Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2

Ctjf83 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/9/4); 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)

I feel the need to point out due to the controversy over User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist, that No where on that generic userbox does it say christian, jewish, muslim, roman, nor does it refer to any specific religion or god. I would presume some people do not believe in Zeus, Apollo, or the Sun god. Clearly those are all gods, which the userbox also refers to, this is not in any way referring to God in Christianity nor is it a knock on any specific god or religion. Please try and understand that. CTJF83 chat 21:47, 15 January 2011 (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: 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)

Optional question from Reaper Eternal (talk)

6. Imagine you are made an administrator. An editor comes to you and complains that a relatively new editor (sufficiently to be autoconfirmed) is editing disruptively on "Gay Pride". The page history looks like the following set of lines. What do you do in this case?

11:17, 23 February 2011 ANewCrusade (talk | contribs) (17,684 bytes) (Undid revision 25283501 by JaneHannahDoe: Take your obvious faggotry elsewhere) (rollback | undo)

10:27, 23 February 2011 JaneHannahDoe (talk | contribs) (18,983 bytes) (Undid revision 25283452 by ANewCrusade: That content is perfectly acceptable!) (undo)

10:12, 23 February 2011 ANewCrusade (talk | contribs) (17,684 bytes) (Undid revision 25283396 by JaneHannahDoe: We don't need that content) (undo)

10:06, 23 February 2011 JaneHannahDoe (talk | contribs) (18,983 bytes) (Undid revision 25283340 by ANewCrusade: Why remove it?) (undo)

10:04, 23 February 2011 ANewCrusade (talk | contribs) (17,684 bytes) (Undid revision 25283293 by JaneHannahDoe: ) (undo)

09:56, 23 February 2011 JaneHannahDoe (talk | contribs) (18,983 bytes) (Undid revision 25283265 by ANewCrusade: ) (undo)

09:45, 23 February 2011 ANewCrusade (talk | contribs) (17,684 bytes) (→The Holocaust: rmv this section) (undo)

A: Well I only have edit summaries to base my answer on. But from the looks of it, User:ANewCrusade removed a section of the article (sourced in the real article, so I'll assume it is in this example) for no reason. If that is the case, then clearly removal of content for no reason is vandalism and presumably User:JaneHannahDoe was reverting the removal of content. In this case, ANewCrusade would be blocked for removal of content vandalism, provided the user had been warned by Jane to stop. Of course, if the actual edits indicate otherwise, such as WP:3RR both user's will be warned, and blocked accordingly for violation of 3RR. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

ANewCrusade is removing the section "The Holocaust", and then there are the series of undos. No other changes are made to the article. There has been no communication on each other's talk pages or the article's talk page. Assume the article is in the exact same state as it is today. What would you do in this situation? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well ANew is clearly vandalizing, per one of the reasons. Jane is apparently reverting what she believes is vandalism. In this situation I would give ANew a warning for vandalism, and give Jane a friendly note saying if she is going to revert what she believes is vandalism, she should make an edit summary to note that, and then give ANew the appropriate warnings. Since Jane was reverting what She and we believe was page blanking vandalism, she wouldn't be warned or blocked for 3RR....due to it being vandalism. CTJF83 chat 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

---

[1], [2] sigh. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While my primary motivation for contacting him was to offer him support during hell week, I did tell him that he needed to "watch for questions that had multiple topics to cover" and that if he ever missed something, he needed to go back and "find it before he got slaughtered." Honestly, the way this question is worded, it's assumed that the edits are pure vandalism, and therefore not exactly covered by 3RR, but I'm glad that he decided to include it anyways. From my interpretation of the question, both answers are right. As for why I said that to him, I was anticipating more questions, and noticed that several of the heavy hitters hadn't asked anything yet, including, of course, you Mkativerata. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Four minutes was very quick for all of that (and if it was that uncontroversial you could have said it on-wiki), including the time taken for Ctjf83 to find the issue he thought he'd missed and include it. BTW I agree 3RR isn't really an issue either, but that's not the issue. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sven never told me what to say, or what question it referred to. 4 minutes is more than enough time to skim through the only 4 questions on here, and add to/correct one. CTJF83 chat 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As to why I didn't say it on Wiki: Let's just say that anyone who knows me on IRC knows that I'm a lot more willing to... trash talk... other people on IRC. Sometimes moral support involves telling people you agree with them on how wrong you think something is, and sometimes doing that involves language and tone that is inappropriate for public conversation. I'd love to chew out certain people for their actions, both for things on RfA and off, but I can't do it publicly, so I tend to vent with like minded people in IRC, where no one cares if you stay near the bottom of the pyramid. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Optional question from Likeminas

7 If made an admin. will you open to be recalled? please elaborate.

A: Not right away. I would give it X number of months (6 perhaps) for me to learn the tools and learn from my mistakes. There is a lot of learning and new stuff that goes in to be an admin, so I wouldn't be open to recall until I had a firm grasp on being an admin. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Would you be open to recall after 6 months or a reasonable time-frame after becoming an admin? I'm looking for a clear cut answer, if possible. Likeminas (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Optional question from 28bytes

8. Are you confident that all of the 32 articles you have created are free from close paraphrasing or other copyright violations?

A:

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) Switching to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Naw, keeping support. However, I am of the opinion that refering to anybody's religion as a myth demonstrates a decided lack of tolerance, and that is something I do not want to see in a sysop. Would you mind removing it, or replacing it with something along the lines of "This user is an atheist" or "This user does not believe in God". I have no objection to beliefs contrary to mine, but that is a little over the top. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:58, 15 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 [3]. 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)
5. Support – Experienced, long-term editor that can benefit by having the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. You have demonstrated to me that you are open-minded and knowledgeable. These qualities are important to look for in a potential administrator. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Support He's improved a lot since his last RFA so he deserves to earn the tools. WAYNESLAM 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Experienced, can hold and use the mop. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Oh, it's finally happened? About bloody time. This user already has shown competance in areas where admins are frequently needed, such as AfD, and I was so impressed with him a while back that I asked him to tell me when he was running for the mop. Well, he is now, and nothing I've seen since I initially asked him and now has made me any less willing to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Seen you around at AFD (doing a hell of a better job than me) closing them, you'll do fine. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Support A good candidate...good luck, there's plenty of work ahead! Hugahoody (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Support. I see an editor who has progressed enormously since that first RfA three years ago, and I'm seeing careful thinking, discussion and understanding - and someone who wishes to contribute in areas that need it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

    Oh, and I remember Ctjf83 having had his User page vandalized by bigots a few times in the recent past, and he handled it with calmness and composure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

14. Support I so no reasons why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
16. About time!! () →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. The editor not only shows a thorough understanding of the policies and guidelines of WikiPedia, but also contributes well to content and can engage civily with any and all editors. BOVINEBOY2008 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

    Support, purely to counteract (in some measure) Keepscases' oppose, which is frivolous. If the closing bureaucrat disregards Keepscases, then they should also disregard me.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC) -- Moving to "oppose" based on this, see below.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

18. SupportHis contributions tell me he's going to be a good admin. Likeminas (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support There was a time, a few years back, when I would have strongly opposed the idea of Ctjf being an admin. He was always a good user, but he had a lack of understanding of wikipedia's fundamentals. Since then, I think he has worked quite hard to improve his editing and has a great understanding of wikipedia policy, probably moreso than I. We've had a number of disputes in the past but we were always on friendly terms, even if we never quite seen eye to eye, and I'm more than happy to support him now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
20. Support after reviewing candidate's development. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
21. Support A review of this candidate's contributions leaves me satisfied that s/he will make a competent administrator. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Per S Marshall...minus the last bit. :P -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Support – He is humble, open-minded, and always willing to improve himself: this candidate possesses some of the best qualities for resilience in an administrator. Quigley (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Great AfD work. Also pictures, which I feel to be a fantastic and always-needed contribution. I do think his views on religion are a tad bit harsh, but I also think it is completely irrelevant. I see no instances in which any anti-religious sentiments affected his judgment in any way, and opposing him on this point would be nothing more than my own bias swaying my gavel. Indeed, I disagree with him on many points- he's a liberal, he wants to take my guns away, he drinks, he's pro-choice, he supports expanding use of the death penalty, and worst of all, he likes Mountain Dew. And every one of those things is completely unrelated to his qualifications as an Admin. Also, if you don't mind me pointing this out, he is a homosexual, one of (if not the) most discriminated-against groups in modern society. His entire life has been training on handling conflict. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    How dare you not like Mountain Dew! ;) CTJF83 chat 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

25. Support A calm candidate and a prolific contributor. Minimac (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - There is nothing wrong, in itself, with having strong political or (anti-)religious views. Editors are, after all, humans, with personalities and opinions and experiences. Nor is there anything wrong with being candid about one's views on one's userpage: indeed, I'd argue that it's better to identify one's own biases than to pretend they don't exist. Personal views become a problem only when they affect one's judgment as an editor, and I'm not seeing (thus far) any evidence to suggest that this candidate's views have affected his judgment. Walton^One 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
27. Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
28. Support - trustworthy editor. Not overly concerned about the userbox; other admins have expressed similar views on their user pages without causing any drama. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - one of the finest editors, with one of the most even-keeled temperaments, that I have ever come across. Only wish I'd known earlier, so I could've cast the first support vote. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    Omigod, I've just read through the opposes below. I am absolutely astounded at the objections of C's adminships. I'm a card-carrying Republican follower of the Pope who gets nauseous at the thought of a penis being placed in an anus instead of a vagina and maintains one of the most boring user pages in all of Wikidom. Yet I have no problem with any of the stuff that these other more "knowledgeable" editors have with C. I don't care about her orientation or flashy user page or userboxes or what he does with fudge. He's a good editor, dammit, so discuss his editing and leave the rest the hell out of it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

30. Support Some observations over in simpsons related pages which ive found to be very sensible. I think this track behaviour would carry through, I would though for number 5 always encourage CT and others when they notice trolling and edit behaviours related, to consult Long term abuse. Its a resource which we have that can help. Support for now. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Support - We have a dedicated and knowledgable Wikipedian here. All the best! (I cannot BELIEVE some of the discussions in the oppose section!!! Such childishness highlights one of the many major flaws with the system here, and a large amount of those flaws sadly come from experienced editors) :( Orphan Wiki 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
32. I'd rather not get into it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
33. Support; I think the candidate can be trusted with the tools and would do a good job. Random shuffle through past contributions does not turn up anything bad. I'm disappointed by the drama over the userbox. I extend my sympathies to those who feel offended by a userpage declaration of skepticism towards christianity, since there is very much more content on wikipedia which is offensive on the same basis, including quite a lot in article-space which is impeccably sourced. If a person felt that irreligious statements were offensive, and if that person went looking for them, this encyclopædia must surely be a challenging environment for them. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Seems okay. Baseball Watcher ^{Lets Chat} 20:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
35. Right on! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. I had to think hard about this one, and I hope I'm not wrong. I haven't had much interaction with the candidate myself, and I read all of this RfA so far before looking at pages for myself. After reading comments here, I was very much expecting to find a user page that would trouble me, as being too POV-pushing or something like that. And, in fact, I would prefer that users generally would make less use of boxes saying what they like or don't like (in fact, I personally don't care what beverages an editor likes to drink). And I can point out that I have seen some user pages with a user box in which "This user is interested in LGBT studies" has been modified to read "This user is NOT interested in LGBT studies." I don't like that, and I hope the candidate will think about how these page ornaments can cut both ways. But what I saw was not the pushy "look at me" user page that comments here had led me to expect. I saw a page that was within community norms, and which showed an admirable quality of standing up to the people who come to Wikipedia to anonymously vent their demons. (In fact, I would have liked to have had more administrators around with a willingness to say "no" to harassers when I was being targeted by Something Awful about a year ago.) But I've looked at all the diffs provided in oppose and neutral so far, and I don't see an editor who pushes other users around. Instead I see someone who is thoughtful and courteous, who has made mistakes and has learned from them. I'm not seeing POV-pushing, nor am I seeing drama-mongering. The Davenport page convinces me of a commitment to content creation. The copyvio issues brought me up short, but I think I see an editor who has learned from their mistakes and sincerely worked to correct them. Overall, I think I see someone who has had some maturity issues, but who has matured enough that they are prepared to be a good administrator, and I'm supporting a little cautiously on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry I don't mean to pick on your support Tryptofish; you're the only one who has at least addressed the copyright problems. But I have to take issue with the view that he has "sincerely worked to correct them". In fact, he's only ever done just enough to say "I've fixed the problems that you have identified". He's never done the right thing and cleaned out his house, despite multiple prompts to do so. Perhaps he is afraid that there are too many problems there, or that fixing the problems would just be "too hard". The problems will remain on the mainspace until he takes responsbility for them or the community steps up to the plate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    I haven't seen a diff yet that shows an ongoing copyright violation. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    (ec) Just pointing out Wikipdia is a learning process. I've learned from my past mistakes/copyright concerns, through help from User:Moonriddengirl. CTJF83 chat 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    There were extant copyright violations at the start of this RfA. I spent half an hour finding examples of significant violations and including them in a detailed statement. Less than half an hour is never going to find everything. The inescapable conclusion is there are more out there. It's not my job to find all the issues; it's Ctjf83's. And he has persistently refused to do so. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    I don't mind at all that you (Mk) replied; in fact I'd like to see more "picking on" supports. And I do take the copyvio issue very seriously. It's just that, when I looked at what I could find, I think I saw the candidate fixing what needed to be fixed. But if evidence comes forward in this RfA that there actually was "refusal" to fix problems, I'm prepared to change my !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    Sure, just to be clear for everyone: there is no evidence of the candidate refusing to fix specific violations that have been identified. The refusal I'm talking about is a refusal to look under the hood at his own contributions to find and fix the inevitable other violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    I just want to point out that the RFA community has known for years that we were at the mercy of two sets of volunteers: people willing to be candidates, and people willing to take unpopular stands, illustrated with diffs. We used to have an apparently unending supply of candidates, so a culture grew at RFA of not "badgering", which more often than not meant just not responding at all. Recently, the torrent of candidates has become a trickle, and I think that's the reason people have been challenging rationales more often ... voters willing to take a stand are no longer the scarce resource, to be cherished above the candidates. On your point, Mkat, I see how you reach your conclusion, and I thank you for taking the time to do the research. I'm not objecting to your statement in the oppose section, I just disagree that you successfully rebutted Tryptofish's statement that the candidate "sincerely worked to correct them". You've identified one time, out of the last 40K edits, when the candidate was asked to fix copyright mistakes, and forgot to. No one has identified any copyright errors since then, or any errors from before then that remain uncorrected. Tryptofish is free to draw the conclusion that it's not enough to sway his vote. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

    Wow, this looks like some kind of record (recently, at least) for the length of a thread within an RfA support section! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

37. Support Every once in a while the opposes will manage to convince me to agree with promoting a candidate. AniMate 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
38. Support I'm no atheist, but your religious beliefs don't matter to me if you are an excellent Wikipedian. (Hence my support)--intelati^talk 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
39. Support I noticed Orlady's commenting in the first "Oppose" vote below, about an issue where as I firmly recall, Orlady butted in on a Davenport, Iowa article where i was developing with CTJF83. Orlady was following me then and seems to show sour memories now about being called then on her abuse of rollback tool and of 3RR violation while being an administrator. I thot the entire incident showed appropriate concern and interest on the part of CTJF83 in consulting about how perhaps to pursue the issue, in diffs that O provides. And it showed maturity in CTJF83 not trying to make more of an issue about it, after i so advised. O provides no evidence of anything but appropriate concern by an editor seeing contention going on (where she happened to look pretty much in the wrong, IMHO). My interactions with CTJF83 have been wholly agreeable as he constructively pursues development of the List of RHPs in Davenport and its huge number of indexed articles. Orlady shouldn't be a spoiler here; CTJF83 did fine then and i think will do fine as an Admin. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Seems like a fine candidate. And Keepscases once again makes the bile rise in my throat with his petty, anti-atheist bigotry. When he's not asking pointless "funny" questions at RFA, he's spewing stuff like this. As I have stated before, it's an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia. Atheists have the right to participate fully in the project, including as admins, and have the right to display userboxes that state their views. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

    Users who choose intentionally confrontational userboxes shouldn't be made administrators. It has nothing to do with whether they are atheists. I don't appreciate your misrepresentation of my voting. Keepscases (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, and users that go about single-handly badgering anyone and everyone you can, across multiple pages, trying to push a point, should be blocked. That means you Keepcases. You're being disruptive, you're acting like a troll, and at this point, you've demonstrated quite clearly that your problem goes well beyond a userbox. I don't know if you're intolerant of homosexuals, I don't know if you're intolerant of atheists, but at this point it's becoming increasingly clear that you're pursuing a vendetta against CTJF83 that has nothing to do with this RfA, and are using this userbox as a thinly veiled attempt at disguising it. It's long past time for you to stop posting on this page, everyone has heard what you have had to say, and as I said above, at this point you're just being a troll. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 16 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: [4], 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)

   I'm entitled to my opinions and perceptions, and you are entitled to yours. I saw this user happening upon a situation involving other editors and playing the role of "pot-stirrer" or "cheerleader", including making accusations without any apparent basis. That is not mature behavior, and a year is not a long time. Interestingly, this is a symptom of treating Wikipedia as a battleground, which is essentially the same concern that other opposers are raising in regard to the anti-God userbox. --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   They are incorrectly turning it into an anti-christian issue. No where on that generic userbox does it say christian, jewish, muslim, roman, nor does it refer to any specific religion or god. I would (probably correctly) presume none of you believe in Zeus, Apollo, the Sun god. Clearly those are all gods, which the userbox also refers to, this is not in any way referring to God in Christianity. CTJF83 chat 21:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, that discussion has veered off-topic. However, there is still an underlying concern regarding behavior and attitudes that are gratuitously disruptive. It is difficult enough to get along when everyone is trying to get along; there's no benefit to Wikipedia from making statements that are pretty much guaranteed to offend a lot of other people. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose based on anti-God userbox. It's shocking and hypocritical that a user who has an anti-bullying song featured prominently on his userpage, and has a userbox claiming he "doesn't understand mean people", would display such a confrontational and offensive userbox calling God a "myth" or "superstition". There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but there is something wrong with unnecessarily belittling others' strongly held beliefs. No one with an attitude like that should serve as an administrator. And in case this turns into some Christians-against-homosexuals debate, someone with an anti-gay userbox would be (rightfully) shot down too, and we all know it. Keepscases (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   (ec add to post) It doesn't attack any specific user/religion. And the community clearly disagrees with you. Frankly I'm a little appalled you would compare it to actual anti-gay harassment on my user and talk page. I work with several users who have religious userboxes on their page, and none of them have said anything about it. I won't mention users, unless it is requested. I encourage you to find an instance where I have belittled/harassed, etc anyone for any religious views or made such an edit to reflect that. CTJF83 chat 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   It attacks anyone who believes in God. And your "community" statement is a strawman--I think you should have the right to display just about anything you want, but I sure have the right to judge you on it. Please do not ask me for an instance of when you have belittled anyone when I am explicitly opposing you for just such an instance.Keepscases (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not going to get into a big discussion with you on here, but it does not attack users who believe in god. It doesn't say "This user believes everyone who believes in god is an idiot" or anything similar. CTJF83 chat 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   What a silly reason to oppose. Should we also oppose people who display this userbox or this one or this one? Each of those three are far more offensive to me than the one on which you based your oppose. If any user had that many userboxes on their user page, it would be difficult to not find at least one with which you don't agree or find offensive. Get over it, it doesn't affect the encyclopedia or prove that the candidate is impolite or belittling. SnottyWong ^verbalize 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   It doesn't attack anybody. You're just looking for a reason to oppose. I happen to agree with the userbox's sentiment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Ohh gawd! How can reasonably oppose him based on a user box? That makes no sense. I'm glad nobody is falling for that twisted logic. Likeminas (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   In his defense, I believe Keepscases' oppose was not based strictly on the user box, but rather because of the sensibilities of someone who would put out such a conflicting and provocative message at the same time displaying a peace, love, and happiness image, would not be fit to be an administrator (in his view). His oppose was based on the candidate's character, which is a valid oppose. -- œ^™ 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps, we should let him respond for himself. I personally don't see how peace, love and happiness conflicts with no believing in god. But I guess this is not the place to discuss that. In any case, the assumption that one should vote for someone based on their character and not on the merits of their contributions is a dreadful prospect. We might as well ask others Wikipedians, Would you have a beer with this guy? and based on that make them administrators. Likeminas (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   You are missing a point that I am making very clearly. There is nothing wrong with not believing in God. People may believe whatever they wish. However, crossing out "GOD" and calling Him a "myth" or "superstition" is intentionally disrespectful and belittling. It helps make Wikipedia a more hostile place. How do you think the candidate would feel about a userbox with the word "GAY" crossed out? Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)"there is something wrong with unnecessarily belittling others' strongly held beliefs". Indeed. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Do you have examples of my belief affecting my editing? dealing with users? remaining civil? I challenge you to find some. CTJF83 chat 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Administrators are trusted to deal with conflicts. Not unnecessarily inflame them with divisive userboxes that offend people's strongly held beliefs. That you can't see that and haven't pulled the userbox since Keepcases' oppose is concerning. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   ...And I won't pull it. Would you also have me pull my pro gay marriage userbox because it might "offend people's strongly held beliefs" on marriage? What about my pro Obama one cause it might offend people, or my stricter gun control, pro universial health care, pro stem cell research, pro-choice, my support of smoking bans in public places. Should I pull all those too? as I pointed out, the community snow kept the atheist userbox. And as you'll notice, you actually have to look and scroll down pretty far on my page to see any of these userboxes. How about I get rid of the first gay pride user box, remove the flag at the top, and change my signature, cause people might not like it. CTJF83 chat 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Would you support a candidate who had a userbox with the word "GAY" crossed out and the verbiage, "Homosexuality is disgusting and sinful"? Keepscases (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Your comparison is invalid. My userbox doesn't say "christians/jews/muslims/whatever are disgusting for believing in god" Go ahead and create a userbox that says "this user believes homosexuality is immoral" with the word "Gay" crossed out. Your example is comparable to saying blacks/asians/hispanics are "disgusting" completely different then my userbox not specifying a religion. Anyway, I'm done with this, and your attempts to inflame me. Good day, CTJF83 chat 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   My comparison is most certainly not invalid; my proposed userbox is intentionally confrontational and disrespectful, just like your real one is. You didn't answer my question, but I don't for one minute believe you'd support a candidate who had even your hypothetical "'this user believes homosexuality is immoral' with the word 'Gay' crossed out" userbox. I know I wouldn't. Thanks for defending your right to make Wikipedia a more hostile environment. Keepscases (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   I've seen a lot of crazy and incredibly stupid things happen at RfAs. People have strongly held views about things I find utterly inconsequential, and I'm sure things I have strong views on, other people might find utterly inconsequential, and might think are crazy and incredibly stupid. We're dealing with people, and people like getting inflamed and picking sides and fighting, even if just for the chance to fight. Religion and homosexuality, two touchy issues, have inflamed this even worse. All of this, however, is irrelevant to the RfA. The connections between this userbox and Ctjf83's editing history are tenuous at best. All that being said, I think that it actually speaks well for Ctjf83 that even after being relentlessly hounded, he hasn't backed down. So long as he's acting within policy, resilience is a trait I like to see in candidates. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   The traits of doing needlessly inflammatory things and refusing to retract them when others in good faith say they're offensive are very relevant to whether someone would be a suitable administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   The point here is that this oppose is based entirely on the flawed (but surprisingly pervasive) notion that religion holds some kind of elevated, privileged status above other topics, whereby it cannot and should not be publicly ridiculed in any way. Richard Dawkins writes that "A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other." He follows it up with a poignant quote from Douglas Adams:

   "Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe - no, that's holy? ... Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why these ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

   If you think about it from a reasonable perspective, there is nothing inherently confrontational or offensive about declaring that you believe God to be a myth or a superstition. Comparing the userbox to another which states that gays are disgusting or black people are stupid is an invalid comparison, because being gay or black is not a conscious choice you make. Religion (or lack thereof) is simply a belief, something you consciously choose to either believe in or not. You have the right to believe that there is a bearded man in the clouds who grants your wishes, and I have the right to believe that it's a completely fabricated story created millenia ago for the purposes of gaining power and controlling the populace. We both have an equal right to express our beliefs. I think that in this particular case, Ctjf83 might arguably have an even greater right than either of us to proclaim his/her beliefs in this matter, when you take into consideration the abject manner in which many major religions have historically treated homosexuals. There is zero evidence that Ctjf83's lack or religious beliefs has previously inflamed arguments or hindered his/her ability to deal with editorial conflicts. Until you can provide such evidence, this oppose is completely invalid, as are any others based on the same premise below. SnottyWong ^converse 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, SnottyWong, my oppose is not "invalid", no matter how much you wish it to be. Please do not go on and on about everyone's "right to express their beliefs", which no one is denying, and then try and take away my own right to cast a vote at RfA. I frankly don't think administrators should be in the business of "publicly ridiculing" anything, and it's unfortunate that the candidate did not choose a more respectful way to "proclaim his beliefs". Keepscases (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   To express the opinion that gods are myths is not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination the same thing as to attack those who think otherwise, any more than to express the opinion that gods exist is to attack those who disagree. It appalls me that anyone can oppose adminship because the candidate expresses the view that gods are myths. (And let's be perfectly clear: that is exactly what the user box says. To make out that it belittles or ridicules people who disagree is a complete misrepresentation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Our own article on superstition says. "Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge. The word is often used pejoratively to refer to folk beliefs deemed irrational". Many religions themselves see superstitions as sinful. How on earth, then, can calling God a "superstition" be anything other than offensive to those who have a deeply held, and in their view reasoned, belief in God? --Mkativerata (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   I still fail to see how any of my views affect my editing/possible admin work. I'm still waiting for examples of my atheist views has caused me to be uncivil to anyone who is religious. In fact, I regularly work with several users with religious userboxes who have never even mentioned this. CTJF83 chat 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   In life, as well as on Wikipedia, when someone says "What you've said is hurtful", you have basically two options. Immediately argue with them and say, "no it isn't", or try to understand where they're coming from, and why they think it's hurtful. I find the latter option works surprisingly well if you're interested in defusing, rather than escalating, a conflict. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

3. For two reasons. 1. Copyright The candidate's approach to this RfA bears out that he/she takes as little responsibility as possible for compliance with copyright. As was the case when the concerns were raised in March 2010 and September 2010, the candidate only corrected the problems that were identified, and conveniently and knowingly allowed other violations he/she created to remain on the mainspace. That has continued here. It's not good enough, in my view, for a prospective administrator. 2. Userbox. Setting out your beliefs and values on your userpage is perfectly acceptable. Explicitly belittling those of others as myths and superstitions isn't. That distinction shouldn't be lost by any administrator. And when someone says you have done something offensive, the most appropriate response, the response I would expect from the occupant of a position of trust, is to retract as much as is appropriate, even if you do not agree. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   If someone has a reasonable offense, I will work to fix it. Do you suggest I remove my gay pride flag from my talk page, because this sock vandal is offended by it? Note some of the other edit summaries on my talk page of recent, which I believe I've dealt with in an exemplary fashion and remained more than civil. CTJF83 chat 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   "as is appropriate". It's not appropriate to retract statements of your own identity; it is appropriate to get rid of statements that explicitly belittle others. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, this is my last post to this oppose. It does not specifically belittle any specific person/group. Clearly the people at AfD agree with me. CTJF83 chat 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   To add to my reasons for opposing the candidate is this very recent 15-hour-early non-admin supervote close. Not only was it an inappropriate non-admin close, it would have been inappropriate for an admin to perform so early and with a closing statement that gave a reason to keep the article, not to close the discussion as keep. As the candidate says he wants to close AfDs, this demonstrates a huge deficiency in judgment and policy knowledge (more reasons at the DRV). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose I get the sense that Ctjf83 just doesn't know what he is doing or how to do things around Wikipedia. For example, not mentioning BLP1E, not knowing how PC works or how to propose a process change, not knowing much of anything about rev delete or page protection. This is all from just the last few days. Even in making this RfA. I don't sense the required fluency in Ctjf83's understanding of how Wikipedia works. Prodego ^talk 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Obviously, we don't expect anyone to know everything about Wikipedia. None of these are areas where I said I would do admin work, so obviously I have time to learn these areas. CTJF83 chat 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Neglecting the 3RR until someone else corrects you. This is especially problematic since you've been blocked for edit warring in the past. I also disagree with your analysis of question 6 as vandalism at all, that looks very much like a content dispute to me. Prodego ^talk 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Please note the 4th one down. And concerns about Sven's post have been discussed by the question. CTJF83 chat 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   You presume there is no reason. Never should you block someone in that situation until after you contact them on their talk page, letting them know if they have an issue with content on the page that they need to discuss it, provide a link to the talk page to do so, and warn them that continued edit warring will result in a block. And such a warning should go to both editors, provided neither attempted to engage the other in discussion. If one did try to engage the other, and failed, then they should request assistance at that point, but no where in that question is that assumed. One can hardly expect someone to put much stock in a warning about edit warring from someone who is edit warring with them, as any warning from "JaneHannahDoe" would be in that question. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Maturity concerns. From the big look-at-me flags and banners, colorful nicks, stubborness and proclaiming he won't be bullied no matter what on his talk page, I get the impression that drawing attention to himself is of a higher priority than being a humble Wikipedian that just wants to quietly edit the encyclopedia. Also not confident I can trust him to not advocate on behalf of his strong views, and possibly misuse the tools, especially in dispute resolution situations. -- œ^™ 07:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   A colorful nick is a silly thing to protest against. Many prominent users and administrators have them—I note your own nick is not plain—; the colors make talk pages easier to navigate. His talk page says he won't be silenced, not bullied, which is clearly a reference to those vandals who have threatened him [possibly with death] to stop contributing. His advance disclosure of identity with the flag should be seen as a sign of honesty, consistency, and insusceptibility to blackmail. Having the banners also necessitates a confidence and familiarity enough in policy that he can explain why potentially controversial text can and must be allowed, even in the face of political pressure, which he surely will encounter as an administrator. Administrators need not all be of the same same personality type that "just wants to quietly edit the encyclopedia" and keep their head down. Some administrators, and especially those in dispute resolution, will need to be battle-worn and have visible calluses. The big flag and bold text are not for personal amusement; they tell of a valuable experience and a commendable resilience. Quigley (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Well I'm sorry you have a problem with me expressing who I am OE, and trying to prevent more harassing vandalism on my talk page. Clearly the flag and note is the most civil and professional way I can try and prevent more harassment, for volunteer work and no pay. I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are. (I AM NOT in any way wishing harassment on OE, or anyone.) CTJF83 chat 10:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Hope you don't mind a quick comment from me. Ctjf83 has been the victim of some nasty homophobic vandalism, and I can understand the reaction of standing up to bullies - it's really the only way we can defeat narrow-minded bigotry. I don't see Ctjf83's page as evidence of POV advocacy - in fact, I think Ctjf83's experiences are more likely to make him more sympathetic to the views of others. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Harrassment is unacceptable. But are battleground declarations really the appropriate response? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Possibly not, no, and it's probably not the way I would go about standing up to bullies - but I've not been in that position, so it's hard for me to judge. I think what matters most here is not the choice of a few user boxes, but whether there is any evidence that Ctjf83 is adopting a battleground attitude in his Wikipedia work, or any reason to suspect he would approach admin work with such an attitude - and I think the answer is no in both cases. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   "I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are." Um, are you actually wishing harassment upon those who oppose you? Keepscases (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Not sure how you drew that conclusion. Boing! said it best in his/her two previous comments. I think it admirable that I haven't been uncivil back to the harassment on my page. And that is one of the good signs of an admin. CTJF83 chat 16:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   You're not sure how I drew that conclusion? "I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are." You are sorry that OE (according to you) doesn't have to go through harassment? You would be happier if he did? Keepscases (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   What I meant, before it was twisted around, is OE and presumably you have never gone through being the victim of homophobia. How you got the conclusion of me being happy if OE or anyone went through any harassment for who they are, is beyond me. Had he gone through homophobic harassment, he wouldn't be saying all my "gayness" was excessive. Presumably straight men are the least harassed group, ever. CTJF83 chat 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   If I were "twisting around" your statement, I wouldn't be posting it verbatim: "I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are." The words speak for themselves. Keepscases (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   I already explained what I mean above here. CTJF83 chat 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   And it's you who's doing the twisting. Keepscases (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   He forgot the comma after "I'm sorry". If forgetting a comma were a capital offense, there would be no survivors at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but that grammatical lapse is forcing me to re-evaluate my support vote. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   I've completed my re-evaluation. Still supporting, with reservations for a table for two with a view overlooking the harbor. (And, quite obviously, we'll be having wine instead of beer.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   œ^™ doesn't like that CTJF83 chat is so open about who he is and what he thinks. In other words, he wouldn't have a beer with him. And that's a very sound argument for guys to vote nay.Likeminas (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Being so open about it on wikipedia where it's irrelevant, and getting harassed because of it, yet still not having the sensibility or maturity to see that the reason it's happening in the first place is precisely because he's drawing all this attention to himself, is the problem. Focus on Wikipedia and being a Wikipedian, not a drama-magnet. Also, not wanting to 'hang out with someone at the bar' because of their character is totally different from not wanting to put someone in a position of trust because of their character. My oppose is based on maturity, and a lack of a sense of professionalism, something I, personally, consider important to being an administrator on Wikipedia. I could care less if he was gay or straight or a christian or a satanist. -- œ^™ 00:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Can we stop this now? This conversation, unfortunately, has become more about the candidate being gay (I have nothing against people who are gay), the amount of harassment he recitatives, and how he deals with it. We have established he deals with it in a civil manner -- taking care of that issue. On another note, "Having a colorful nickname" is not an oppose rationale more as just to make OE's oppose look better., and I have not seen any evidence that says he would use the tools to help himself in dispute resolution, but maybe I am missing something. Back to my original point -- lets leave the candidates sexual orientation out of this, and focus on what he has done on Wikipedia. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure that you understood my sarcasm or saw my vote above, but what you're saying is what I've been saying since yesterday. Likeminas (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   THANK YOU! This argument is getting WAY out of hand, to the point that it's taking on the appearance of an attempt to poison the well. Can we please focus on the candidate's abilities instead of his personal life? PLEASE? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

6. This is a tough one for me, and I'm sure my rationale will draw a fair bit of flack, but I'm fairly sure in what I say. I certainly respect the person for their beliefs. But upon viewing the userpage, it seemed as if, and maybe it's just your personality, that your userpage was meant to firmly state your beliefs to the world. Not in a sense of telling others your beliefs, but in a sense of well, being flamboyant. Now, this is certainly your right. But in an administrator I feel like this kind of page is somewhat well, flamboyant, and indicates that although you are here building an encyclopedia (and doing a good job), being flamboyant can't change for you, as it's part of your spirit. Essentially although your edits have been sound, I question your maturity to a certain degree. I feel like this kind of strong personal feeling, and a sort of feeling that they are the only person that understands (from above) makes me doubt the capacity of the user to act in the backgrounds in an administrative role, without generating division. ALthough I don't want to sound like a martyr, I'm sure a point will be made to counter this that I'm opposing based on sexual orientation. No, I'm opposing based on personality, which has been established in the past (ie those who have outbreaks) to be a reasonable oppose. What caused me to oppose was the sort of attack on Old English, who delivered a reasonable, albeit disagreeable oppose and you responded to by saying well, you don't understand. He may very well not understand the type of harassment, but there are certainly better ways to go about stating this, than (as I originally saw it) implying a wish of harassment on him. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose - You seem to have accidentally gone here instead of Wikipedia:Debate your cause. An RfA is for the community to discuss your suitability for adminship. If you are going to argue every second oppose, then that tells me that you are not yet mature enough to take constructive criticism, and as an extension of that not currently suitable for sysop tools. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Ya, I'm responding to this...but I have no problem with constructive criticism. But when opposes are based on my beliefs, and not on how I work on Wikipedia, I find nothing constructive about those. CTJF83 chat 21:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for further proving my point. To expand, yes, some of the opposes are dumb and should be argued - but not by you. Your role in this is to sit back and watch, and as I said above, your inability to do that shows me a lack of maturity. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose. As Prodego, I would have expected the condidate to have a firmer grasp of things, especially in light of the fact this is a second nomination. Many of those userboxes and the headline message on talkpage give the impression of a drama magnet, and also lends credence to the notion that neutrality may be an issue. As for the NOGOD box, if you want everyone to know you're an athiest there are much better ways of saying it than going down the confrontational route of running down others beliefs by labelling God (or all gods) as a myth or superstition – just say your an athiest, and {{User atheist}} does the job just fine – shows bad judgment in my opinion. I've also been less than impressed by the candidate's somewhat dismissive response to concerns raised about it. _wjemather^bigissue 22:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose based on this. A non-admin close of an AfD, 15 hours too early, during his actual RFA—I'm sorry but that's just inexcusable.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   I just wanted to point out that Ctjf83 has closed several hundred RfAs, and I don't recall seeing any of them overturned. That close is the correct outcome, and while it might be early, it's not intolerably so, in my estimation, only four hours early going by the seemingly well accepted "If it's the right day on UTC" method. Consider looking at his track record in the area. I'm sure there are other pages like that as well. If you're worried that Ctjf83 isn't well versed in RfD, you can put that fear to bed. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   168 hours is the community-agreed standard, and anyone going through RFA who intends to work in deletion really ought to know that. I'm satisfied that a close this early indicates insufficient knowledge of the deletion process. There's relevant discussion at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 02:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

   Not to mention the supervote rationale and ignorance of the arguments made by the redirect voters. It was an abject howler. In the area that the candidate nominates himself to work. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

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) Moved to support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:17, 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)

I never said it was a bad answer, I just said that it wasn't the one I was looking for. In any case, I've moved to support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This is the toughest contribution to an RfA I've ever had to make. Please, believe me on that. The concern I have is the candidate's understanding of text copyright policy. In March 2010, an issue was raised that a couple of the candidate's articles were plagiarised.[5] The candidate dealt with those issues promptly. In September 2010 I came across the candidate's editor review.[6] In the review I said that before going to an RfA, the candidate needed to go back through their old content creations as there were still more issues. Now looking back a few months later, the one example I raised there was addressed, but some close paraphrasing remains in it (sorry, I wish I had seen this earlier to raise it with the candidate personally). A similar insufficient fix was performed on another article. And there are two articles I've seen that weren't attempted to be fixed and remain problematic (Antoine LeClaire and Blackhawk Hotel). I think the candidate has run into difficulties with copyright because of misunderstanding, certainly not any bad faith. I should note that I haven't found any problems in Davenport, Iowa, the candidate's best work. But the insufficient fixes over the last few months give me doubts about whether the candidate has got it, and the failure to fix all article creations despite my urging to do so makes me question the importance that the candidate places on copyright and plagiarism. It seems the candidate hasn't done much new content creation over the last few months, so it's hard to judge. I'm going to sit here in neutral because I quite dislike jumping to "oppose" when I may be wrong. I'm sorry, I have to raise these issues; past RfAs show, and properly so, that it would be on my own head if I didn't.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You raise valid points. I don't really like the word "plagiarize", because I wasn't intentionally doing that. Copyright is a serious concern on Wikipedia. To be 100% honest with you, I had forgotten about the editor review, being there was just reviews from 1 user, and then a comment from you. I will immediately fix the above concerns you have on those articles. CTJF83 chat 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry for forgetting about it as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been a lot more careful in the year since I contacted User:Moonriddengirl about the issues. For what it's worth, the 1st of my last 2 created articles passed her inspection. So I better understand copyvio issues in the (almost a) year since the concerns were brought up, and avoid them now. CTJF83 chat 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

article 1 changes, 2, and 3 CTJF83 chat 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't know. What I do know is the flag and statement on the talk page is a bit "in-your-face"-y. I'm not homophobic but I just don't like it when any user prominently displays a strong, blatant statement that isn't really WP-related—it sort of makes me think "not going to back off" before I even start a discussion on a talk page. This is certainly not the main reason for my neutral, but I'm not sure right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   It's my civil way to deal with harassers/vandals. It started off "softer"CTJF83 chat 00:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Make your decision based on his contributions and not his views. We all might have strong opinions on certain issues, that's just human nature. I personally like that users display their views on their talk page. It tells me they're being straightforward and open about them. Ask yourself this; Has he been POV-pushing those strong views into related articles? Your answer to this question should help you make up your mind. Likeminas (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Again, if I may interject, it's not the views themselves, it's the way he expresses them, which can reflect negatively on his style of interaction with users, when dealing with dispute resolution issues. Fetchcomms just got a bad impression, but it was not based on his specific views. -- œ^™ 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Although I believe you certainly have the right to your views, and your edits as a whole have been quite good, I do agree with Mkat on the copyright concerns. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Just to note, I fixed all the above concerns, and haven't had any recent(ly created) copyright issues. CTJF83 chat 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

   Well, you fixed all the concerns that I had the time to find. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning reluctantly towards an "oppose". The candidate has clearly learnt a lot since the previous RFA, and is a committed contributor who has worked hard to improve the quality of his contributions and his understanding of policy. I'm pleased that the juvenile political abuse has been removed from his userbox collection, and I'm horrified that a number of editors oppose him because he says that god is a myth; he has just as much right to believe that as others have to believe that god is real and omnipotent.
   However, I have serious reservations about the way he has turned his userpage into a political manifesto and apparently been surprised by the reactions to it. I'd probably agree with him on most points there (apart from killing people, which like most Yurpeens I'm not so keen on as Merkins) ... but I think that such a huge exercise in political positioning is deeply unwise. Editors here have a huge range of views on just about any subject you can think of, and waving a truckload of flags in their faces seems to me to be a very good way of bringing everybody's POV to the surface. Right or wrong, the forest of POV userboxes on the userpage conveys an impression of someone here to promote a manifesto, an impression heavily reinforced by the prominent WP:BATTLEGROUND-like statement "I WON'T be silenced no matter how much you harass me!!".
   While I believe that Ctjf83 2 does in practice strive to promote NPOV, the userpage poisons the ground before he even contributes to any topic. The substance of those userboxes could be conveyed in a short paragraph saying "this my politics, but I'm here to help build neutral coverage rather than to promote my views" ... but going about it in this way suggests a grave lack of maturity. Some things which are permissible are nonetheless unwise if you want to avoid drama, and I fear that CT's failure to distinguish the two would impeded his ability to be an effective admin. (If CTj13 blocks a conservative christian opponent of the death penalty for even the most outrageous conduct, it's going to be hard for the blocked editor to grasp that were blocked for their conduct rather than for their views).
   I start to write this as a "weak support", but was swayed to neutral by the candidate's explanation of his block on same-sex marriage as being that he got overheated because "that topic clearly has a personal real life effect on me". Sorry, but if you can't keep your cool on an issue because you got a horse in the race, that should be a clear warning to you not to edit in that area until you have regained an NPOV state-of-mind. That block was a year ago, but the defence in this RFA does suggests to me that appropriate lessons have not been learnt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral. None of Ctjf83's userboxes bother me. What is bothering me is the reaction of the candidate to the people the userboxes do bother. He seems unwilling to see things from their perspective, and unable to understand why they find the userbox to be hurtful and inflammatory. The WP:WAX response isn't helpful either. Lots of us have had our userpages vandalized but to imply that the opposes here have the same mindset as the vandals is a little inappropriate, to say the least. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral, wanting to support. Being that I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing I do not feel I have the experience to make a full vote on his qualifications as administrator. However I wanted to state that Ctjf83 has responded quickly to help this newbie with quality answers and/or directions to where I could find the correct Wikipedia policies to follow. --RifeIdeas Talk 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)