Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish

Catfish Jim and the soapdish

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (84/2/1); Scheduled to end 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs) – I'm Catfish Jim and the soapdish, and would appreciate your consideration of me for adminship. I've been editing on Wikipedia for three and a half years and am primarily a content editor, focusing on subjects relating to Scottish history and geography. I concentrate particularly on the Eastern Lowlands, especially coastal Angus, which for some reason has not received the same level of popularity amongst Wikipedia editors that's enjoyed by other areas of Britain. While I never intended it, I've fallen into a rather informal anti-vandalism role through having more than 2,300 articles on my watchlist (and climbing) and having an admin mop would be useful for this purpose. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially, the only thing I plan on doing is to read the manual. Beyond that, I plan to continue working in areas that I am familiar with, particularly the anti-vandalism work that I've already mentioned and New Pages Patrol. I've been involved in NPP for around 16 months now and while my initial efforts were perhaps hit or miss, I've developed what I think is a good understanding of the process and believe I would be a positive addition to the list of admins who deal with CSD nomination closure. (That's not to say I haven't made the odd mistake from time to time, for example in my CSD-A1 tagging of Thorbjorn Paternò Castello, which really ought to have generated a {{Uw-hasty}} note on my talkpage.) I also participate fairly frequently in AFD debates and would be happy to assist in debate closure.

Beyond this, I would be willing to help out in other areas where I can be useful, but would only undertake this tentatively at first.

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

A: It's difficult to say. I've created or expanded a number of articles that I would like to think others have found useful. Carnoustie was the first article I edited and which I somehow managed to work up to Good Article standard without really knowing what I was doing. Camus Cross and Battle of Barry are both articles I created that have got to GA standard. More recently, I've also had a go at GA review and had the fortune to review Wales. I plan to do more GA reviewing in future, once my current project (to improve the quality of the Dundee article) is complete.

In terms of anti-vandalism and new pages patrol, it's harder to pinpoint a particular moment, keeping those pages I monitor vandalism-free and usable is its own reward. In the course of my regular Wikipedia contributions, I've identified a number of sock-puppeteers who were intent on inserting POV material or attempting to fake consensus of notability for non-notable/COI articles.

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: While it was never my intention to get involved in anti-vandalism work, the number of pages on my watchlist means that I regularly encounter deliberately unconstructive editors. Relatively few cause any problems that require more than the placement of a level 1 notification.

One editor who was a little more challenging went on a campaign lasting several weeks, using more than 50 sockpuppets to systematically delete my contributions (and, to a lesser extent, those of other editors), impersonate me, redirect my user page to Drag queen... generally trying to be a nuisance. It wasn't so much 'stressful' as puzzling that anyone would devote so much time towards being disruptive. It was this particular incident, more than anything else, that made me appreciate the role that admins play in keeping Wikipedia running smoothly.

In the future? I would imagine I would treat such a situation in exactly the same way, by not worrying too much about it and dealing with it as per Wikipedia policy. It's been a very long time since I cared overly about people being unkind to me on the internet (well, the internet didn't really exist when I would have!).

Other forms of edit conflict? It depends on the specific circumstance. Differences of opinion can usually be worked into some degree of consensus by inviting discussion on the subject.

Additional question from NuclearWarfare

4. Where does your username come from?

A: It comes from the dim and distant past, when I had dreams of becoming a blues guitarist... that was going to be the name of my band. Sadly I never developed the requisite talent to go with it, but it was too good a name to waste!

Additional questions from Thehelpfulone

These questions are bog-standard just to check that you've got a bit of a clue. Please don't feel intimidated by them! :) The Helpful One 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban is the formal removal of an editor's editing privileges from a particular Wikipedia page or set of pages. A block is the technical process in which an editor is prevented from editing. A ban does not necessarily require or involve a block. The distinction between the two and the policies by which they are implemented are covered by Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A: Should there be consensus that I'm trustworthy enough to utilise an admin mop, I'll be happy to do so... Similarly, should the consensus change for, say, an unpredicted change in my behaviour, I would of course be happy to hand it back. I'm not sure exactly which form of criteria I would use, but I'm currently reviewing Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for ideas. I quite like the simplicity of User:Firsfron/Accountability.

7. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?

A: WP:IAR is essentially a statement of common sense, not that we are free to ignore the rules for whatever reason we feel like. In certain circumstances, following the rules by the letter (as set out by Wikipedia policy) may go against the spirit of those rules and indeed may prevent improvement of the encyclopedia. For example, it is possible to use Wikipedia policies to game the system, in order to achieve aims that are not consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles.

Additional question from ArcAngel

8. In the edit summary of your transclusion, what was your reasoning for saying "Rfa debate"?

A: Interesting question. No particular significance was intended by the use of the word "debate". I suppose the word "discussion" would fit better.

Additional two-part question from ArcAngel

9a. At WP:RPP, an editor requests indefinate semi-protection of a page than has a history of 50 instances of vandalism spread out over a three month period. How would you handle this?

A: This depends entirely on the page, who is doing the vandalism and what the history of page protection is on that particular article.

50 instances of vandalism on a single page in three months would warrant some attention on most of the pages I monitor as most of them have relatively low traffic levels. However, on a page that attracts a large amount of edits, for example 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which has attracted over 5,000 edits in just over a month, 50 cases would be relatively insignificant. The rule of thumb is that, in most cases, around 5% of edits to a page can reasonably be expected to be vandalism, and I would most likely use this as a starting point to determine whether the level of vandalism was greater than usual.

The next consideration is who is perpetrating the vandalism. If the vandalism is all coming from autoconfirmed users, semi-protection wouldn't work in any case. If the vandalism is all coming from one or two unregistered or unconfirmed users, and the correct steps have been taken to warn those users, then a block may be more in order. If the vandalism is coming from a wide range of unconfirmed/unregistered users, more than it would be practical to deal with by issuing warnings, then semi-protection would probably be the most appropriate course of action.

The duration of protection must take previous history into account. In the first occurance, the page might only require protection for a few days and this may be sufficient to stop the vandalism. I would sequentially increase this period for subsequent instances if the problem was demonstrably on-going and vandalism recurrent following lifting of the page protection.

9b. An editor reports an IP editor to WP:AIV where the report is of vandalism. The IP has no warnings on their talk page, but has a contribution history of two meaningful edits, and two harmful edits. What action would you take on this report?

A: Assuming I have verified it is a case of vandalism, I believe the most appropriate course of action would be to leave a level 1 notification on the IP user talk page along with the usual "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices." I would explain the correct procedure for placing increasing levels of warnings before reporting a case to AIV to the complainant (in a friendly manner of course). I'm assuming good faith here on the part of the complainant... my actions might be modified depending on their behaviour.

Additional question from MauchoEagle

10. You come across a user that gave permission to a person other than the owner of the account to edit from it. Is this a compromised account? Why or why not? What are the actions, as a sysop, that you would take?

A: I would need to know more about the specific circumstances of the case. Presumably if, as a sysop, I found out that someone had allowed someone else to use their account, it would be because something had gone wrong and that, perhaps, it was being used as an argument in an block appeal... in which case I would probably follow WP:GOTHACKED. I think I would also ask for advice from a more experienced admin.

The user has explicitly indicated to you that the he gave the person permission to use the account. Also if this was the case, would this have been a compromised account.mauchoeagle _(c) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think it odd, but in such a situation, I'd say the user who owns the account is responsible for any of his/her friend's actions. If the account has any extra privileges, such as adminship, then I believe this represents a significant problem that should be addressed by discussion, perhaps at an RfC. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from MuZemike

11. (more of a follow-up on 9b) Let's say, for instance, the IP had two meaningful edits 1 week ago and then two harmful edits within the past hour. What other actions would you take and why?

A: I would assume there was a possibility that they were different users editing from the same IP address. I would take the same approach I have already outlined and keep an eye on the situation. If the normal process of issuing a warning stops the vandalism, I see no reason to take further action.

12. User:Slogra has been indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption. About 1 week later, User:Gaibon appears and exhibits the very similar patterns of disruption as Slogra. In a CheckUser request, the results come back Symbol  Possible between the two accounts. Would you still issue a block to Gaibon and for what reason?

A: I would block them. The combination of disruptive behaviour that is very similar to that of the previous user and the "possible" checkuser result is likely to be sufficient justification as per WP:QUACK. I would also be checking for other clues such as linguistic quirks for added certainty, but would bear in mind that 100% certainty would be an unrealistic target. I'd wait for an unblock request with interest.

Additional question from Monty845

13. If you were to come across this (pretty old) (talk page of article) CSD tag today, and were an uninvolved admin, what would your deletion decision be, and what part(s) of the Speedy Deletion policy would justify your decision?

A: I would decline it, as it was by User:Giftiger wunsch here: User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish/Archive V#Speedy deletion declined: Kenneth Kim. I don't think I was wrong to have concerns about that page, given the possibility of a conflict of interest that had been raised by a number of other editors, but the article as it was when I tagged it, was not a candidate for G11. I would have suggested that AFD would be a more appropriate course of action if the tagging editor still believed it should be deleted, but I would anticipate it would close as keep as it apparently satisfies WP:GNG.

I probably would have left a more personal message than the declining editor left on my talk page as I'm aware that notification templates have the potential to annoy established editors, but that's not meant as a criticism of Giftiger Wunsch.

Optional question from RHM22

14. Imagine that I am another editor asking a ridiculous question. The question is "if Wikipedia were a tree, what tree would it be?" Would you not decline to refuse to answer the question?

A: It wouldn't occur to me to decline to answer the question, as I love its daftness. I'd pick the Birnam Oak, which is the last surviving tree from the medieval Birnam wood that featured in Shakespeare's Macbeth... there's probably even a valid analogy to be made in that it's huge, needs a certain amount of protection (its lower branches are propped up with supports to stop them collapsing under the weight), and I could spend all year looking at it without getting bored and still find something new that I hadn't noticed before. I also note that there isn't an article on it here... (adds to "to do" list) I've just knocked together a wee stubby article... Birnam Oak Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking for Charter Oak. There is no right or wrong answer, but yours is incorrect. I am still supporting anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Snottywong

15. Imagine that I am another editor asking a ridiculous question about editors who ask ridiculous questions. The question is "Imagine that I am another editor asking a ridiculous question. The question is 'if Wikipedia were a tree, what tree would it be?' Would you not decline to refuse to answer the question?" Would you refuse to answer the question, or would you just answer it by answering the ridiculous question about which the original question was asked?

A: Maybe the Fortingall Yew... I'll knock up an article... :)

Additional Absolutely Mandatory question from BQZip01

16. Let's put all this hypothetical nonsense to rest! If Wikipedia were a tree, what tree would it be? (note that an inconsistent answer or an incorrect answer will likely degrade your support base immediately...also note that I've already given you my support no matter what answer you provide to this question)

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. From a brief look through some of the candidate's 100+ article creations, it appears this editor knows what they're doing. 28bytes (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. User has made lots of good contributions, why hasn't someone given him the mop already?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. Looking through his contributions, I see an editor who knows what he's doing and is clearly good at collaborating. Certainly happy to give him the mop. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. Great all around editor. Experienced and intelligent. No concerns at all. -- œ^™ 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Support One of the best and most dedicated editors on the wiki. —Soap— 12:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   Soap, are you willing to concede that you might be in cahoots with Dish? Drmies (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

6. Support fully—everything I've seen about this editor in the past and present has proven to me that he will handle the mop just fine. Airplaneman ✈ 13:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Support I had never heard of you before today, so I did a little bit more digging. An excellent candidate, 113 articles under your belt - that's impressive! Looking through your hundreds of deleted contributions, I can see many good CSD taggings, which is a great thing especially as you have said you will be working in that area. Also, looking through deleted contributions I can see that the candidate creates articles in his userspace, which is excellent, as articles such as Camus Cross, a GA, were created (now with 29 deleted edits) at User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish/Camus Stone before hand. Nominations of AFD and general discussion seems to be good, which would be useful as if the candidate expands to WP:MFD and WP:FFD too, this will be of great help, as we have many backlogs there! My questions are the bog-standard ones, but good to see that you have knowledge on them! I love the answer to Q5, simple and link me to policy for my own personal reading! :)

   Just one thing, you requested deletion of your own user page, User:Catfish_Jim_and_the_soapdish/Significant_contributions, under G7, but when deleting such requests, it would be better to delete/tag as U1. Trivial, I know - but it's the most appropriate tag. The Helpful One 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   An interesting quirk I noticed on your comment is that the edit summary is prefaced with /* Oppose */ - kinda odd, if you ask me especially since you put it in the Support section.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you... I'll be sure to use that in future. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   ArcAngel, my attempt of a humour similar to that used in my RFA, works well with watchlisters, but I guess I should have waited until more people watched the RFA ;) ) The Helpful One 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

8. Support Nicely balanced contribution history. Will make an excellent admin. nancy 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Catfish Jim but Neutral on the soapdish - A solid record of article work, no glaring policy or guideline misunderstandings, a clear focus on a reason to use the tools, no problematic history, and (best of all to me) fantastic communication skills. I have no reservations in supporting. -- Atama頭 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
10. (ec)Weak support Nothing that jumps out at me as a definite no, but a few concerns. namely around the amount of participation in policy/admin related areas/discussions. What I see I like, but I could be pursuaded to change my stance.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Excellent username. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Support - Firstly, I love his user-name, so sorry your band idea didn't go the way you planned. Secondly, I am most impressed with the users use of edit summaries and your last 100 content creations most particularly Battle of Barry. Thirdly, I am impressed with your answers to the questions. And I am going to stay at weak support until I put my question in the mix and you give an answer. Also, I love the answer to my question. Although it took some time. Hope you do great and make mama proud, Catfish. mauchoeagle _(c) 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. The editor wishes to continue focusing on writing articles, which is healthy for WP. New editors can ask for advice from an administrator with greater confidence than they can ask a random non-administrator editor, so granting the administrative status should help the community.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
15. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - I'd like to see more activity in admin-related areas, but what I've seen looks promising. The answers to the questions reveal a clueful editor. Overall I think this person can be trusted with the tools. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. I've seen Catfish Jim around the place a fair bit, and he seems to have a very good temperament for admin. Couple that with sound knowledge and great experience, and it's an easy decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. Content contributions look good (though the date formats at Battle of Barry were not quite consistent). Responses to questions look sensible. Q5 and Q7 demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - I like that the strong majority of your edits are in the main namespace. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
21. I don't see why not. Has over 12,000 edits across 3 years of experiance. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
22. Seems clueful and friendly; more than qualified for the mop. Swarm ^X 20:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
23. Support I agree with everyone else when they say he seems very qualified. He will make a great administrator. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
24. Easy Support Seems qualified. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
25. Support He has answered the questions presented to him well, seems good-natured and his contributions to the encyclopedia are excellent. While concerns over his use of speedy tags have been raised below, I can see that he is not afraid to admit his mistakes and usually takes positive steps to rectify the situation. I would have no problem trusting this user, which is the most important thing. doomgaze (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
26. Support I've come across him in various areas and find him well-balanced, calm and polite. I rarely disagree with his tagging. He's thoughtful at AfD. Yes, there have been mistakes - I hear. Pushing and trying boundaries are part of learning. When you get the power to actually do it, you pause more to think...... Peridon (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Does a great job, thoughtful, will not misuse the tools. Seaphoto^Talk 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
28. Support. You have one of those usernames that sticks in one's memory. It's a username I've seen on my watchlist at some of the topics that seem to get us Brits hot under the collar (like whether England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are countries and 101 other daft debates). I tend not to get too involved in some of these discussions, but I watch from a distance and I've often seen Catfish Jim's signature attached to very sensible and clueful opinions, even when the debate gets heated. That alone is enough for me to support. If you exercise the same level of clue and common sense as an admin that you do on some of the talk pages on my watchlist, you'll be a damn good admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

    GAH! You had me HJ Mitchell! I fell for my own trick (as above), I trust you as an admin and was fooled there!! The Helpful One 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

    Well the uproar you caused couldn't be left unacknowledged. Consider it an homage. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

29. Support, even though I think the username is stupid, IMHO. Tommy! 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

    Of course it is. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

30. Support Very clueful editor, knows what he's doing, is sensible and very level-headed in arguments. I trust him and have no doubt that he will use the tools for the betterment of the 'pedia. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:51am • 23:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
31. Appears to have depth. Andrevan@ 00:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
32. - filelakeshoe 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - I have concerns with your lack of experience in admin-related areas, but honestly, sysop isn't a big deal, and you seem to have a clue. Best of luck to you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Having read the answers to the questions and gone through some of the edits I see no reason not to support. Yes, some mistakes, we all make mistakes, and I see no serious enough to not trust the user with the admin tools. Julle (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
35. Weak support Take it very slow with speedy deletion, and when in doubt tag or do nothing, and I think you'll be fine. I see a couple rather poor taggings example, but I'm not on balance convinced you'll be anything other than a net positive. Courcelles 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
36. Support You gotta love a guy with a User name like that. Sounds like something Elton John, James Taylor and Lewis Grizzard would concoct. I like his humility and candor as well.--Hokeman (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. Candidate strikes me as cool and level-headed. A few hasty CSD tags, that's not great, but Catfish Jim isn't the only one guilty of that, and it does not worry me greatly. I've had a few interactions with them, I think, and they've been positive. Editor is a net positive for Wikipedia and I have faith in the job they'll do as an admin.
38. Support per no real apparent reason not to, at this point in the process. The tagging issues mentioned below are a bit of a cause for concern, but nowhere near enough to have me land anywhere other than this column. Good luck! Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
39. Support I'm reassured about WP when I encounter an effective and productive editor for the first time. Nice work, nice answers. Seems like you take feedback well. -- Scray (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Definitely. Minima© (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
41. Support - Been around the block with over 10K edits, clean block log, rollbacker, and knows that IAR means Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC) (after reckecking of course°.
42. Support - I come across this candidate's work regularly, and after having rechecked I can support without any hesitation. What he doesn't know now, he can do what most new admins do: learn it on the job, and I know personally that he won't hesitate to ask if/when he gets stuck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
43. Y Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
45. Support per discussion in oppose Jebus989^✰ 09:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
46. Support solid content editor with no record of 'going off the rails'. --rgpk (comment) 09:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - knowledgable and dedicated Wikipedian. Good work :) Orphan Wiki 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
48. Support Seems like a trustworthy editor who will exercise caution in using the mop, and learn from any mistakes. Monty₈₄₅ 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
49. Support Calm and conscientious user, good grasp of policy. The Interior (Talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
50. Support After my one concern detailed in "neutral" was answered satisfactorily. Philip.t.day talk 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
51. I see no reason not. Particularly impressed with the user's temperament. ceranthor 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
52. Support Quite competent and qualified and I believe that you'll learn over time from your mistakes and that's nothing Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
53. Support Catfish Jim is (a) prolific in content contribution and (b) experienced in our deletion processes, particularly CSD. Given the amount of time Jim's spent patrolling new pages, a few incorrect tags are not really a big deal; Jim seems to have learned from his mistakes and appears to operate based on common sense. I notice that several voters have advised you to be cautious in speedy deletion, at least at first. Well, being cautious is a good thing, but you shouldn't be too overcautious. Remember this? That was a pretty clear-cut G3 and G4. Don't be afraid to pull the trigger on those. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
54. Support. Excellent temperament, dubious musical leanings notwithstanding... and yes, I quite agree. Ben MacDui 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - I certainly remember the username. No concerns, will make a fine admin. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
56. Support Appears to have plenty of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Highly qualified and deserving editor.-RHM22 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Certainly a dedicated editor. Has a kindly way of correcting mistakes by others- explaining the differences as to why something isn't correct in an non-aggressive manner. One of the first people to assist those of us (yes, me) who aren't quite computer-literate. Genial, careful in editing (so far as I've seen) - if a mistake is pointed out, no drama- he learns and moves on. Helpful to the newest editors. I can't count the small kindnesses that he has done in my behalf, tempered by serious attention to "What the Wikipedia is Not". --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
59. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
60. Seems to be a fine candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
61. Support Gives great answers to all the questions. Will make a thoughtful and moderate admin. LK (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
62. Support Seems to have a cult following and can be trusted.Captain Marshalls (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - Good work, will be a good admin. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
64. Support – No reason to oppose. You owe me, JK :). Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 06:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
65. Support, no problems that I can see. Jafeluv (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
66. Support - Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
    
67. Support - Looks OK to me. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - Seems a decent proposition - some very good answers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
69. Support After looking over this candidate, and seeing the answers to the questions, I feel comfortable with the amount of mainspace policy knowledge he has, and think he would make a fine admin.   ArcAngel   (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
70. Look like a good editor. PartyAnimal22 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
71. Support, but still waiting for the other shoe to drop. — Ched :  ?  15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
72. Support per reasons stated. Make that "strongest possible" while we're at it. Everything I've ever seen from CJ has been top-notch. This is unquestionably the type of person who should be given the privilege without delay. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
73. Meh - TBloemink (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
74. Many reasons to support, outlined above. No concerns to mitigate said support. FWIW, I think the Aspen best reflects Wikipedia, but the question was what you thought, therefore you are correct, this time. My76Strat (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

    Darn, I should have waited on two more so I could have been 76. Oh well. My76Strat (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

75. Support per the answers to his questions, his article creations, and his mature attitude. --NellieBly (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
76. Support – Why the hell not? —mc10 (t/c) 06:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
77. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
78. Support – Each interaction with him has been a pleasant experience. Every one of his contributions I've seen from afar seem to have been sensible. This guy knows what he's doing and I'm sure he will also be an asset to the project as an admin. Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Generally clueful answers, and a solid contribution background, but most especially because of the answer to Q.4. Mark "Tone Def" Slater (and the One Chord Blunders) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
80. support- everything seems good about this user i can see, good answers to questions Moneya (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
81. Support per answer to Q15 and to counteract Colonel Warden's nonsensical oppose. —SW— ^converse 13:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
82. Support per answer given to Q16 (and all the other answers too) — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
83. Support Dincher (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Good contributions, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose moved to support Great content work, but I have small concerns about some recent page tagging and deletion policy understanding. Here you marked a BLP article as patrolled and then added a total of four problem tags including {{unreferencedBLP}} which should have immediately made you think BLPROD. Ten minutes later an admin tagged it as such. I can only assume that a similar thing happened with the speedied article How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies, based on the talk page notification I am guessing you had either edited the article or added maintenance templates, and another user then realised it was a G12 and notified you as a contributor. If this is not what happened, please let me know and I will retract my false assumption. ^{retracted per below explanation} I'm also not entirely sure why you removed your BLPROD from Rick Parkinson to take it to AfD, I realise BLPROD is designed to 'augment' existing deletion processes rather than replace them, but the indecision exposes the fact you're still learning in these areas, and not as confident in your tagging as you should be to be granted admin tools. I note that you say you will read the manual and I realise everyone makes mistakes from time to time. I must stress, again, that your content work is really impressive and you are clearly a valuable asset to the project Jebus989^✰ 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the deleted article, let me explain - Catfish Jim also can (but I can see the deleted edits). You are correct, Catfish Jim did add {{cleanup}}, {{tone}} and {{uncategorized}} tags to article. However, another user, User:Djc wi tagged it as A1 - no context. Catfish Jim declined this CSD, with "sufficient information to indentify subject" as the reason, so User:Djc wi nominated it for AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies. This was at 07:48, April 27, 2011. 15 minutes later, at 08:03, April 27, 2011 User:Bob Castle, tagged it with {{copypaste | url=http://www.candycrate.com/sofcenchoc.html}} . It was then Catfish who was the first user to suggest it for G12 for copyright infringement on the AFD page [1]. Therefore, this shows that after being made aware of the copyright infringement, Catfish showed his knowledge of CSD and he was the first person to suggest deletion at the AFD page. I hope this clears up the situation, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. The Helpful One 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these particular examples. My treatment of these new pages were not a case of indecision, but rather my attempt use policy to best fit the circumstances. With Jeff McComsey, I was confronted with a page about a comic book artist I have heard of and a brand new editor. I felt it unnecessary in this particular instance to bite the newcomer by placing a PROD template on the page and that tagging it {{unreferencedBLP}} was a softer option. In the case of Rick Parkinson, after I had carried out some further research on the subject, I found that a book mentioned in the article does indeed exist, albeit self-published. Rather than invite the original contributor to cite the book and then take it to AFD, I decided the kindest option was to take it straight to AFD, given my concerns about the subject's lack of notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In response, I would say adding 4 maintenance templates to an article in as many minutes since creation is little less bitey than a BLPROD, at least the BLPROD notice gives a clear explanation of what is wrong, how to fix it, and in what timeframe (plus TW posts to the user's talk page). Especially adding tags like {{uncategorised}} when, as you say you were familiar with the article subject, it would have been just as easy to add a category. In the second instance, I would say researching sources should come before adding a PROD in every case. Nonetheless, the willingness to learn and ask advice that you're showing in this RfA is a desirable trait for a new admin and I'm now leaning towards neutral Jebus989^✰ 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right on the biteyness and, yes, I'm still trying to get the right balance. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is such a minor oppose point, and this interaction was handled so well, that I would be very disappointed if this did not become a Support. Andrevan@ 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that the categorisers are so good that I trust them the categorise more correctly and more efficiently that I would, even on articles I create. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

1. Oppose At AFD, he seems to rely upon his own opinion or the work of others rather than doing any legwork himself. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuds. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   Fixed formatting of oppose I understand your point, but that edit was over 6 months ago, you can learnt a lot in 6 months, do you have any more recent examples of this? Thanks, The Helpful One 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   There are probably lots of examples of this, although I tend to write comment now rather than weak keep. I usually do this when I can't find references but still have a stong gut feeling that there should be some... with an Asian punk band, there's a fair chance that reliable sources won't be in English and won't be covered by a normal English language internet search. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   The candidate has been editing for 3.5 years so six months ago seems just right for a sample. But here's a more recent example — a topic for which good sources can easily be found. It is to the candidate's credit that he withdraws without a fuss but I would prefer a higher standard of due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   With regard to the Wuds discussion, I did quite a bit of legwork and it was virtually impossible to find anything of value. Catfish Jim was actually going against the opinion of Timneu22 and myself that nothing much could be found, and I got the impression that he had been unsuccessful to as far as he had had time to go (but that he believed there might well be something there). This was all brought to a stop by the article turning out to be a copyvio. With the difficulty in finding reliable sources, I think we all could be excused from volunteering to rewrite it... Peridon (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   Although more time consuming, AfD is generally the safest way to decide if an article should be kept or deleted. It demonstrates more caution on the part of the tagger rather than rash CSD templating, and is even used by highly respected and extremely experienced admins when they are in doubt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Regretful Oppose, not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Neutral

Neutral leaning support(move back to support) - until candidate answers my question. mauchoeagle _(c) 18:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC):

Actually I'm curious about your question. I'm not objecting to it, but I don't fully understand it. It looks like you suspect that CJ&S switched ownership at some point, is there any reason to think that? (As someone currently supporting this candidacy I'd like to know.) Also, I don't understand what you mean by the last part of the question, are you asking him what he is planning to do with the admin tools, or what he would do if he ran into another account that changed to a different editor? -- Atama頭 20:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From my own perspective, I didn't get that impression from the question, but no... I created the account, only I have used it as far as I am aware (I don't believe I've ever left my account open in a situation where someone has been able to edit from it... I'm extremely careful about that) and this is the only account I have used (other than some from an IP when I couldn't log in). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral I'm impressed by your content edits but I've seen a number of problematic taggings when it comes to speedy deletion that prevent me from supporting the candidate receiving the ability to delete pages: G7 on user page blanked by the user, A7 for artist signed to notable label, A7 for major-party candidate with local newspaper coverage as a reference, A1 two minutes after creation, A7 one minute after creation with minor claims to importance, A1 when the user specifically clarified that the page is under construction (to be fair though, the candidate did realize their mistake afterwards). The candidate does seem to be able to correct some of such mistakes which is laudable but since those examples are all recent, I'm unable to support this request. Regards SoWhy 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   I'm disappointed that there are so many mistakes there... a couple of them I was aware of, but I'll have to take more care in my CSD tagging. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   Btw, I don't know if you want to hear it, but one of those taggings was mentioned as a negative example at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#overuse of speedy deletion recently. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   It would have been helpful if I'd heard about it before now. I said in my answer to question 1 that I don't always get it right, but I wasn't expecting quite so many recent examples of mistakes. As I said, disappointing. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   After reading seeing that the page was under construction, you can see that Catfish tagged it appropriately, removed the CSD template, added context, added a category and replied fairly nicely to the user to explain the situation. The G7 might have been better under U1, as the user blanked the page. OK, the early CSD tagging were a bit hasty, but there are a significant number of his deleted contributions which are CSD taggings that were deleted without any problems at all. The Helpful One 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   I just noticed that you already knew they corrected their mistakes, my apologies - but useful to anyone else reading. :) The Helpful One 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral (Moved to Support after question answered.) I see a lot of potential here. This issue about recent mistakes is potentially important. I see someone who "deserves" to have the mop, and seems proficient at using it. It just raises the question (to me): "Do I think it's useful to give someone the mop when they are making some of the mess?" I'm glad that you have noticed your mistakes, but I am concerned that this therefore relates to hasty decision making. Perhaps if you took more time over your decisions; your hasty tags, and mistakes (later caught) would be caught before you click "Save page" and you would save yourself a lot of hassle. I don't want a Sysop making decisions before they are all fully formed. I am willing to be persuaded to "support" however. Philip.t.day talk 11:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   (Responding as requested) Yes, I have made some mistakes, but I believe they represent a very small proportion of my overall contribution to New Pages Patrol (even if it's a larger proportion than I would like). There have been recent discussions in New Pages Patrol about how to improve the quality of CSD tagging as there exists a problem of unacceptably high levels of inaccuracy, particularly from inexperienced editors. I'd like to think I wasn't one of those who cause concern and that my level of accuracy was one of the highest. I invite admins who regularly close CSD nominations to comment. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   Although I'm not going to contact any as I don't feel comfortable indulging in anything that might be seen as canvassing. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   Per User:Peridon, Pushing and trying boundaries are part of learning. When you get the power to actually do it, you pause more to think....... I believe this is exactly the case with this user. The problem with this is that you can only see the edits that didn't get where the user has made mistakes, and we've all made mistakes on CSD taggings. If you could have a look at the CSD taggings that were deleted, you'll see that the user clearly understands CSD policy on a whole, including A7 tagging. The Helpful One 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. I opened this up before seeing Catfish's comments, but didn't save as I had to go AFK.

   The fear of doing something wrong, or even bad enough to lose the tools again makes a new admin extremely diligent. We need to look at the broader picture: if he were getting 10% of his CSD tags wrong, that would be serious, but I would accept 1% to be par for the course even for some experienced admins. A couple of editors have been doing some in-depth research into the quality of NPP over the last 5 months, and we can all rest assured that Jim's tagging is the least of our worries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   Since I got my mop, I've been doing quite a bit of deleting at CSD. There are some editors whose name being in the history gives me a feeling of relief, that I won't have to work hard on checking that nomination out. (Still have to check briefly...) It was the same before on Recent Accounts patrol. If I saw Catfish Jim on a nomination I knew I didn't have to take more than a quick look to check the tag was right and didn't need removing or changing. (Certain names used to fill me with dread, and the thought "Oh ye gods, that b*****'s online tonight...".) Peridon (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   Incorrect speedies has been a little hobby horse of mine since I spent some time a couple of years back processing CSDs, often finding that by the time I'd ascertained an article wasn't speediable another admin had speedied it. Nonetheless errors in tagging cause (or should cause) less of a problem that errors in deleting, and I would not find this a reason not to support this candidate. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC).