail ( =P ), but I've learned a lot from it, and I'm not at all surprised by the outcome. – PeeJay 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian is quite right, my first clause was unnecessary; and besides, sometimes things do turn around after they start off looking grim. I'm glad to see the candidate has a good attitude. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I view this RfA as prima facie evidence that even well intentioned users can get caught in the trap of edit warring. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Honesty is a big plus in a prospective admin, but the recent 3RR block indicates a temperament that still requires maturing. Keep your nose clean for a further 3 or 4 months and try again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Seems like a good editor, but an admin who lacks the community's trust due to such a recent block will have a hard time using the tools. I encourage you to apply again in a few months. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. I originally opposed due to the recent block, but looking at some of what PeeJay has said on this RfA, I think he would actually make a fantastic admin. Sadly, I simply can't support someone who has been blocked for edit warring this recently. I don't think I will have any issue supporting in the future, providing the edit warring issue is dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. I completely respect your honesty and I'm sure you have the potential to be a great admin. But, as has been said so many times already, you just need to demonstrate that you aren't going to edit war - that block is just too recent for comfort. Hope to see another RfA from you in a few months time assuming you keep that block record clean! ~ mazca talk 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral You seem like a good editor, but I can't support due to the recent 3RR block. Reapply in a few months, perhaps? Midorihana みどりはな 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeeJay2K3_(2)&oldid=1086342350"