Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theleftorium

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

Theleftorium

Final (41/14/8): Withdrawn by nominee [1] 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Theleftorium (talk · contribs) – It's been a while since I've nominated anyone for adminship, no question about that. Well, what kind of user would it take to bring me out of nomination retirement? The answer is right here, in Theleftorium. Since he joined the site in March 2008, he has racked up 10,000 edits, and it's spread just perfectly over all the namespaces, with a nice but not overwhelming majority of the edits being in the mainspace. I know that you guys like your article writers as admins, and here's one of our most productive. He's a major contributor to The Simpsons Wikiproject, writing a truckload of nice articles relating to the show. He also has 71 GA's, an FL, 3 FA's (The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, The Simpsons Game, The Simpsons Hit & Run), and not all of them are Simpsons-related, so he has varied interests, and is able to write on more then just a narrow area. Although he mainly brings article writing to the table, he does participate in elsewhere where an admin would need to. He makes reasoned votes in deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Lightspeed), and in his work uploading images for Simpsons episodes, he has shown a good grasp of our non free content policy. He is courteous in discussions, knowledgeable on everything that he needs to be, and I know for a fact that he'll make a great administrator. Wizardman 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by IMatthew

A short while back, Theleftorium added his name to the contestants list for the WikiCup. I hadn't looked into the contestants contributions before the competition began, so I didn't know what to expect from some of those editors I had never met before. After the first round, a few editors really popped out in my eyes. Theleftorium was certainly one of them. Theleftorium is an exceptional content editor, and has a pile of featured and good credits to support that. In addition to the FA/FL/GAs mentioned by Wizardman, he's written five DYKs, reviewed a lot of good article nominations, and successfully nominated four featured/good topics. However, like Wizardman mentioned, he also participates in other areas of Wikipedia, such as AfD (list of AfDs he participated in). Theleftorium has the rollback flag, and is a recent changes and new pages patroller. Like Wizardman, I'm confident that Theleftorium will make the community proud, and prove to be a net positive. – (iMatthew • talk) at 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Co-co-nomination by Scorpion0422

This is the first time I have ever nominated (or co-nominated) anyone, and I would have gladly done it sooner if I had known he was interested. I first encountered TheLeftorium back in August. I am a member of the Simpsons WikiProject (shameless plug), and we are often looking for users who will stick around and help us out. Few actually do, but TheLeftorium was an exception. When he decided to start working on pages about episodes of The Simpsons, I figured it would be a pain for me, because I would have to go back and correct spelling errors and bring it to standard. Instead, he set a new standard for Simpson episoide GAs and many of them blew the older ones out of the water. Lefty has continued to work hard on articles about The Simpsons, as well as other television series and has worked in several different fields of featured content, including GA, FA, FL, FT and GT. He has also proven to be a good reviewer, and I wish we could see him more at FLC (another shameless plug). He is very much a team player and I have never seen him get mad (which is a miracle when you're around me) and he rarely complains. A perfect example of this is File:Lisasmall2.gif. I needed a gif to illustrate some text in an article that was very difficult to understand, so I asked Lefty to help out. He very quickly agreed, and posted a sample image off-wiki... Which I quickly rejected. He continued to make fixes to the gif, in some cases major, and kept uploading it and patiently waited for my approval. When there was a version I thought was perfect, he uploaded it, and I soon discovered something else that needed fixing. Long story short, he eventually had it to a version I liked, but I was amazed at how patient he was, when he had to keep devoting time to this image in an article he wasn't working on. That's the kind of editor Lefty is, and that's why he'd make a great administrator. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you all for your kind words, I accept the nomination. TheLeftorium 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please withdraw this request for adminship. I have learned a lot and will continue to improve my contributions, especially by getting more knowledge about the non-free content criteria and other copyright policies, and by removing all original research from the articles I have worked on. Thanks to everyone who participated, and thanks to Wizardman, iMatthew, and Scorpion0422 for nominating me. I'm sorry I let you down. TheLeftorium 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If I become an admin, I plan on helping out with the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I have quite a lot of experience with the criteria for speedy deletion, and I often patrol new pages and tag the appropriate articles for deletion with Twinkle. I'm also familiar with the proposed deletion process, having proposed the deletion of several articles myself, so I intend to work there as well. I'd also like to do some work in the administrative backlogs related to images, mostly CAT:NT and deleting old revisions of images at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old that don't comply with WP:NFCC 3(b), which I have some experience with, as Wizardman pointed out. I do, of course, plan on working in more areas in the future, but I don't have any intention of jumping into any particular areas that I'm unfamiliar with. As I get more experience, I'd like to help out with closing old discussions at AfD, moving pages at WP:Requested moves, and blocking vandals at WP:AVI (I have reported a few user there with Huggle). Having said that, I will not abandon editing articles, and I will still spend a large amount of my time here on improving articles to featured/good article status.

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

A: I am mostly proud of my contributions to the WikiProject The Simpsons and the project's featured topic drive, an effort to get episodes of The Simpsons to good or featured topic status. I have also significantly contributed to articles not related to The Simpsons that I'm quite proud of, such as Eragon, Are U 4 Real?, The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, South Park (season 1), Pilot (Will & Grace), extreme points of Sweden, and most recently, national parks of Sweden. I have recently gotten more involved with Articles for Deletion, especially about television and film articles. I’m particularly proud of these votes: [2], [3], and [4].

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: I'm a pretty calm guy so I haven't been involved in many conflicts. The worst thing I can think of is a small conflict I had with User:Permethius, a member of the Pokémon WikiProject, which I am a member of too. I wouldn't exactly call it a conflict, but he caused me a lot of stress that could have lead to a conflict. It all started when he nominated Bulbasaur for FA status (here). When I voted oppose, he accused me of hating Pokémon (which I don’t) and ruining the Pokémon project and its articles (see discussion here). We continued to argue in some sections on the project's talk page whether or not to create articles for Pokémon I consider to be non-notable. Eventually I decided to let him create them as I felt stressed and I didn't want a conflict, and the arguments stopped. A month later he created the article Bulbasaur evolutionary line, which was nominated for deletion (here). I voted merge and Permethius added a comment that said "Left is against anything I do anymore". I didn't want him to feel this way, so I added a positive comment to his talkpage ([5]), which he still hasn't replied to. So what I'm trying to say is that if I get stressed by a user, I will take a small break (a few days) from editing the article edited by that user to avoid a conflict, and then return when I have cooled down so that we can "discuss it like adults".

Optional Questions from Spitfire

4. You say that you plan to do work in the CSD area, if you, as an admin, came across a page which only had a {{inuse}} tag on it, and a {{db-context}} tag, and the page had been unedited for ten minutes, and had been created by a completely new user, what action would you take?

A: Since Template:Inuse/doc says an {{inuse}} template should only stay up for two hours if no edits are made, I’d wait until two hours after the tag was placed on the page to take any action. If no edits were made in the two hours, I’d delete the page and leave a comment on the user’s talkpage explaining why I deleted the page and letting him/her know that if s/he wants to work on an article in his/her own pace s/he could start a sandbox in his/her userspace.

5. Same question, but this time a user who had been around for 6 months, but who has no GAs, FAs or DYKs.

A: I believe a new user should be treated equally to a user who has been a member for 6 months so I have to give the same answer as in Q4.

Great answer, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Optional Question from T'Shael

6. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?

A: As I said in my answer to Q1, I don’t plan on blocking any users anytime soon. But yes, if necessary, I’d be willing to make a difficult block. The only information I give away on the Internet is my first name, my age, and the country I live in, so it would be pretty hard for the blocked user to track me down. Unless the blocked user is from Sweden (where I live), it would be pretty hard for him/her to carry out any offline stalking.

One More Question from Spitfire

7. Going through your contribs I have noted that you rarely send a warning to users when you revert their edits manually, could you please explain this? Thanks

A: Good question, I haven’t really thought about that. I guess I chose not to warn them because I felt my comments in the edit summary were enough. But now that you mention it, I should give away "warnings" in cases like this, and I will definitely do it from now on.

Optional Question from kotra

8. You say you want to work in WP:NFCC areas. However, an off-wiki website you say you used to run does not fill me with confidence that you understand copyright law. Could you explain why that website does not infringe on copyright, or explain how you treat copyright differently in Wikipedia?

A: I fully understand that my old website violates copyright law, but I chose to take the risk of "being sued" by creating that website in 2006. (I doesn't really matter, as it is still breaking the law, but there used to be a copyright notice on the website in the previous designs (see this for example), but I seem to have forgotten include it in the current one). In October 2008, I received a cease and desist letter from Fox Broadcasting Company asking me to shut down the website. I asked my webhost for his opinion, and he told me not to worry because many Simpsons websites have received C&Ds over the years and even though they have all decided to ignore them (NoHomers.net, for example), Fox still hasn’t taken any legal actions. But I still feared that I would be sued (I assume that's what happens), and the reason I stopped updating the website is because of the cease and desist letter. I’m certainly not an egoist, so I would never treat copyright laws like this on Wikipedia, as the whole community would suffer from the site being forced to be taken down, and not just me. I also believe I have learned a lot more about copyright law the last half year since I stopped updating that site, and I will learn even more as time goes by.

Optional Question from Black Kite

8a. Leading on from Kotra's question, could you explain how images that you have uploaded such as File:Bart's Dog Gets an F 2.png and File:THOH IV 03.png pass WP:NFCC#8?

A: I'm not an expert on that criterion but I believe File:THOH IV 03.png passes NFCC#8 because the appearance of the Gremlin is discussed in the production section: "Oakley said there was a lot of work put into the design of the gremlin in "Terror at 5½ Feet" to make him scary "within The Simpsons universe".[8] Silverman based the gremlin on The Grinch.[7] Mirkin said he felt the gremlin was well-done because it looks scary and "yet it looks like a completely organic Simpsons character." File:Bart's Dog Gets an F 2.png is borderline but I think it passes NFCC#8 because it significantly increased my understanding of the topic, and I think it will help other readers as well. The text only states "At the end of the episode, the eventual fate of the various dogs in the class are captioned at the bottom of the screen, a reference to the ending of the film National Lampoon's Animal House," if I had not seen the image I wouldn't have understood what this meant. (It might have been a good idea to include an image of National Lampoon as well so that you can compare both scenes.) But that is just my opinion and I could be wrong, so feel free to nominate them for deletion if you don't agree.

For the first, the article isn't about the Gremlin, so doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 - if the gremlin had its own article then a non-free image may be reasonable. For the second, you've just answered your own question - the text explained the issue, and so it didn't need the image as well (this also fails WP:NFCC#1). Furthermore, since the information isn't vital to the article - it's only trivia, really - it doesn't justify a non-free image. These were only two examples, though - there are many more in your history, including many that are used in the infoboxes of episode articles where it looks as if any old screenshot has been placed there rather than one that actually improves the reader's understanding, and non-free images used in multiple articles (overuse). Your answer to Q8 doesn't fill me with confidence, either. Thus, I can't support at this time. Sorry. Black Kite 08:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I don't know much about NFCC#8 (even though I've seen discussions such as this one), so I was kind of expecting that. :) Now that I read your explanations, I agree that most of the images I have uploaded to the episode articles don’t pass NFCC#8. (I must say, though, that they are much better than the images I replaced them with, which were even more far away from passing NFCC#8). If my request for adminship fails, this is definitely something I will try to work on and learn more about. Do you think the image in Colonel Homer passes NFCC#8? I spent more effort on that one.

Yet Another Optional Question from Spitfire

9. Could you talk a little bit on the opinion you express in this edit summary: 1 and this 2 please? Please do not refer policy (ie, say what your opinion is right now, not what your opinion is after re-reading the guide-lines on this) Thank you

A: The lead is a summary of the article and references are therefore not needed, as the information is referenced further down in the article. References in the lead are only necessary for controversial information, not Nielsen Ratings or "comparison between Sideshow Bob and Wile E. Coyote". Again, as I said Q7, I should have given warnings to the users or explain better on their talk page why I reverted their edits, which I’ve started doing every time since you first brought it up (and will continue to do in the future).

Okey-dokey, thanks for the answer, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Yes, I believe Wikipedians have rights. Many of our policies and guidelines can be treated as rights. For example, every user has the right to be treated civilly, and no user should have to suffer from personal attacks or harassments. If I see one user (or IP) making harassments to another user, I will talk to that person (or leave a warning) and let her/him know that such behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia. The user has the right to defend herself/himself from being blocked by stopping the harassments. If not, a block is needed, and thus their right to edit is removed. I always try to assume good faith, and I welcome new editors as often as I can, even if they have made edits that are against some of Wikipedia’s policies.

Another right most users have is the right to vanish, though it should only be used by users who wish to leave permanently, and not as a fresh start. In most cases, only users in good standing with Wikipedia have the right to vanish. Users also have the right to fork anything on Wikipedia, though they do not have the right to claim copyright of their contributions. Once you save the page, all text added is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), and therefore allow others to freely copy your work.

Questions from Tony1

Three below, but first I want to emphasise how important Black Kite's questions above on NFCC are. It would greatly benefit the project if all admin candidates had a reasonable idea of the management of non-free content—and BK is the master at it. A supplementary question might be: How will the license transition that occurred yesterday, from GFDL to Creative Commons BY-SA, affect WPians and their readers? It's probably an unfair question, though, so you don't have to answer it!

11. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A:

12. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page? An example of such a codification is here.

A:

13. What is your view on encouraging an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil as an alternative to blocking, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor, and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol)? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases? Tony (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. – (iMatthew • talk) at 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Wizardman 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support VX!^talk 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Yep! - Very strong candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
5. (edit conflict)Support He's not an admin?! LittleMountain5 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. I was seriously just looking at his work earlier today, wondering about a potential RFA. He does good work, he's dedicated, knows policies and procedures. Excellent candidate. Useight (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Weak support Plenty of good content work, and in my limited interactions with him has shown a good temperament. I'd appreciate more sustained and meaningful comments at AfD, on the other hand many of the AfD's he has participated in are pretty cut and dry. This isn't enough to make me go neutral, so I'll support. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) move to neutral. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Support Great user. Plenty of worthwhile contributions. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Insane temperament. He never gets angry or annoyed, even when dealing with articles! ceranthor 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support; one of our most productive editors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Absolutely - article contributions utterly top notch, temperament seems sound. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Not only did he join The Simpsons Wikiproject, he stayed, quickly became one of our best editors (certainly better and more fequent than I am!) and not only that, but has proved himself more than capable in a range of other article, non-article and policy areas. He is also one of the calmest users I have ever seen, which helps a great deal. Gran² 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support as he has an excellent record as an editor and has made the project better by being here. I see nothing which indicates the tools would be abused (rather, the complete opposite). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I just hope there is a left-handed mop. Law _{type! snype?} 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Weak Support: Sure, Theleftorium has made some brilliant content related edits, but I would like to see more behind the scenes action. I support because Theleftorium says that they plan to work mainly in CSD areas, and as articles are their main area of enterprise that makes sense, also solid answers to my questions. I would not suggest that you start patrolling AIV until you get some serious experience in the recent changes, but as you don't seem to be planning to patrol AIV or block users at all I give this my weak support. Also I suggest you thoroughly review WP:CSD twice after (if) you receive the mop, not because I doubt that you know it already, but because administrators who work in the new pages should have an intimate understanding of that policy, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support No problems here. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
17. make it soDlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Engage Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Great contributions, and seems to have the right temperament for an admin. Jafeluv (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

19. Support Theleftorium does good work all around. I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Good work in all areas. -download ׀ sign! 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL, although I would point out that there's more to life than the Simpsons... ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Damn, Law beat me to the "left-handed mop" comment. Strong support, I've always been impressed with his work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support As per Wizardman and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Absolutely.--Giants27 (t|c) 02:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support per the noms. — Lost^(talk) 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Strong positive contributor to the project. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - good content contributor and speedy work shows only minor flaws (like an A7 for a member of a notable band). The concerns raised are completely unconvincing. The personal viewpoint about the worthiness of episode-articles does not change the fact that they are held to exactly the same standards in a GA or FA review. The work needed and skill needed to bring Treehouse of Horror IV to GA-class is the same as doing it with Messerschmitt Bf 109. The copyright concerns are unfounded in the candidate's contributions and I notice that while Black Kite challenged uploads of the candidate in his question, they have not sought deletion of those images (which would be they appropriate thing to do if they really failed NFCC #8). As such, I see no valid concerns that would give me a reason to oppose this candidate. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Both images oompletely fail WP:NFCC#8, as do a large number of the editor's other image contributions, but I felt it would be unfair to other people wishing to comment if I immediately removed them from the article, thus stopping people from seeing how inappropriate they were as regards the criteria I quoted. I certainly will be removing them from the articles after this RfA has finished. Black Kite 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think the correct approach would be WP:FFD anyway and thus it would not affect this RFA at all to nominate them for deletion as there are valid arguments to be made (as the candidate has shown) that they pass NFCC #8. Regards SoWhy 09:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    As I've said above, policy does not agree that they are valid arguments, and also these two are only a small fraction of the problematic images uploaded by this user. Black Kite 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

29. Support From my look I think Theleftorium will make a fine admin, not persuaded by the opposes. Davewild (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support clearly dedicated. Can learn on the job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting vote by sockpuppet. Aditya ^α _ß 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support. — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting vote by sockpuppet. Aditya ^α _ß 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

31. As reviewer of one of the articles identified as problematic, I'll apologize and accept my share of criticism for failing to identify violations of policy, with a note that non-interpretative claims that are verifiable by the primary source do not constitute OR. What I cannot accept is the idea that a single editor is somehow responsible for all the problems in an article they contributed to. Nevertheless, Theleftorium has already started to address the concerns raised, and has even offered to withdraw from the WikiCup. Hence, Support. decltype (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support No reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. hmwithτ 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Support per the usual suspects banding together for "Strong" Oppose votes. Vodello (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    The usual suspects? Niiiice. It's always good to see such a clear and happy application of AGF in action, instead of reading the actual arguments. You , on the other hand do not even show any reason for your support. Should I in turn suggest your support is a valid reason for opposing per usual suspects banning together to support? -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I agree. Please judge the candidate himself, not the noms, not the other voters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

34. Support Theleftorium's tireless contributions show a clear devotion to the project. I was watching all the Bulbasaur nonsense, and the way he handled himself made a very strong impression on me. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - trustworthy editor. Mostly agree with Black Kite about understanding the WP:NONFREE policy, however, in this case, I don't consider it sufficient reason to oppose. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Theleftorium is a great editor, and has done a tremendous amount of work for WP:Doh and I am confident that hard work will carry over to admin duties. CTJF83Talk 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose because of Ottava Rima- Hell no, I mean Strong Support - Most of the details brought up here is more like building a personal vendetta against TheLeftorium. I therefore find the judgement in honor of support and in the amount of adminship.Mitch/HC32 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. NW (Talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support I love that squirrel pic on your user page. He is so funny! Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    To clarify, is the squirrel pic your reason for supporting, or is that an unrelated comment? -kotra (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

40. Support per Rima. No, really, if those are Theleftorium's only flaws, he's got to be good. How does it relate to admin job? Beats me, but I see no harm here at all.NVO (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I am willing the ignore the "so called flaws" over trust to use the tools wisely -- Tinu Cherian - 04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Many of the supporters above say that the articles are top notch. The RfA uses it as a primary basis for justifying RfA. From my experience, the articles, for the most part, don't deserve their status at FA, GA, etc. Sourcing tends to be borderline non-reliable or flat out non-reliable, coverage of the sources is inadequate, and many other problems. Sorry, but the truth is you produce quantity over quality and you surround yourself with people that push it through processes. Without the content, your record is completely empty and there is just no reason to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Case in point example, Eragon - Poor sources: AdventureTravelLogue, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, About.com, etc. This shows a really poor understanding of WP:V. At Are U 4 Real? we have imdb being used as a source. These are user generated groups and ones with really bad reputations at that. These are the ones he is boasting about as his best work. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   He said he was "proud" of them, not claiming them as his best work. There is always GAR if you feel Eragon is not worthy of the status it possesses. Rotten Tomatoes however is definitely a reliable source (it's like the MetaCritic of film) and the others may well be also (I don't edit film articles so wouldn't be able to tell you). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   The section was "What are your best contributions". Rotten Tomatoes has user generated content and has very little in terms of editorial selection. I have seen many pages deemed not meeting WP:RS. Then there are entries like this in his FA (The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II): "Although the main text of Tolkien's novel, the film trilogy, and the first game focuses on the Fellowship of the Ring, the campaign in BFME2 highlights events that have not been portrayed in film....[9]" That citation is to the original book. Yes, the original book is a reliable source for a video game that was made 50 years after, and the book a reliable source for Electronic Arts that was established a long time after. This is pure original research, and yet passed FA. Most of his pages he lists are filled with poor sourcing, original research, and other problems. As a content editor, I am disgusted by this disregard for WP:V, WP:OR, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   This is flat out dishonest - "Units are classified into one of several classes: infantry, ranged, pikemen, cavalry, or siege." cited to this page. The term "classes" does not appear. "Infantry" does not appear. "Ranged" does not appear. "Pikemen" does not appear. "Cavalry" actually does appear. "Seige" does not appear. This is blatant original research hidden behind an actual source that no one was willing to verify and this got passed off. This is just as bad as plagiarism. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   More original researched passed off as legitimate: "Hero units are unique in that only one of each can be created; they consist of characters from the novel, such as Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Saruman, Nazgûl, and Shelob, or are created via the game's Hero Creator.[5]" After checking through the source, names like "Aragorn" aren't listed at all. The closest thing to the line from the source ("Each side has its own set of special abilities and a roster of heroes that includes just about everyone from the films (plus a hero creator that lets you write your own Tolkien fiction)." from here) clearly differs from what is stated above via "movie" and not "novel". It appears as if the editor of the article just randomly threw down sources without even attempting to find out if they cited what was said or not. This is not FA standard, let alone what is acceptable at Wikipedia for any page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   So what you are saying is that you are likely to stick with your oppose? Law _{type! snype?} 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Correct. I am listing the LotR page at FAR and I am going to talk to the organizers at the WikiCup to make sure that his entries are more thoroughly checked for blatant policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Given your concerns that would seem like the appropriate thing to do. Law _{type! snype?} 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   In addition to the above, I placed concerns about his recent GAs used in the WikiCup here. It seems that he has violated WP:OR, WP:V, and committed in one provable instance direct plagiarism in quickly putting forth articles for the cup. This is very problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'd just like to take a second to point out that the so-called plagiarism in Lisa the Iconoclast was added by a different user: [6]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   And Bart's Dog Gets an F [7] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   As "his" GA for the WikiCup, he is responsible for the content within it. The oversite along with the other problems is very problematic. He cannot be trusted with the tools if he can't even abide by our basic policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Be that as it may, you tried to make it look like he directly added plagiarism, which he didn't. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Did I? No, I stated that he sides with how great his content is and that his content has blatant violations of policy and guidelines. That only verifies that he does not actually check what he works on or puts in problems himself. Either way, it is a serious problem that makes him unfit for adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - No shown need for the tools. Don't get me wrong, this is a very evenheaded, mature, good editor. But he's not a wikignoming type. Not enough AfD participation for my taste. Also, the last points of Ottava Rima's points about references make me slightly uncomfortable. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   WP:NONEED –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   WP:NO-NO. Please don't throw essays at me like they mean something. I do not see that this user needs the tools, and I listed other reasons as well. If you're going to badger oppose voters, please do so with reasons instead of wikilinks. You're making me more rather than less likely to change my !vote. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   I don't badger, I engage in discussion. Further response at your talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   I personally feel that it's not a valid reason to oppose. Many people do, so it's whatever. However, I feel Theleftorium explained well why he wants to help out with the tools with his answer to question 1. – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Making comments that consist of nothing but a link to an essay the person has probably already read... that's not what I personally consider engaging in discussion. Does anything productive ever come out of hurling those shortcuts at people who are already familiar with them? It just antagonizes people. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose Thank you for your contributions and good work. I think Admins take on special responsibilities and need to be held to high standards. I am concerned about your maturity and judgment. I just didn't find a strong command of Wikipedia's core values or an appropriate emphasis on what I think are the essential needs of encyclopedia building demonstrated by your answers, article contributions, and other edits. Without getting into details I refer to the quality of content, sourcing, images, and communication skills. Obviously many editors disagree and have a different set of standards than I do. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose Since I posted my question (8a), I have looked at the rest of the editor's image uploads and contributions. Even though the idea of the Free Encyclopedia is largely ignored by many editors these days, we certainly don't need an administrator whose contribution history is liberally sprinkled with WP:NFCC violations, and who regularly uses non-free images as decoration rather than to illustrate information that could not be transmitted in any other way. Admins need to follow policy - this editor clearly doesn't understand this particular policy. Black Kite 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'm going to have to agree with Ottava Rima. While they are certainly representative of a larger problem, two particular content issues cause me grave concern about the candidate's judgment. First, the FA The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II. It is currently at FAR, where I studied the sources and am simply aghast at how badly they've been applied. Second, I was recently privy to the appearance of Starvin' Marvin (South Park) at FAC, its primary editor emboldened by its quick passage through the GA process. The article was overtly subpar, so much so that I investigated how it could have even passed GA. I encountered this startlingly sparse GA review, completed by the Theleftorium. While the article is now much improved, the GA review ignored glaring problems and it's hard to believe the article was examined in any depth. I'm not questioning Theleftorium's good faith—but the candidate displays a lack of judgment and ability to read and apply criteria. I cannot trust this person to be an administrator. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose - User is certainly thoughtful, civil, hardworking, and a great asset to the project. I was more or less satisfied by the answer to my question (Q8). However, due to the concerns raised by Black Kite in Q8a (and follow-up), coupled with the user's intention to work in WP:NFCC areas, I am not confident this user would uphold Wikipedia's strict copyright rules as an admin. Also, I am concerned by the sourcing issues raised by Ottava Riva. Would happily support next time, given even slight improvement in these two areas. -kotra (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The candidate is completely uninterested in the copyrights of others (answer to Q8). This does not suggest that he will treat any of the other rights of contributors here with any more respect. I prefer not to give power and authority to a person with this cavalier attitude. Groomtech (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   If you are already opposing, why did you ask the candidate your usual question? – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   To explain my concern to the candidate and give him an opportunity to make a further statement which might change my !vote. Groomtech (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, thanks. – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Ottava's highlighting of some worrying issues regarding sourcing and the application of content policies. Coldmachine^Talk 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per lack of useful experience in the project space. I don't find anything to counter that in your contributions.--Koji† 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose although I've supported "content builders" running for Adminship, Ottava Rima has brought up the very strong rationale that I can not ignore. --Caspian blue 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Lack of admin related participation in the project namespace - luke warm understanding of FAC and GAC and some misleading content "trophies". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Changing to oppose. Issues pointed out by Ottawa Rima make me slightly worried, but not enough to oppose on that basis only. However, Q8 and Q8a really made it for me. How on Earth is your website still there, even after a C&D from the copyright holder? Your only concern seems to be being "sued", instead of considering the right of the copyright holder to decide where their material is allowed to be used. These issues seem to affect your article work as well, as can be seen in your answer to Q8a. Nobody is expected to know all the rules before editing, but as such a prolific file uploader (and as an admin candidate) you should definitely know better. I'm sorry, but I can't support. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Totally cavalier about copyright concerns; we can't have that in an admin. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Q8 and Q8a are a no-go for me in particular for someone who wants to work on WP:NFCC issues. MLauba (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but I feel the need to register a pro-forma objection here. I do not feel that an editor who has written all those articles about Simpsons episodes should be wielding the do-not-delete button, when I would argue that so many of his "good" articles should be transwikied or one-paragraph stubs in massive compilation articles. Beyond that, fair use image concerns. But, since I believe I am outside of the consensus of this site on this issue (massive fancruft about TV series and what not), I won't pollute this RFA with an oppose. Best of luck with the tools, please don't abuse the ability to decline speedies and close AFD's as keep/NC. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   I just wanted to point out that admins close discussions very day where they may not agree with the consensus. I've done it many times where I think the article should likely be kept or deleted, but the consensus says otherwise. Perhaps asking the candidate if he was willing to go with consensus even in cases where he may not agree with the decision would be a better option here than expressing concern over a possibility for which I can see no evidence. Theleftorium hasn't given any indication that he would go against consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. I consider myself to be a strong inclusionist, yet I've deleted nearly 8,000 pages in my time as an admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   If your editing history pre-RFA mainly consisted of getting articles that I believe the encyclopedia would be better without to GA/FA status and I noticed it, I would have neutralled you as well. That I recognize my falability is why I choose not to oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   If he had shown any prolectivity to go against consensus I would have opposed. I find that asking questions that basically read "If a hard situation came up, would you do the right thing, or the wrong thing?" seems to reveal that everyone has the courage to do the right thing, right up until the situation actually comes up. Finally, I don't feel like putting TL in a Kobayashi Maru situation of asking him either A. "Are Simpsons Episodes inherrently notable" or B. "If an AFD comes up with a "Delete, NN" consensus for an inherently notable article, would you ignore it?" I am unwilling to ask those questions because there is NO answer to the first one that would lead me not to Oppose this candidate ("Oh, so why have you wasted so much time on totally NN articles we should be merging?" or "Wrong, they are certainly not inherently notable." / "Oh, so you thing IAR is dead then?" or "Why are you disregarding the consensus of editors that a topic is NN"). Thus, because there is no good solution to the problem, but I don't have any Archtransit fears, I choose to remain neutral but express my concerns. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Do you really need to belittle his contributions? So he edits Simpsons articles and happens to be good at it. It doesn't make him a bad editor or mean he would be an unfit administrator. You may not like articles about The Simpsons, but it doesn't mean he is wasting his time by improving them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Is it the lack of opposers that is leading to the badgering of a neutral? Voters have all week to dissect dissenters, so could we let this perfectly rational neutral go? Law _{type! snype?} 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   (ec x lots) I tried to avoid doing that by !voting neutral. I recognize the value that the community places on TL's contributions and because he has added so much to the community, I respect that. His efforts have clearly improved what he, and the consensus of other editors believe the encyclopedia should be. That I personally believe his efforts have not done so with any substance is merely a difference of opinion. Beling all of that, however, is the certain fact that his contributions have done dramatically more for both his preferred encyclopedia, my preferred encyclopedia and the communities preferred encyclopedia than my terrible contributions have. For that, I salute him, and, like I said at the beginning, I wish him the best of luck. I, however, lack complete faith that he will wield the do-not-delete button in ways that I would prefer it be wielded. Now, could someone please actually oppose this candidate so that the cacophony of HOW DARE YOU !VOTE NEUTRALS get off my back? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please all remember this is just a neutral comment. It's not an oppose. Please move on, – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Ottava's concerns, I cannot conscientiously support at this time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Ottava. Unaddressed sourcing concerns. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral This isn't FAR and content is content, but some concerns exist about understanding of NFCC and so forth. Will watch and review as time goes by. Seems like a pretty agreeable fellow otherwise, though. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning support per above. One two three... 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral Positive interactions with the candidate, but after reading Ottava's oppose I can't support. Aditya ^α _ß 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   We need more admins, but NFCC is a big thing these days. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) changed to oppose.

7. Neutral - needs to demonstrate better approach to copyright and referencing. The "doesn't need the tools" argument doesn't sit well with me, because Wikipedia definitely needs more admins, even if they will use the tools sparingly. No objection and leaning toward support. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Concerns regarding NFCC and sourcing leave me just on this side of supporting. Shereth 16:42, 17 June 2009 (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.