Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Theleftorium: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:18, 16 June 2009 editThe Thing That Should Not Be (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers167,531 edits Supporting← Previous edit Revision as of 21:38, 16 June 2009 edit undoOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Oppose: more dishonest contentNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 82: Line 82:
#:: 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). ''']''' 21:05, 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). ''']''' 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 (]): "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...." 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. ] (]) 21:14, 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 (]): "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...." 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. ] (]) 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 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. ] (]) 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." 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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages for any page. ] (]) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


=====Neutral===== =====Neutral=====

Revision as of 21:38, 16 June 2009

Theleftorium

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:29, 23 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 (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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. -- Scorpion 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)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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: , , and .
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 (), 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 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.

General comments

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

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! 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)
  8. 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 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support Great user. Plenty of worthwhile contributions. Meetare Shappy 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Insane temperament. He never gets angry or annoyed, even when dealing with articles! ceranthor 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support; one of our most productive editors. –Juliancolton |  19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely - article contributions utterly top notch, temperament seems sound. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. 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. Gran 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. 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 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support. I just hope there is a left-handed mop. Law type! snype? 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. 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 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support No problems here. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. make it soDlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Engage Until It Sleeps 21:18, 16 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...." 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." 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 Misplaced Pages for any page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 16 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 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 |  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. -- Scorpion 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)