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


Mr. Lefty[edit]

Final (70/4/4) Ended 00:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty (talk · contribs) – Well, I've been registered here since January, editing actively since March, with around 7000 edits to my name. My first RfA failed due to concerns about inexperience, but I hope that I've allayed those and any other concerns that anyone may have had. I consider myself civil and helpful, with no edit warring or vandalism in my contributions. I enjoy doing maintenance work, such as cleaning up vandalism, stub sorting, and AfD, which I believe will prepare me well for administrative duties. Thanks to everyone in advance for voicing their opinion! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The main things I would do would be, of course, AIV and CSD (even with all the admins watching them, they still get backlogged), and I would also close XfDs. I'd also like to help out on WP:RFPP and WP:RM. Finally, I would also be willing to help with the perpetual image deletion backlog (hooray!). However, if anything else was asked of me, I would be more than willing to do it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: All of them are valuable to me in some way, since they further the growth of Wikipedia. I'm afraid you'll find no 1FA here, since most of my work consists of article cleanup, RC patrol, stub sorting, and other WikiGnome stuff. However, I do make the occasional major expansion; Tower Bridge (California) is a good example of an article I've worked to expand. I also contribute to the Super Smash Bros. Melee article, which mainly involves removing rumors and fancruft. One more thing that I'm proud of is my helping and welcoming new users. After all, we were all newbies once.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've actually had a relatively peaceable experience here at Wikipedia. Of course, I've had my userpage vandalized, and had attacks made on me by vandals, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'd also be an aspiring cabalist, if the cabal existed, that is. </clichéd joke> To avoid edit wars, I hold myself to a strict one-revert rule; if I get reverted, I discuss it with the reverter before making any other changes. A good example of this was on the policy debate article, where I changed a term to what I thought was the correct term, but I was reverted by Savidan. After discussing it with him, we eventually came to a compromise. This is how I do and will handle myself in conflicts.
Question from Andeh
4. Do I know you from somewhere? Your name sounds very familiar.
A: Yeah, I believe we've met on RC Patrol a few times. I think we may have reverted vandalism to each others' userpages a couple times, too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from user:freakofnurture
5. Are you, in fact, left-handed, or is it some sort of pop culture reference? —freak(talk) 21:37, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)
A: Yes, I chose the name because I'm left handed, and I also lean to the left in politics. If it refers to pop culture, it's unintentional. (Though it would be pretty cool.) --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was (vaguely, I admit) thinking along the lines of Pancho and Lefty. Damn. That article needs work. —freak(talk) 22:05, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)
6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, established users are subject to the same rules as new users, but they're generally given a bit more lenience. For example, if an established user was making personal attacks, violating 3RR, vandalizing, etc., I would probably give them a few more warnings than I would a new user or an anon, simply because they might be suffering a Wikistress overload and not be entirely aware of the consequences. However, if the actions persisted, I would have no choice but to give a short block. I would not even consider an indefblock of an established user without establishing community consensus through ANI or some other means. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would you define 'Personal attack'?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition at WP:NPA, i.e., personal insults, legal threats, death threats, etc. Basically anything that makes an attack on the "contributor, not the content." --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA states "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom" - Is telling someone to take a long walk off a short pier a blockable offence? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, telling someone to go take a long walk off a short pier is not in and of itself a personal attack, as it's not a direct assault on a person's character. However, it would violate other civility guidelines, the repeated violation of which can lead to a block. So, yes, it can be a blockable offense. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Discussion

Support

  1. Support of course per nom, and good answer to Q3. Good luck! --Alex (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Great editor, has improved a lot since the last RfA.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Super Support, gosh, not an admin? -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 22:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - he deserves it. And both of us have gotten blocked by Curps for "pagemove vandalism". :p —Khoikhoi 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. John254 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Extremely strong support has been very helpful in assisting me with WP:DR. -- Selmo (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support per answers to questions. I've seen this editor around a lot, and I think he would make a great admin. --Coredesat talk! 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Stats show nothing obviously wrong (thats all they are good for), seems like a good vandal fighter, A1 seems good, and we could use more admins on the image backlog. This user is active in deletion and AN related activies.Voice-of-All 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Rama's arrow 23:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I haven't directly interacted with the candidate, but I have seen him on the XfD pages and in talk page discussions and have been impressed with his comments in both. --After Midnight 0001 23:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 100% Support! G.He 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - based on extensive personal experience of seeing Mr. Lefty's excellent anti-vandalism work and sound knowledge of policy. Will make an excellent admin Gwernol 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Super Support! I was actually going to nominate this user for adminship more than a month ago, but I decided it was best to give him a bit more time. He's an excellent vandal-fighter, and actively contributes whole-heartedly in AfD discussions. --Nishkid64 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Meets my time and editcountitis requirements and I saw no problems on his talk page. I believe he has learned from the "silliness" mentioned in the previous RfA. Not sure an overdeveloped sense of humor is a detriment.Dlohcierekim 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention that working with images is a big plus.Dlohcierekim 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Why the hell not? --Aaron 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support although he sometimes spoils my work by reverting vandals faster than me. :-) --Húsönd 02:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. Michael 05:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Merovingian - Talk 05:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I assume he'll get a left-handed mop. :-) BaseballBaby 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 07:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Active editor who does good things, while article creation is not a strong point the user could definitley do good things with "the mop" . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support looks good. I opposed for inexperience last time -- Samir धर्म 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Looks very good, committed, and dedicated editor. I give my full support. Hello32020 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Iolakana•T 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Very strong support. Mr. Lefty is, in three words, a great candidate. I see him around WP:ANI very often, he's great at fighting vandalism, and he's very good in XfD discussions. Srose (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor; candidate has a fine edit distribution, leading me to wonder at the opposing rationales (a rarity, indeed.) Xoloz 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per norm. Minfo 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support seems fit.--Andeh 18:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, Mr. Lefty. Support to da ends of da woyld. And no one gets that joke. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, just as I did in the last nomination, in which I said "Well thought out answers, good work, diligent service. What's not to like?". Agent 86 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support ON WHEELS! Oooooh, the irony. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support what's not to like about this user? --Oscarthecat 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Won't accidentally block Jimbo. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I think that's going to be my new RfA !voting criterion. :) --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good Editor, IIRC I've meet him in AfD. Also, support pr RyanG.-- danntm T C 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, of course! Sango123 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've seen no contributions by this editor that would lead me to believe the tools would be abused. From what I've seen, Mr. Lefty has a good grasp of policy, despite the concerns over the lack of "encyclopedia building." — NMChico24 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good editor. Garion96 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support.—Wikipedia needs those who work valiantly at reverting vandalism; your ample experience there earns an A+. My Criterion A) states “If you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to generate articles. Folks who’ve actually edited quite a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better.” Afraid your rather weak on contributions—I’ll award a generous C. Overall I trust your judgment enough to turn you loose with the tools—but please go work on some serious contributions to balance out your sound technical skills. Williamborg (Bill) 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No reason not to this time. --WinHunter (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It seems that this editor has now contributed enough to demonstrate that they'll know what to do with the tools, and will have a need to use them. TewfikTalk 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 'Mon the lefties! ;) Highway Daytrippers 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, good user and is ready for the tools. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support, Lefty isn't an admin yet? ~crazytales56297 - t-e 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support Mr. Lefty is a brillient user, and I have no problems supporting. Will do good work with the mop. Thε Halo Θ 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak support lack of encyclopedic content is light on the scales against a sense of reasonablness and responsibility to established editors. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - seen Mr Lefty round a bit and have no complaints.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Budgiekiller (talk • contribs)
  52. Support - it's about time. --Ixfd64 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - From the answers given above, the only area really lacking is the substantial contribs, quality editing. But the willingness to help at admin intervention against vandalism is very appealing, so here is my support. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support very helpful and positive Wikipedian. Addhoc 13:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support--MONGO 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support per my comments in the pervious RfA. Eluchil404 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Why the hell not? --Aaron 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Striking because I voted twice by mistake. My support vote at #15 (as I type this) still stands. Thanks to Kubigula for alerting me to my massive stupidity! --Aaron 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Great vandal fighter, helpful, does great maintainence job. (This is the first time I voice my opinion in a RfA, am I doing it right?) --Esteban F. (contribs) 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support again, per other RFA.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong support per all above. Incredibly active. Molerat 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Arbusto 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Even though I think this vandal fighter would be slowed down by having to actually block people. Just continue attacking vandals. --Tbeatty 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Tony Sidaway 10:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Seems like a useful sort to have on the team. I find the oppose reason given by the bulk of opposers particularly inappropriate; possessing the bit would not be useful in article production, and if he isn't writing enough to satisfy those other editors it may well be that his talents and interests lie elsewhere. His commitment to the project is not in doubt.[reply]
  63. Support. —freak(talk) 19:00, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Good work with the vandals, and good answers to the questions. Canderson7 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support While I no doubt would disagree with a lot of his left leaning political views, he has shown to be a highly competent editor who deserves the mop. TruthCrusader 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support having seen Mr Lefty around and gaining a positive rather than negative impression through this. Tyrenius 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Ultra strong support! I've seen Mr. Lefty around a lot, and was led to believe that he, if anyone, was already an admin. Very experienced, and civil to my knowledge. --Gray Porpoise 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. I was hoping to be the very last supporter (little things please little minds), but I can't be sure I'll be online at the closing time, and didn't want to miss the opportunity to support this. -- Steel 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per all of above, and with apologies to Steel. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support How did I miss this RfA? alphaChimp(talk) 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building, which I feel is a key underpinning to the deletion policy. Espresso Addict 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Lack of notable article edits make it impossible to assess decision making and dispute resolving abilities. Joelito (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose very little in article creations. Jaranda wat's sup 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I should have mentioned this in Q2, but I've created several stubs related to biology, such as Podding radish, Ipil (tree), Actinopterygii, F factor, and nucleotidase. Not amazing articles by any means, but I feel they get the job done. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per my philosophy at User:Blnguyen/RfA. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart; they never seem to suffer post-RfA letdown or change negatively IMHO. The Actinopterygii article is a good job and I think you should definitely write more, as when you think about it, article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins and Writers are drifting away from eachother because it's very hard to deal with admin duties and write articals and deal with real life(tm).--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Lack of encyclopedia building which is one of my main focuses for becoming an admin. T REXspeak 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I don't trust Mr. Lefty sufficiently to endorse adminship responsibilities. For example, he promoted his anti-Bolt blog at Andrew Bolt. Andjam 10:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, that wasn't me. You might be thinking of User:Mrlefty, who is a different person. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! Thanks for your civil reply. Andjam 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Jaranda. Streamwater 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been confirmed as a sockpuppet by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ForestH2, so I'm not sure what that does to his !vote. I understand it's bad Wikiquette to strike votes from your own RfA, so I'll leave it alone for now. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave another user to burn it. Like myself. :) --Andeh 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. No favour either way, although encyclopedia building a bit on the weak side. – Chacor 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's weird... I can't explain why I don't feel that I should support this user. Perhaps it's what Chacor said. Computerjoe's talk 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. User fails one of my criteria by not having enough article talk edits, which displays lack of article building experience. I am leaning towards support though, as this looks like an otherwise great contributor. Themindset 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A whole 65 edits makes the difference between a good admin and a bad admin? Does something magical happen when you make your 200th article talk edit that makes you a much better person? -- Steel 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, it's only about 30 now. [1] -- Steel 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per my crossed out oppose vote, please work in articles more. Jaranda wat's sup 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category