Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2

Ctjf83 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/17/4); Scheduled to end 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia for almost 4.5 years and have nearly 40,000 edits. I have much improved from my last RfA. I participate more in WP:AfDs and don't create userboxes or make any edits which violate WP:BLP. Those were the main 2 reasons I failed nearly 3 years ago. Also, I think a pretty important point, my opinion on IPs and new users has greatly improved, especially with in the last year. I now realize and acknowledge that IPs and new users do a number of great contributions and vastly improve Wikipedia. So much so, that I have requested my talk page not be protected/be unprotected (due to vandalism) so that legit IPs and new users may query me on my talk page. I think I am ready for the tools this time. CTJF83 chat 17:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: As I said above, I participate pretty regularly in AfD. I weigh in on the discussions and close completed discussions. Currently I am limited to non-delete closures, since I can't delete articles. If I become an admin, I will continue with my participation in AfD and start to close delete consensuses. I also plan to watch WP:ANV, and block vandals. In case it's brought up that I only have ~174 edits to ANV, tools like HG make it harder for non-HG users to report vandalism (which is no problem). I also have Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests on my user page, and review requests occasionally, so I would add Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests also if I succeed. Gradually I would work my way in to other areas such as WP:AN3, WP:ANI, and WP:CSD.

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

A: My single best contribution is going from This to this on Davenport, Iowa. It unfortunately didn't pass at FA, but I am working on fixing the issues and getting a quick renomination. I am also proud of my GAs (mostly the more recent ones), and the 96+ pictures I've taken and uploaded. I strongly believe free images greatly enhance Wikipedia.

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: Yes, the worst conflict was (I'm gonna throw it out there) my edit warring block almost a year ago on Same-sex marriage. Since that topic clearly has a personal real life effect on me, (not using that as an excuse to edit war) the editing got a little passionate and heated and I made a mistake. Since then, if I do a revert and I am reverted, I either ignore the revert or do one more revert and stop. I no long go to 3 or even 4 reverts. Although sometimes hard with IPs or new users, I try harder to engage the user on their talk page to resolve the conflict, instead of edit warring.

Questions from The Utahraptor

4. Under what circumstances would you not block a vandal at WP:ANV?

A: Edits were not vandalism, not sufficient warning for user to cease vandalism or warnings that are old, user hasn't vandalized recently. CTJF83 chat 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

5. Assume you are made an administrator. You block a troll, and now you are their next target. They use many IP addresses and sleeper accounts to attack you and all who try to stop them. What policy must you follow in this situation?

A: My talk page history will show I am currently the "victim" of harassment trolling. I would handle the situation nearly the same if I were an admin as I currently do. I'd give the user sufficient warning and then block the user, if the situation warrants a block. Depending on the number of socks, and how long the vandalism lasted on my page, I would then make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. As a last resort, I would then protect my talk page, and since I would hypothetically be an admin, would create User talk:Ctjf83/talk 2, an unprotected talk page, for legit IPs and new users to query me. CTJF83 chat 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Ctjf83: Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ctjf83 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - No reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools, and good closure of an AfD here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - Dedicated Wikipedian, and strong content contributor. The project will be benefited by giving this editor the tools. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Support I had this page watchlisted ever since his first RfA failed, when he claimed he failed RfA because people didn't like his anti-Bush opinion [1]. I raised the issue to him and subsequently watchlisted his RfA page. He didn't seem to get it, and I held little hope that he would improve. Flash forward to today; He seems to have a much better understanding of why his first RfA failed. Further, he's been contributing a lot more to Wikipedia space and has apparently gained a greater understanding of our policies and guidelines. I took a quick look at his image contribs, and found nothing lacking. I also looked across edit summaries for him (some of his past ones before the first RfA were pretty snarky), and also looked at a number of his non-admin closures of AfDs. He appears to be doing everything right. Barring revelations from others contributing, I see no reason to object to him being an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   WOW! I just gotta give you a special thank you...if I can convince you to support, I must be doing pretty well! CTJF83 chat 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   I view adminship as a demotion from editor. Reality; every position here 'above' editor works to support editors and what they do in furtherance of the project. Anybody crazy enough to want to be an administrator shouldn't be. Be that as it may, we do need administrators. So, if you want to jump into a garbage bin replete with all sorts of steaming refuse, I've found no reason not to stand by and say "JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!" :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Strongest Support Ever Humanly Possible I've been working with Ctjf83 for well over 3 years now (I think). This user has been the subject of many vandal attacks, but has kept his cool. We are all humans and should be allowed to slip up a time or two. Ctjf has been active in many Sysop areas and and has vastly improved, especially at AFD. He is doing a wonderful job, and I think will do fantastic as a Sysop. Ctjf83, I have a strong impression you'll pass this, and when you do - don't mess up :) Dusti^*poke* 19:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Fine content contributor, productive and uses good judgment in CSD-tagging and deletion nominations. However, it is less than a year since this user engaged in some overly enthusiastic pot-stirring (mostly aimed against me and/or aimed at making an ally of User:Doncram; some of the relevant diffs and page versions are: [2], last thread on this talk page, Talk:Riverview Terrace Historic District) and got his/her one block for some unrelated edit warring. Maybe there was something going badly in his/her life at that time that spilled over into a flurry of problems here, but the behavior causes me to question maturity of judgment. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Given that the above occurred a year ago, I would be very hesitant to only mention that as a reason to oppose. Is there any evidence of any recent issues? HeyMid (contribs) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   This user has 37,227 edits with 2,416 deleted, making a total of 39,643... and you want to bring up an issue that happened a year ago? Your first state that he uses good judgement with CSD tagging and deletion nominations, then you bring up an issue that happened between the two of you? That brings concerns of a COI vote, and I think maybe you haven't forgiven something that happened. Things happen, people are allowed to make a mistake or two, none of us are perfect. I think you should let that one issue go, and cast your vote off of the first line you typed. Dusti^*poke* 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, but leaning towards support. I was looking for a link to WP:RBI in your answer to Q5. It is best not to give warnings to users who continually troll other users; rather, it is best to block them immediately. Also, an SPI case would be irrelevant, since the link WP:DUCK would probably come up. Your answer was substantial otherwise, so I'll sit here for now. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Although you request no response, I tend to frown upon essays, therefore do not link to them. CTJF83 chat 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry about that. No offense to you, but I think that pushed me farther into neutral. I understand that you don't like essays, but sometimes, essays can be very useful. I'm willing to change my mind if a substantial response can be provided. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Response to why I don't like essays, or to further respond to the question. CTJF83 chat 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Response to why you don't like essays. I don't usually like continuing long conversations like these on RfA pages, so would you mind moving the conversation to my talk page? Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Continuing at User_talk:The_Utahraptor#Essay_2 CTJF83 chat 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   I was under the impression that Sysops are supposed to follow policy and AGF, duck cases are different, but I think that he provided a good reason here. If he were to reply that he'd go on a blocking spree, then I'd be a little more worried. But he stated that he would follow policy and take it to a checkuser if warranted. Very responsible and good for a newbie sysop. Dusti^*poke* 19:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral pending further leisure for review, but leaning towards Support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)