Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2

Ctjf83 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/3/2); 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)

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)
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)
18. 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)
19. Support all the way!Give this dude that mop and soap, his contributions tell me he's going to be a good admin. Likeminas (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. Support after reviewing candidate's development. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:46, 15 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)

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)

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)

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.[3] The candidate dealt with those issues promptly. In September 2010 I came across the candidate's editor review.[4] 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)

1. 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)

2. 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)

3. 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)