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

Ctjf83 2[edit]

(55/38/12); Scheduled to end 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate.

Nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I would. CTJF83 chat 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: User:Ctjf83#Articles I've Started provides a better picture of articles I created (non-redirects). I will go through every articles and verify. CTJF83 chat 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Guerillero
9. Assume you are an admin. How would you decide if you were involved in either the article or the dispute? What would you do if you have never edited the article, but you have strong feeling about the topic?
A: If I'm reverting edits or being reverted, then I would be involved in a dispute. If I never edited the article I can still remain neutral on the subject and work though a dispute resolution. CTJF83 chat 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support – Experienced, long-term editor that can benefit by having the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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 UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Experienced, can hold and use the mop. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. Support A good candidate...good luck, there's plenty of work ahead! Hugahoody (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Support I so no reasons why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose because I now have reasons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. About time!! () →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  17. SupportHis contributions tell me he's going to be a good admin. Likeminas (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. Support after reviewing candidate's development. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
  21. Support -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23. 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)[reply]
    How dare you not like Mountain Dew! ;) CTJF83 chat 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A calm candidate and a prolific contributor. Minimac (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 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. WaltonOne 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  29. 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)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. I'd rather not get into it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. Support Seems okay. Baseball Watcher Lets Chat 20:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Right on! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Moving to neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I haven't seen a diff yet that shows an ongoing copyright violation. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Per Courcelles, below, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers is making me seriously consider changing positions. Will wait a bit, but I'm now on the edge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. Support I'm no atheist, but your religious beliefs don't matter to me if you are an excellent Wikipedian. (Hence my support)--intelatitalk 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 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)[reply]
  38. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    People need to just accept that I oppose and move on. I have no "vendetta" against the candidate, I just don't think he should become an administrator; and I have the right to defend myself when users such as Shawn and yourself continue to talk about me. Keepscases (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keepcases, I was ready to give you the benefit of doubt, despite our disagreement, until I read this statement of yours: Users who choose intentionally confrontational userboxes shouldn't be made administrators. Really? It's impossible for someone with such a userbox to demonstrate their fitness for the mop? I can't take your objections seriously anymore. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea who you are or what our "disagreement" was, but a user who displays intentionally offensive and confrontational userboxes is absolutely not fit to be an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeable and confrontational to WHOM, specifically, besides yourself? Yes, this is a serious question. You're calling into doubt the candidacy of what appears to be a well-qualified RfA nominee based on what appears to be nothing more than partisan politics...which IMO have absolutely no place in the RfA process. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox is disagreeable and confrontational by any standards. I am not the only user opposing based on this issue. If "partisan politics" shouldn't have any place in the RfA process, perhaps the candidate should have thought twice before placing such a confrontational userbox in his profile. Keepscases (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Keepcases, as of now, you are a) the only editor to base your opposition first and foremost on this issue, and b) the only editor here to categorically state that the mere presence of these userboxes constitutes prima facie proof of an editor's unworthiness for the mop. You are very much unique in your opposition to this candidate. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keepcases, I don't know you, either. The disagreement of which I spoke was merely over this RfA. But now we see more of your character. It appears that you also possess omniscience, since you speak of the userboxes in question as being "intentionally offensive". I'm sure that a Klansman would also find a pro-Obama userbox to be offensive as well, perhaps we should purge the sysop ranks of all who display any of those userboxes, eh? HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should stop playing dumb. A user proudly claiming that God is a "myth" or "superstition" does not demonstrate the level of tolerance and respect that should be expected of administrators here. And calling God a "myth" or "superstition" is most certainly "intentionally offensive". It's so lame when those who advocate hateful userboxes play dumb when someone's up for RfA or something. Keepscases (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hateful, eh? Now that's the flare calling the match "flaming". HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is saying that you don't believe in God automatically "intentionally confrontational"? How is it any less confrontational than declaring that you support a ban on smoking in public? Those are serious questions that I hope you attempt to answer. Again, I ask: would you oppose the RfA of someone who was sporting this userbox? After all, it is as intentionally confrontational as Ctjf's userbox. Or is it simply because the userbox calls God a "myth" or a "superstition" that is getting you so riled up? Why does someone not believing in what you do bother you so much? Would you have been ok if it was toned down to "This user doesn't believe in God" or "This user is an Atheist"? Why are atheists not allowed to express their beliefs as passionately as religious nuts? If Ctjf is not allowed to declare their belief that God is a myth, then other users shouldn't be allowed to declare that their belief is that God created the earth and humans, and he is the knower of all things, and he is their lord and master, and he is a bearded man in the clouds who grants your wishes and knows if you've been sleeping, knows if you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness' sake. SnottyWong yak 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think the characterization of Keepscases as a troll is spot on. Looking at your contributions and edit distribution, it's clear that you do almost nothing on Wikipedia except cast your vote at RfA's. 57% of your edits are made to the Wikipedia namespace, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were all at RfA. With your 1500 edits over 3.5 years, what exactly qualifies you to be an expert on who would and wouldn't be a good admin? SnottyWong chat 14:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that you are obviously unable to comprehend a position that I really have made crystal clear. Keepscases (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't made it clear. It's unclear why proclaiming that you don't believe in God is intentionally confrontational and insulting. You keep saying it over and over again, but don't provide any justification for why. SnottyWong comment 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The only thing that has become "crystal clear" is, as Snotty points out, that you are a non-productive intruder into the community, with an agenda other than creating the best possible encyclopedia. But this shall be my last comment on your position, as it is evident that the discussion has matured and is now focusing on other, more relevant matters, while your position has largely no support. However, while the discussion has moved on, you should know that you have been outed (as a theistic bigot, that is). HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit. SnottyWong has actually been good enough to demonstrate just the type of attitude I have a problem with--implying that God is Santa Claus is intentionally disrespectful, and much different that saying "I'm an atheist" or "I don't believe in God". I'm here trying to get rid of some hostility on Wikipedia, and you're now resorting to namecalling. Keepscases (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that nobody opposed over Ironhold's "I am an atheist" userbox, probably because that was not offensive--it was just a statement of belief. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - A net positive. ~NerdyScienceDude 04:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support He's passionate about the project, and I'm sure he'll do fine. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Plenty of experience, trustworthiness, the candidate has learned from past mistakes. The plain spoken tone to his answers is especially appealing to me.--Hokeman (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Over 50 percent is in article space which fully meets my standards. Inka888 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Loathe as I am to "support badger" in what has already become a terrible RfA, I just thought I'd say that I hope your support was based on more than 50% edits to article space. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I am very comfortable with admins who have spent the time on the project to make mistakes, be introspective about them, and revise their behavior and understanding of themselves (and others) in the Wikipedia environment. This "evolving" wikipedian is more likely to understand, and be compassionate, towards newbies and other editors when they stray. "Let he who is without sin ..." and all that. I also believe this editor brings personal perspectives that are still in the minority herein. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Like many here, I was shocked by the candidate's user page and the "in your face" way they proclaim that they live in Iowa. Iowa! Nonetheless, editor has made great strides over the past few years, appears willing to make further improvements, and is a positive contributor to the encyclopedia, bravely overcoming their Iowan surroundings. - Dravecky (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. You almost made me switch to neutral. ;) -- œ™ 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Good editor, and will make a good admin. Userboxes have nothing to do with that.--KorruskiTalk 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, I'm an atheist too. Yes, that means I think god/gods are a myth. Anyone want to desysop me yet? Reviewing the candidate's contributions show no red flags. Displaying a userbox indicating one thinks gods are a myth is no more "offensive" than displaying a userbox indicating one does not (which would be any userbox indicating the user has any religion). What garbage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am Christian" <> "Non-Christians are going to hell." One can proclaim one's own stance/position, without being demeaning towards others. While I don't hold this as tightly as Keeps, there is a clear difference between neutrally declaring one's position and putting down another's.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I've read through the oppose votes, and don't find them at all convincing. This candidate will be a good admin.-gadfium 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I've checked some recent talk page and editing history and he seems reasonable and fair. The argument over userboxes is a total distraction. If one doesn't want 'attack' userboxes, nominate them for deletion rather than taking it out on people on WP:RFA. —Tom Morris 21:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Adminship is no big deal and you seem like you won't abuse it. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The only criterion is whether the candidate will misuse the tools. I see plenty of evidence that people may disagree with him about how he uses the tools but that is something entirely different and is coped for. I see no evidence that this candidate will misuse the tools. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. He seems like a fine candidate who has spent time making wikipedia a better place. There is no reason for him to be denied administrative powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlikguy2 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This account was created on January 16, 2010, a day before this !vote was cast. At present, he account has fewer than 15 edits. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: After reviewing their last 1,000 edits on en.Wiki, I see nothing that pops out in my head of "bad" edits or anything that would make me not think Ctjf83 was not a good candidate for "the mop". I have also read the oppose !votes and wasn't swayed by them. Plus, hey, he likes George Carlin! :) Give the man a mop. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: I'll be entirely honest, I'm not 100% convinced Ctjf83 has what it takes to make a good admin at this time. This support is purely to counter the ridiculous opposes below based on a single, unobjectionable userbox, which I had to search his userpage about four times to even find. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose, but that is not one of them: quite frankly, while I'm trying to WP:AGF here, it smacks of bigotry. If those opposes are ignored by the closing crat, this support can be as well. Robofish (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Let me put it this way... if we held articles on G(g)od(s) to the same standard that we hold all other articles, then just about every article on such deities would be reduced to an article on a given myth, and the impact of said myth on society. As for the "light" discussion of this editor's sexuality, this is nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry, whether intentional or out of ignorance. Ctjf83 isn't perfect, and certainly has some things to learn, but the same could be said of all of us. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I'm sure the opposes are well-meaning, but they are weak or tangential (an editor with a big signature objects to a colorful one) and none are convincing. Jonathunder (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, that discussion has veered off-topic totally off-track. 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)[reply]
    This exchange that Themfromspace found also is troubling to me. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're troubled I don't fully understand PC (an area I never said I'd work in) and am trying to prevent harassment on my talk page? CTJF83 chat 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe "troubling" wasn't the ideal word, but my thought is that any administrator (or someone about to post an RfA) should be sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia policies to understand that Wikipedia user talk pages are generally open for all to post upon -- they aren't protected for the convenience of the user they belong to. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you're missing why I posted about PC on talk pages. indicates I requested my talk be unprotected, the log will show another instance of unprotection. And this clearly shows I don't want it protected because I want legit IPs to edit, I just want to prevent vandalism. CTJF83 chat 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that clarification, Ctjf83. I misread your concern as being broader than the request for "pending changes." It looks like most or all of your harassment has been from a single source (including sockpuppets). In that sort of case, usually it's a good solution to block the sockpuppets (which has been done); when the socks are registered users, that also has the effect of autoblocking the IP(s). Since your harasser(s) doesn't/don't appear to have been particularly sophisticated, it's unlikely that anything more is needed to stop the behavior -- but new socks may continually need to be quietly blocked as they pop up. It's not realistic to expect that all talk-page harassment can be avoided, but the incidence seems to be less when the incidents are handled without drama (many vandals seem to crave attention). --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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. -- Ϫ 07:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Harrassment is unacceptable. But are battleground declarations really the appropriate response? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I already explained what I mean above here. CTJF83 chat 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's you who's doing the twisting. Keepscases (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Perhaps, but that grammatical lapse is forcing me to re-evaluate my support vote. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ϫ 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)[reply]
    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. -- Ϫ 00:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    For the record, I don't like the way Ctjf83 is responding to some of the opposes, but I'm 100% confident he didn't intend to wish harassment on anyone. I think he just mixed up his words a bit there, and was trying to say something to the effect of "You're fortunate you don't have to endure harassment, but I do, and I'm sorry you can't see things from my perspective." 28bytes (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what I meant, thank you for clarifying for me. CTJF83 chat 13:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, I understood what you meant. -- Ϫ 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This oppose is a perfect example of why I have never become actively involved in RFA. So a candidate is not even allowed to defend themselves against opposition, and just has to hope that someone else has the right response to it? Seriously? You seem to have added this only as a trap. Of course a candidate is going to respond to this, then you pull out the "ha ha caught you" card in an attempt to discredit them. -- Scorpion0422 03:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    EXACTLY, Scorpion. This is a classic Catch-22. On the one hand, we see the advice that C needs to respond to the comments here (see here) and yet Ajraddatz is taking him to task for doing just that. How the hell can you criticize him for not knowing the rules when you people don't know the rules yourself? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to WP:GRFA (which is not policy but still a good guideline)- "While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator" (emphasis mine). His role is not to sit back and watch. He has every right to provide input when it relates to his suitability as an admin. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong 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. wjematherbigissue 22:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Participation at AfD seems largely confined to uncontrovertial non-admin closures and relistings, but when candidate does nominate or weigh in with a !vote, far too many are bare WP:ATA comments. Also, far too often closes based on their own opinion with scant regard for the arguments put forward in the discussion. Recent early supervote closure demonstrates an absence of due care and attention and the comment at DRV is just another example of the candidate having insufficient knowledge of the relevant policies and guidelines (and related essays) in the primary area in which they intend to operate. wjematherbigissue 15:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I just wanted to point out that Ctjf83 has closed several hundred RfDs, 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Am I not allowed to make mistakes anymore? Even admins make them, as long as I learn from them, and don't repeat the same mistakes over and over, there should be no problem. CTJF83 chat 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, everyone makes mistakes. I certainly do! This particular one was an inattentive AfD close during your RFA, which is a time when I'd expect you to be especially careful. AfD closes are sensitive things because they have enormous potential to cause annoyance among good faith users, and they can lead to drama. So an inattentive close during an RFA leads to an "oppose" from yours truly.

    This doesn't mean I could never support you (and I still think Keepscases' oppose was frivolous—as far as I'm concerned your userpage is a place for you to express your identity however you wish). What it does mean is that I oppose you gaining the tools until I see considerably more evidence of careful, thoughtful AfD closes after the full period of discussion.—S Marshall T/C 03:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You made four mistakes in one AfD close: (1) closing it 15 hours early and depriving those who edit exclusively on weekends and those who patrol the last day of the AfD log the right to participate in it; (2) closing it contrary to WP:NAC, a widely accepted essay; (3) imposing your own views on whether the article met the GNG as your reasons for closing it as "keep"; and (4) ignoring the ONEEVENT argument. Four mistakes in one close indicates a significant deficiency in judgment and policy knowledge. You concede you've never participated at DRV. If you want to be an AfD specialist, you should do so before seeking the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: I made this point earlier, and it got caught up in the Userbox discussion. It really belongs here, in the discussion of CT's skills and temperament). In considering these points, I ask myself, how close to perfect must an admin candidate be?. These comments point out quite clearly that CT could have handled this better, and given that how admins approach conflict, this is a valid line of discussion. But while this RFA has gone on, I've been familiarizing myself a little bit more with the process, including reading the discussion page. It appears to me that one of the problems with this whole process, and one of the reasons why it is perceived to be failing (not CT's specifically, but the RFA process in general) is that candidates for the mop are being held to far higher standards than in past years. Everyone over there on that talk page bemoans the shortage of candidates for RFA, and I think that this is one of the reasons. I will acknowledge that temperament may appear to be the strongest argument against CT, but does this mean that he'll likely be a poor administrator? This very process obviously is very tense (and I know, looking this over, that I'll never put myself in the same position), and when one has a history of being belittled, and then one's suitability gets called out over a) a userbox and b) a four-hour mistake on ending a deletion discussion, then I think it's rather natural--rather human, I'll say--to get a bit testy. So no, CT apparently does not walk on water. But he is productive, courteous in his dealings with others, and very well-intended. Some admins will be better than others. But we (apparently, judging from the talk page) need more of them, and maybe if CT turns out to be only an average admin rather than a great one, then aren't we better off? It just looks to me like this process leaves no room for non-Messiahs. HuskyHuskie (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, Huskyhuskie, that with Wikipedia's current system admins have tenure. It really is virtually impossible to get rid of a bad one. Once you give them access to those tools, there is no way to rein them in unless they do something really egregious. So a "support" requires real confidence that it's time to give this candidate the tools.

    If there were any reasonable way to get rid of a bad admin, then I would be much more prone to a "support" position. (Well, actually, if there were any reasonable way to get rid of a bad admin then the first thing I'd do would be to nominate a dozen people for tool-removal. But after that I'd be much more prone to support.)—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  10. Awful NAC closure - basing the outcome on GNG when a ONEEVENT argument hadn't been countered and there were well argued redirect votews is .. just.. bad and there wasn't any clear consensus there as the sourcing hadn't been properly discussed. just lots of assertions. A relist would have been better with a direction for participants to improve their rationales. The answer the Q6 troubled me too. Seems a bit eager to label edits as vandalism. I'd expect an admin to recognise a) they need more info for that and b) given the public way the candidate wears the label of their sexuality that working in LGBT articles probably is too close to home for them. Spartaz Humbug! 03:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose based on evidence that the candidate may not comport himself in a manner conducive to developing articles. Yes, essays are not policy, but many, especially those about article content, reflect community consensus and allow discussions to move along and articles to be standardized. Twice [5] [6] in the past month he has demanded that other editors explain their reasoning de novo because he refuses to read essays. This indicates an unwillingness to "play ball" with other editors. The second diff is also an example of opening a move discussion to reverse a previous move less than a month after it was completed, indicating that the candidate does not particularly respect consensus. Also per Mkativerata and his unsatisfactory response to those concerns --Danger (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N isn't a policy, its a guideline. WP:V is the policy. Prodego talk 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ctjf83 corrected himself just a moment after making the edit you linked. By WP:N, he meant WP:NPOV, not WP:NOTE. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Cuncur with OlEnglish, NativeForeigner, etc. From your userpage, user talk page and the way you interact in this RfA you seem very opinionated and zealous in some matters, and also a tad immature. Overall I'm getting an "us versus them" type mentality that isn't good to have when trying to communicate with other users from a (perceived) position of authority. This doesn't inspire confidance that you'll use the tools appropriately or that you'd stay away from topics on which you have personal feelings. S Marshall's diff is also noted as it shows that you don't have the AfD experience needed to be closing deletion debates. This exchange is quite troubling as well. ThemFromSpace 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up on this, I'm sorry you're taking such a beating here and I meant nothing personal by my above remarks. For me this is a "not now" vote, rather than a "not ever". In the future I would like to see evidence that you can interact in contentious matters from a neutral perspective without feeling affronted, as well as increased participation in AfD (voting, not closing). Then I would probably support an RfA ThemFromSpace 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose History of very poor NACs. Just out of memory I recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers where candidate invented a redirect close out of whole cloth as well as this one where he did a very similar thing. The last thing we need is an admin who closes AFD's with a supervote without damned good reasons. (PS, running to RFPP trying to force a poor NAC to stick was also poor form.) Courcelles 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. First off the candidate has my sympathies for the debacle that this RfA has become and for the personal attacks that he has obviously received due to his sexual orientation during his years at wikipedia (though not in this RfA, I hasten to add). Basically the reason I'm in oppose is that many of the opposes above give very really and concerning reasons, and together, they culminate in me not having enough confidence in you to have the tools. As an atheist myself, I can see why you have the userbox in question and personally I don't believe it is enough to warrant an outright oppose, but the confrontational manner in which you responded does concern me, especially the claims that it was kept at MfD so it is clearly fine. The fact that it even went to MfD should give you an indication that at least some people find it offensive. The sig issue concerns me very slightly, as I struggle to read it and find it unnecessarily colourful. Also (although you clearly don't mean it to), it does appear very MySpace-y. I must, however, say that I was pleased to note your removal of the confrontational user talk header. For me though, there are three main reasons why I'm in oppose. Firstly, that you needed to be told (whether it was in a roundabout manner or not) that you had missed the 3RR on Q6. This is partially Sven's fault, as you may have realised yourself without prompting, but you never got the opportunity and now it simply looks as if you forgot (or worse, didn't know) until you were told. Secondly, the incorrect non-admin closure. It's not really the decision you reached (yes, it should have been kept) but that you "supervoted" that it was your opinion that he passed the GNG, rather than saying that the consensus was that he passed the GNG (the AfDs Coucelles points out are also troubling). Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, are Mkativerata's copyvio concerns. As he says, you only fixed the problems that were identified in March and didn't take the initiative to fix your other copyvio problems before they again had to be raised in September. Although all of these concerns are obviously forgivable in the case of an editor, they are not so in the case of a prospective admin. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose My regrets for this oppose. Will post the details tomorrow. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I hate NACs to begin with, but this user's closures actually prove why I'm so against them. Links already provided by earlier opposers. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per others re. poor AC of AFDs, during this RFA too. The RFPP pointed out by Courcelles is pretty bad too from November. AD 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I haven't throughly vetted the candidate, but his persistence on user boxes that advocate positions (not just describe him) is troubling. This is particularly troubling because it was one of the major issues (cited by 9 of 17 opposes) in his last RfA. Having a user box that says, "I'm xxx" is ok. Having a dozen saying "I'm xxx" starts pushing it into the land of advocacy---especially when some are aggressive to others. This becomes even more problematic when the user admits to having issues with people vandalizing/harrassing him on his talk pages. There are plenty of openly gay/lesbian/athiestic/etc users out there who do not feel the need to vow not to be silenced. This tells me a fair amount about his attitude and ability to remain impartial during debates. A good admin can look at an issue that he is interested in and knowledgable about and provide guidance that is accepted as objective--even if it is something s/he'd rather not see. I do not see that happening here. Do we need strong gay/lesbian/athiest admins? YES---just as we need every area to be well represented, we need people who are familiar with the issues at hand. Unfortunately, I do not trust this candidate to be one of them. I also find it highly concerning, that when you try to edit his talk page, it proudly proclaims, Oh, and please never link me an essay, I find them useless and will put ZERO weight on them! He puts zero weight in ALL essays? Now, I know essays are not policies/guidelines, but some do reflect community understanding and do have good insight. His declaration that he is discounting all essays as they have zero weight? Again, that sounds like a person who has been quoted a few too many essays and rather than accept any guidance from them says, "no, i know better." Doesn't sound like somebody who is open to discussion.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose for two reasons. I share Spartaz's NAC concerns. I'm also troubled by the candidate's communication skills and attitude. Too often he takes a sour or combative tone with other editors, as is evident in this RfA. He may prove to be a fine admin one day; in the meanwhile he needs to take a calmer approach to Wikipedia. Majoreditor (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Courcelle's difs show poor judgement in closing AfDs. General tone in this RfA seem too overly confrontational for a potential sysop. If these issues are resolved, I would be willing to support future RfAs. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I have serious qualms regarding your maturity and the way you interact with other people, especially with those you disagree with. Furthermore, Courcelle's diffs are really unreassuring, since you've stated that, as an admin, you'll be closing AfDs. I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose The ubx being discussed above is patently offensive because even though it mentions no particular deity, it demeans and ridicules faith. That itself is no reason to oppose, but the candidates inability to understand why others feel this way could be. The early AfD closure as well as the diffs pointed out by Prodego above are more problematic. There is too much of a battleground mentality evidenced here, and little willingness to put down the stick. None of this speaks well to the attitude needed to be an administrator at this time. I would certainly reconsider this candidate in the future with demonstration of greater maturity and more willingness to walk away when the situation calls for it. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    JimMiller, what I say right now I say to you with respect, and as a life-long Christian. When I read your statement, "The ubx being discussed above is patently offensive because even though it mentions no particular deity, it demeans and ridicules faith.", I recognize your sincerity, and indeed, your stance reflects my initial reaction as well. But friend, nothing is harder to see than one's own ethnocentrism. As another writer put here elsewhere (I think), would a userbox stating that the Greek pantheon is a myth be offensive? Probably not to most Americans, because no one here worships the Greek gods (as far as I know). Now what about a userbox saying that Wicca is mythological? My guess is that most people up in arms over CT's userboxes would not be offended by a similar userbox dealing with Wicca, and we would not have gotten to this point had that been what he had up there. Yet I know Wiccans. And I suspect that those that I have known would have been a lot more forgiving of this, because they live as a minority culture in a Christian society. In other words, they have a thicker hide. Anyway, to an atheist, there is not one iota of difference between the Greek and Wiccan and Christian deities. From their perspective, they are all myths. Yet they spend a lot less time (in my experience) proselytizing (at least, since Madalyn Murray O'Hair left the scene). So here we are, in a culture (Wikipedia) that is ostensibly pluralistic and tolerant, and we accept Christian userboxes that--if you think about it--are sending the message to these atheists that they are going to Hell--and we think that's just fine, but the atheist needs to shut up. I just think that those of us who are Christians should learn to turn the other cheek, and develop our own thicker hide. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Does not seem to have the meekness or humility which is so crucial for an admin. If he is given the tools, then the inevitable mistakes, misjudgments, and conflicts will be magnified because of his careless style and attitude. Imagine if two admins make the same mistake and do a small bit of harm to WIkipedia. The admin with better people skills, more humility, and greater maturity will obviously be able to mitigate much of the damage. If given the tools, I don't trust CTJF not to become a power broker or use his position of being an admin as a symbol that he has the community's backing. Imagine how intimidated future users may become of an admin like CTJF if they are on the opposite side of him in a conflict. He is already quite forceful, headstrong, and stubborn. Give him power and I think other editors will acquiesce rather than polite, civil discussion. I would surely support this user in the future if he can show meekness and humility, and I believe many of the other oppose-voters would also. Brain Before Life (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give my perspective here, BBL, I have actually encountered CT many times in article work, and have found him to be exceedingly humble when suggestions have been made to alter content that he placed in the article in question. This perception that CT is arrogant stems, in my opinion, purely from his user page and his unfortunate reaction to the unwarranted criticism. Had CT just had a blank user page, this personality issue would never have come up at all, and the only issue we'd be debating would be his close(s) at AfD. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kinda my point. I think he is fine now and will engage in polite, civil discussion; but, will turn into a nightmare once he passes RFA. Imagine if he becomes a forceful, headstrong, and stubborn admin? He is already somewhat intimidating just from his edit count, user page, attitude, and style. If you add adminship on top of all that, it spells for a future power broker who will change his ways sooner or later. It's a very similar pattern when people like him get power. Note: he is also very obsessed with Wikipedia. I cringe knowing how he might deal with future users. I personally don't find him arrogant, just very suspect about what he might do with the tools and the future users who will have to deal with him on the opposite side of the conflict. If he becomes an admin, he will have a very disproportionate share of the "face of Wikipedia" and if this passes, I hope that everyone knows he'll leave a very big footprint in the future. Innate personality skills are so tremendously important; and, I just can't trust that he won't misuse the tools once he has them. Brain Before Life (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I don't think I could disagree more. When I say he's polite working on articles, I think that's his true personality. Look at me, I don't think I have 2000 edits. But when I went to work on some of the articles near and dear to him (e.g., Quad Cities, a place I haven't set foot in since 1978), and criticized his choice of photo, his organization of the article--all things that he had contributed--he not only listened, he eagerly grabbed my suggestions and ran with them. I've seen a lot of experienced editors with WP:OWN issues, and one of the reasons I so enthusiastically supported CT is because he doesn't show any signs (that I've seen) of being one of those problem editors. I have no fear of what he will do with the tools. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BBL, you wrote, He is already somewhat intimidating just from his edit count, user page, attitude, and style. Do you stick by that statement? Surely you don't hold against him that he has a large amount of editing experience? HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not find the edit count on its own intimidating, but when combined with his user page, attitude, and style, yes I stand by my statement, but it's a trivial part of my argument--i.e. that I don't trust giving a man like CT power and him not abusing it sooner or later. People skills, meekness, humility, and maturity are so direly important that I strongly insist on opposing his RFA until he truly has a desire to change that about himself, not just for RFA but for his own personal growth. Once I see that in him, I'll trust him being an outstanding admin; however, he is not well rounded and his critical lack of maturity/humility is what can possibly make him a net harm if he is given the tools at this time. Brain Before Life (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Per Mkativerata, Prodego, Courcelles, among others... But more than just diffs, your inability to learn from past mistakes, lack of humility, and consistent badgering of opposers indicate that you're more interested in proving yourself right than understanding their concerns. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only opposers I've "badgered" are the UBX related ones. I agree with the poor AfD close comments. CTJF83 chat 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me interjecting... I feel your statement regarding the candidate's "inability to learn from past mistakes" is inaccurate. Looking through his last RfA and older edits, I see substantial growth and improvement on his part. If you believe justified in saying so, by all means add evidence, but for now I thoroughly disagree with this claim. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a claim, it's a statement of opinion. Look at his first RfA: dinged for polemical userboxen. Look at this RfA: dinged for polemical userboxen. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the userboxen in question, the fact is that he had 1.75 years to change them... and failed to do so. Hence, inability to learn from mistakes. I suppose you could cast it as "unwillingness", as well, but the fact is, the candidate got negative feedback from the community on his divisive extra-Wikipedia political posturing in userboxen, and still hasn't corrected it. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per OlEnglish, NativeForeigner and Courcelles. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:03pm • 02:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per this and others above. Bureaucrats don't just ignore opposes that they don't agree with. They're job is to weigh the arguments in support and opposition of the candidate and then decide what the community really wants. Expecting them to ignore opposes just doesn't make sense. In a way, that's showing the "us vs. them" mentality that others have shown above. Come back in six months and I'll probably change my mind but at this point I can't bring myself to support you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now come on, Ktr, that's simply NOT fair. He never said that he hoped the crats would ignore opposes that they disagreed with! He simply said that he hoped that they would ignore some of them. And are you going to tell me that doesn't happen? Just as admins, in looking for consensus in any closure weigh different editor's comments and ivotes differently, I'm sure that crats do the same thing at RfA. I'm sure that if someone comes on here and says, "I oppose candidate X because he's a perverted fudgepacker", that the crat would be well within his rights--nay, within his responsibilities to ignore that vote and/or comment. You put a spin on CT's comment that just isn't there. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IE, they weight that a userbox about the person doesn't effect how a user works on Wikipedia. CTJF83 chat 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell you what spin I put on the diff, in combination with this one and the persistent failure to address copyright problems: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The candidate continues to dismiss as many concerns as he can as being irrelevant to the job, despite every single oppose !voter explicitly relating their concerns to the candidate's character, judgement or policy knowledge. I'd like to hear from the candidate (a) what opposes should be disregarded; and (b) what criticisms he considers not to be constructive.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For 1, Keepscases...Which clearly many people agree on. That is clearly an opposed based on me as a person, not how I will do the "job" of admin or how I am doing the "job" of editor. That's all I'm going to mention, because I know this will somehow get twisted around to more opposes. CTJF83 chat 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, that backfired. What I meant to say is that they don't just ignore opposes. Rereading that made me realize I screwed that statement up. I think I was thinking of how you disagreed with them and I wrote it in the statement, and that actually made sense instead of being a broken sentence. Sorry for that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC
    Now I understand where you were coming from (and you understand, it appears, where I was coming from). Okay, thanks for explaining that. Ahhh, the ambiguities of English. We're all good, now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per old english, Prodego, and the AfD closure points. If you claim you want to work in an area you should know it well. The points above don't show that. (They also show some us vs them problems) The answer to my question also raises an eyebrow. I can't see how you can maintain a NPOV while blocking/working with a dispute when you have strong feeling about the topic.--Guerillero | My Talk 03:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per diffs from Courcelles and concerns about communication as already expressed. Kcowolf (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. It's hard to quantify good judgment or common sense or discretion, but the candidate does not seem to have it. For example, though I perhaps might agree with the candidates actual position on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers, to make a NAC against the unanimous consensus of experienced editors was very poor judgment. I see nothing specifically offensive in any one userbox, and even the rather aggressive array of them is entirely within his rights and does not bother me personally in the slightest, to have it up when applying for AfD is either negligent or confrontational. A conscious effort at self-restraint might help before another application. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose this nomination. Clearly the candidate's heart is in the right place, and he has come a long way since the 1st RFA. However, being an admin needs not only enthusiasm and familiarity with the rules, processes, and culture of the place, but also reliable judgment in tricky situations. The combination of the various issues brought up by others, and the tone of candidate's responses, don't make me comfortable that he would act with good judgment when, as an admin, he would find himself in an awkward situation. (FWIW, I don't care one way or the other about the God userbox - but I do feel any administrator or would-be administrator who puts many boldly stated userboxen up inherently runs a greater risk of inflaming rather than calming situations.) Martinp (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose 3, 4 5, 6 and 9 indicate that the candidate is not ready at this stage. —Dark 06:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are those question numbers or opposes above? Because if they are questions, what is wrong with answer 4? CTJF83 chat 13:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, per Q7. Either don't accept recall or do, please don't find some "middle" stage. Nakon 08:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did accept recall. He simply asked for a six-month "grace period" in the youth of his adminship. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 09:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is a clear "yes". CTJF83 chat 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose pile on per many above. Particularly disillusioning are the shallow answers to basically all the questions, the plagiarism/copyvio concerns, and the many mistakes with regards to accepted policies, both in the answers to RfA questions and in his ordinary edits. Great editor, but currently too inexperienced with admin tasks. --Pgallert (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Per Prodrego, OlEnglish, Balloonman etc. It's a shame that this RfA has, in places, lost focus on the candidate's contributions, but I believe that's unfortunately down to the way the candidate has chosen to present his "Wikipedia face". On a website that's about collaboratively building an encyclopedia and where most of us adopt pseudonyms, there's no reason to militantly define one's self in terms of things like religion and sexuality that are basically irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Although we don't forbid divisive userboxes etc, I would expect a potential admin to show more judgement in presenting a neutral, collaborative, collegial and welcoming face to the world. Simply put, if I were an editor in difficulties I might be tempted to ask the candidate for admin intervention in, say, an LGBT or religion issue where I needed pro-LGBT/anti-religion support, but not otherwise. As a content editor the candidate clearly has a lot going for them and they should be very proud of their excellent contributions. However, as an admin I do not feel confident that the role would be performed with the necessary tact, judgement and detachment. EyeSerenetalk 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - While the candidate appears to be a very prolific content contributor, the answers to several of the questions unfortunately indicate a lack of knowledge and experience with admin areas, including some areas in which he has indicated he'd like to actively participate. SnottyWong express 14:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Reading through the candidates interactions within this RFA I don't believe promotion is the right move at this time.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Oppose per Mkativerata. Refusing to go back through past contributions to weed out copyvios is completely unacceptable for any editor. When Darius did this (on a much larger scale), they were indef blocked. --Banana (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose EyeSerene put it very well. --John (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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 UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Moved to support. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to why I don't like essays, or to further respond to the question. CTJF83 chat 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing at User_talk:The_Utahraptor#Essay_2 CTJF83 chat 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further leisure for review, but leaning towards Support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.[7] The candidate dealt with those issues promptly. In September 2010 I came across the candidate's editor review.[8] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No worries, I'm sorry for forgetting about it as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
article 1 changes, 2, and 3 CTJF83 chat 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I cut way back on the talk page dramatics. Mostly I don't need any more gay on my page. CTJF83 chat 13:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my civil way to deal with harassers/vandals. It started off "softer"CTJF83 chat 00:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. -- Ϫ 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I'm not sure, Limeminas, where your comment came from. I thought it was clear that I disliked how the opinion was expressed, not the actual opinion. Obviously I wasn't blatant enough, perhaps I should add a large text and an image to make this more clear? Oh, my. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well, you fixed all the concerns that I had the time to find. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. While a lot of admin actions are not a big deal, AfD closure is, so I'm nervous about the 15 hour early incident. For the record, there is absolutely zero chance that the community would ever reach a consensus to desysop an admin with your userpage. I therefore think it is invalid to oppose your promotion on identical grounds. —WFC— 09:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - The candidate has my full sympathy for their RfA being turned into yet another RfA fiasco for off-topic reasons, by participants who should keep their innuendos out of the trick questions they pose, and take their opinions and comments to the appropriate talk pages. But an NAC 15-hour-early supervote close of an evenly-balanced discussion so close to, or during a candidate's RfA, clearly shows that the candidate cannot yet be relied on to exercise due care when carrying out the kind of admin tasks that require a mature sense of judgement. If the candidate had not got involved in this AfD (of which incidentally I was the nominator, although I don't personally care which way it goes) they would have had my clear support !vote. --Kudpung (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, (currently) leaning oppose. Ctjf83's attitude to the userbox oppose is worrying. Userboxes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, but the way the candidate has responded to the discussion is not what I would hope to see in an admin. I'm uncomfortable that the discussion was allowed to get so personal so quickly. It would have been perfectly reasonable to respond to Keepscases with an 'agree to disagree', if keeping the userbox is very important to Ctjf83. The comments made by 28bytes on the talk page are completely valid, and explain what I want to say better than this will. We shouldn't demand perfect candidates, but in my view, calm and measured reactions to conflict are very important. --TurquoiseThreads (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. This statement by Ctjf83 worries me: "I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are." Ctjf83's subsequent dialogue with Keepscases and justification of the statement adds further concern. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh*, already been clarified on oppose 5, just above the indent. CTJF83 chat 12:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We could do without any more admins lax about copyright. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. I am a middle-of-the-road, low-profile, gnome-type who would sooner avoid editing than wilfully upset anybody. My first instinct was to avoid this RfA altogether, since I find it generally dismay-inducing, and am not under the illusion that the process is desperate for my input. But I would like to say something in support of the candidate, despite the fact that I oppose his adminship.
    I would have opposed this RfA on the basis of that early AfD closure. For my money, we need to observe deletion procedure and timelines in all but the most open-and-shut cases (e.g. nominator withdraws the nomination but doesn't close it). I would also like to have seen a more robust response to the identified copyright concerns, and a more proactive approach to ensuring that no more are present - I want to see a prospective admin showing a little more appreciation for the potential problems here. I'm not totally sold, either, on some of the candidate's responses to comments in this RfA - though I would be astonished if frustration was not playing a part by this point.
    But I am putting myself here to try to counter some comments I find frankly upsetting, concerning the candidate's representation of his identity on his userpage. CTJF83, you must have the thickest skin in the world to be putting up with this. Leaving aside for a moment the question of adminship, we're really happy to tell our gay contributors, including ones we know have been harassed here on Wikipedia for being gay, that we'd all feel more comfortable if they'd just pipe down, lower their heads, and avoid making a big deal out of who they are (where devoting something like 50*50 pixels of screen space to saying they're proud to be gay apparently constitutes making a big deal)?
    The candidate's attitude and personality are a world away from mine, but I am dismayed that anyone would construe his willingness to express pride in a part of his identity as evidence of a combative personality unsuitable for adminship. (Obvious disclaimer: I do not mean that all the oppose votes are problematic in this way.) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I ought somehow endorse this statement. It seems many editors here believe that CTJF83 is somehow inviting harassment by being "confrontational" in his display of the pride flag and his statement about silencing. The reality is that merely developing LBGT articles puts one in the line of fire. Hiding one's identity is not a real solution to that problem. (I've been subject to anti-woman attacks for doing maintenance work on feminism-related articles.) I think pride is a legitimate response to the type of harassment that he has faced on the 'pedia and I echo his sentiments: I don't believe that those who disapprove really understand what it is like to be subject to harassment, both here and in real life, due to a fundamental part of one's identity.--Danger (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - I almost supported just to balance out Keepscases' oppose, but I must agree with some of the legitimate concerns about Ctjf83's maturity, leaving me neutral. At the very least, I offer my moral support for the personal hell that this RfA has obviously been. I am a Christian and don't approve of homosexuality. However, there is no reason that his beliefs should affect his editing, and by extension of that, no reason it should affect my (or anyone's) position on his RfA. I will add though, that a less controversial userbox could have been used. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've moved to neutral from support. I'm actually leaning oppose, but I think this RfA is going to fail anyway, and I don't want to pile on, especially in light of the far-too-numerous unfair oppose rationales. I still stand by everything I said in my support. But I also said that I could be persuaded to change my mind by new evidence, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers is a deal-killer for me. It's recent, and it shows a clear lack of respect for the consensus of other editors. Administrators have to work constructively with the views of the community, even when they disagree. The candidate could have commented and discussed in that AfD, without presuming to close it. That could easily make me oppose, but I'm disgusted by some of the oppose comments, so I'll stay here. Please understand, this is "not now" rather than "not ever", and with a bit more learning and maturation, this candidate could easily get my support in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish, I don't think it is good form to cast the label of "disgusting" across 30-odd editors without being willing to stand by the comment by specifically identifying which ones you are talking about. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the controversy in this RfA, it's fairly easy to guess with which opposes Trypto disagrees. Even if it wasn't, he doesn't have to clarify. PrincessofLlyr royal court 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. There's probably a good number of opposers who wonder whether their good faith opposition is being labelled disgusting by a senior and respected editor. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. Well, it sure seems like this RfA has become something where it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. It seems to me that some of the opposes are really beating up on someone who, after all, has volunteered to take on extra work, because of things like sexual orientation and religion. And naming names hardly strikes me as a good way to lower the temperature. But let me please make it absolutely clear that I do not mean everyone who opposed. (After all, I changed my position "per" something brought forth by an opposing editor, so I could hardly have considered that oppose to have been a bad one.) To anyone who thought otherwise, I apologize. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "It seems to me that some of the opposes are really beating up on someone... because of things like sexual orientation and religion." (emphasis added) Really? That's a big and bold assumption: one I'd expect from some of the supporters but not from you. How do you know that many of the opposers on these points aren't themselves atheist or homosexual? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category