Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Ctjf83

Final (2/17/4); Closed by AGK § on 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) - I've gotten to know Ctjf83 through some work at The Simpsons Wikiproject, where he helped in a collaborative effort with other editors to get season 9 to featured topic status. He's a good content contributor, and has helped to bring (8) articles to Good Article quality. He also contributes in other areas of the project, and has received barnstars for his efforts at fighting vandalism and giving advice to another editor. Ctjf83 has been with the project for quite a while now, and has amassed over 9,000 edits. He has also undergone Admin coaching from Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs), where he received some very good advice and constructive feedback. I am confident that Ctjf83 will use the tools properly, and serve Wikipedia well as an admin. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware at the time of the nom that there was an issue left unresolved with Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) regarding Ctjf83's Admin coaching. I left a note at Mr. Z-man's talk page, and await his response. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept Cirt. Thank you for your kind words! Ctjf83Talk 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an admin I intend to help clean up the admin backlog. I would also take care of AFDs and blocking repeat vandals. I like to help people, so I intend to get more involved with the Admin's noticeboard. I understand anyone can edit it to answer questions, but I feel that as it is an Admin's noticeboard, question askers are expecting admins to respond.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best contributions are my 8 GAs, and the article I am working on to get to GA status. GAs help to improve the overall quality of wikipedia, so I feel the more GAs, the better wikipedia as a whole is. My vandal fighting is also one of my best contributions. While it has been slightly lower than previous, I intend to pick it back up after the article I'm working on becomes a GAC.
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: Of course I've had conflicts, who hasn't? I've had a few separate incidents with a user in which we disagree with what should be added to an article. After two reverts by either of us, I just leave it how it is, and and take a break from Wikipedia for a while and not get too stressed out by it. I usually talk to the user on one of our talk pages, to try and solve the conflict in the most civil manner. In the future I plan to do the same thing, and just leave Wikipedia for a few hours if someone is stressing me out.

Optional Questions

4. Optional Question from balloonman: If you received admin coaching why didn't your admin coach nominate or co-nominate you?
5 Optional questions from Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC). What is the difference between a ban and a block, and how may they be related to one another?
A
6 When is it appropriate to use cool down blocks and why?
A
7 You encounter the following article while new page patrolling: "Dr. Debbrah Majestic was a respected emeritus professor at the University of X, publishing several well-known papers dealing with proteomics." Someone has tagged the article for speedy deletion per A7. How would you react?
A
8 When should WP:POINT be used in a discussion at WP:XfD. When is it inappropriate?
A

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ctjf83 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. as nominator. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Does a lot of work in all the right places. Useight (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose STRONG OPPOSE The fact that his admin coach was preparing an RfA for him a few weeks ago, but then indicated a problem and isn't his nominator/co-nominator doesn't sit well with me. That's bad etiquette, now there is no requirement that a coach nominate a candidate, I would expect the candidate to tell the coach---especially, when the coach indicated that he was working on an RfA. The problem was in relationship to an AFD discussion wherein Ctjf83 !voted, "Keep the article is useful" for an article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series. Ctjf83's response to his coach was, "Well I think it is useful for game players...is that not a good enough reason to keep?" Now I don't necessarily have a problem with one bad !vote, but this followup questions clearly shows a lack of what is acceptable and a lack of familiarity with WP:NOT particularly WP:NOT#GUIDE. So I went in search of other AFD's he's participated in to see if this was a typical vote or a single isolated case of poor judgment... to which I discovered that in his last 3000 edits or so, he's only contributed to about 6 AFD's---four of them after the above mentioned one, when he asked his coach if he should Vote on some AfD with better responses? (The only AfD I saw prior to this Grand Theft Auto !vote was so weak, that even he came back and changed his vote.) While he gave decent answers in his coaching, I saw nothing in his edit history to demonstrate that he knew how to apply policy. Giving good answers to questions is one thing, demonstrating that you understand what those policies mean in real life is completely different. I also didn't like the fact that his coach gave him some advice on his questions for this RfA, but those recommendations went completely unheeded. And I just noticed this, but he has a political user box on his page... now generally, I don't care what user boxes people have, but when they have one calling a person (even a politician) "a worthless piece of shit" then, I have to question if they have the maturity for the Mop?Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Increasing oppose to strong oppose per Silk Tort's link below.Balloonman (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The user does have experience in article editing. But reviewing his deleted contribs, I see very few and infrequent CSD nominations and very few if any deleted contribs that indicate PROD was used. As Balloonman points out, there also appears to be very little AfD contributions. As deletions are one of the three Big Things admins do (page protection and blocking being the others) and are the primary thing non-admins can participate in to show they understand policy application, I feel this is an important area of contribution. Also, in reviewing the edit counter summary, I noticed very little participation outside of AN/ANI/AIV. I would like to have seen some major edits at one of the other noticeboards or edit abuse forums, as I feel they show an ability to handle issues outsides of one's topical interest/specialty. Additionally, I am concerned that Z-man was not consulted prior to accepting the RfA nom. I know that he is quite busy, and may not have had the time to write a nomination. But I would've expected either an initial support vote or a note on Ctjf83's that he was ready to go up. I'm aware that this may not have been a condition of the coaching relationship, but I feel that admins are expected to know to consult relevant parties in significant situations. If Mr. Z-man can explain this (off-wiki conversation, etc), I am willing to re-consider to Neutral. MBisanz talk 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for the obscenity in the userbox. Mrprada911 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I see no "obscene userbox" on his/her user page. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 11:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    removed by Neil. Pedro :  Chat  11:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - firstly per a very sparse track record in AFD for someone who wants to be closing them. Second per the polemic userbox ("This user knows George W. Bush is a worthless piece of shit") - our BLP policy applies to userspace, too. I've removed the userbox, but someone who wants to be an admin really should have a reasonable enough grip on policy to know such a userbox is unacceptable. Neıl ☎ 09:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The user box was a very poorly though out idea, and on another noteWikipedia is not MSN instant messaging. The entire discussion there seemed to have no bearing on encyclopedia building at all. Pedro :  Chat  10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sorry, but I must oppose. After seeing the userbox in question, I really must say this user is not currently ready for adminship. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, my personal opinion of the president has no baring on how will I will be an admin. So people not agreeing with what I say is not a good reason to oppose. Ctjf83Talk 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    It has every bearing because it blatantly violates WP:BLP, which is policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose because of behavioral issues and willingness to violate policy. This diff has an ever so polite edit summary. This diff refers to good faith edits as vandalism. And this diff reinstates a fair use image onto a userbox when he'd been informed two months earlier that such usage was not allowed (see his userpage history on December 8). Lacks the maturity to be an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per that userbox and all it demonstrates. Nick (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. I've seen quite a bit of work from this user, and I was reasonably happy with the progress, but I have to oppose per the diffs by Hammersoft and the above comment by Nick. Rudget. 12:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Sorry but the oppose arguments outweigh the support ones. Indeed I find the fact that your Admin-coach didn't co-nom deeply unsettling. --Camaeron (t/c) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per the comments about the UBX, and the coaching, it seems to me that this editor needs more time to demonstrate character traits that would help the project as opposed to harming it. At this point, I do not think this user has demonstrated the judgment that I would want to see applied as a sysop. -- Avi (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the aggressive impatience shown here. SilkTork *YES! 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    There is a difference between impatience and an eagerness for me to learn the training. Ctjf83Talk 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose BLP userbox is troubling. Soxred93 | talk bot 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose No responses to concerns, the userbox shows a lack of understanding of WP:BLP, apparent unfamiliarity with core Wikipedia policies and processes, and the unsettled issue with his own admin coach. Enigma msg! 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Also, there seem to be some civility and judgment issues here as well. Enigma msg! 15:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    In fairness Enigman, with regards to "no response to concerns", it would appear from their contribution history that the candidate normally starts editing around 18:30 UTC, so probably hasn't been on line since this RfA went live. Pedro :  Chat  15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Pedro. The user hasn't been on since the RfA started---but even that shows a lack of familiarity with the process! Somebody familiar with wikipedia would have transcluded their nomination when they first logged on so that they could respond to those early questions/concerns. Instead, he transcluded his RfA just before signing off for the day. Thus, allowing the opposes to build up in his absence.Balloonman (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure the opposes would have built up whether he was present or absent, although he/she maybe would have withdrawn. I hope someone closes this before the pile on gets too bad...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer
  16. strong oppose I'm sorry but I don't think your ready. You concentrate to much on the Simsons and other things that has nothing to do with helping out vandalism and ect. I suggest not just helping in one area, but helping in many other areas. I know you help in other places, but find more places to work at.--RyRy5 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per the above. At this point, the candidate is far from ready for the tools. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Giving the nom the chance to answer the questions and repond to the issues brought up in the opposes but I would find it hard to support at this point. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral to avoid the pile-on. ArcAngel (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, waiting to see the answers to those last questions. FusionMix 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - Pending answers to my questions. Leaning toward oppose at the moment though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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.