Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr. Lefty


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

Mr. Lefty
Final  (31/17/5) ended 17:18, July 4, 2006 (UTC)

– I've been on Wikipedia since about January, with IP contributions dating back to about November, and I feel I'm a well-rounded, overall good contributor, having amassed almost 3000 edits. I feel I have a good understanding of policy, with which I participate actively in XfD, both nominating and discussing. I also like to welcome newcomers and help them out with anything they need. However, vandal fighting/RC patrolling is the activity I do the most, be it reverting, warning, or reporting at AIV. With my knowledge of how things work around here, combined with my experience doing admin-like work, I think I would make a good administrator. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.


 * Support
 * 1) Support. SushiGeek 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Edit-conflicted-somebody-beat-me-to-it support. Seen this one around; may involve some OJT (and, what doesn't?), but I'm convinced this editor has the tools to use the tools, and wisely. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I've seen this user around ANI and AIV, they seem very communicative, and they have a good number of edits in the important areas. I see no reason why this user would have trouble as an admin.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seen you a few times on RCP. Good to get as many vandal fighters in as admins as possible! Good luck! Abcdefghijklm 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Although you're somewhat new, I won't hold that against you because I know you're a great editor. And even if this one doesn't pass, your next one definitely will. Roy A.A. 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7)  Weak Support I see no problems, and the 'I'm green, just correct me if I'm wrong' attitude in your first mediation case is a good sign (this was as a mediator, not a party). I've never liked the new messages practical joke for admins (as on Lefty's user page), so support is weak. (was removed).--Chaser T 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Good user. G . H  e  20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Well thought out answers, good work, diligent service. What's not to like? Agent 86 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A little new, but looks fine. Mr. Turcotte  talk  00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. DarthVad e r 00:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Jaranda wat's sup 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Full support along with Danielrocks123, this is one of the rare diamonds-in-the-rough. Kimchi.sg 02:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Stong Support I'd much rather have Lefty's exuberance than the attitudes that some admins sometimes exhibit. Eluchil404 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Changed from neutral after Mr. Lefty's answer and double checking. -- Szvest 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 17) Support per answers to my questions.-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support-Agoodperson 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Good user. Been here almost 6 months (longer as an IP) - long enough. -- Steel 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support meets my standards — Mets 501 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) He'll probably be a good admin - Ucucha 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) M e rovingian { T C @ } 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) – ugen64 05:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per nominator. Polonium 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 26)  Right-handed Support All I've seen is good from this person. May be new, but I think I'm safe in supporting the lefty.  Kevin_b_er 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support he is no less experienced than I was when I became an admin, he has also given no reason whatsoever to believe he will misuse the tools. Rje 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Very good track record of editing, mature responses below. User talk page indicates that the user is actively fighting vandalism already. Give the man a mop.--Eloquence* 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support would benifit from, and not abuse, admin tools. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support good admin candidate --rogerd 01:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak Oppose per insufficient experience, esp. given self-nom, but will probably be happy to support in the future. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- not enough time, as an editor --T-rex 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Still too new for me, sorry. Also, I wasn't particularly impressed when Mr Lefty got himself blocked for pagemoves by Curps bot. The pages were User:GeorgeMoney/movethis1 and User:GeorgeMoney/movethis2, which were moved to User:GeorgeMoney/movethis1 ON WHEELS!!! etc. Although I like humour, I thought that was a bit silly, and poking around in someone else's userpages isn't particularly impressive. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really do apologize for that. I'm not entirely sure what on earth I was thinking.  I guess I thought it was an open invitation for people to move the pages.  I can assure everyone here that I would never just wantonly move pages for the fun of it.  Nothing like that will ever happen again, I assure you. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't apologise. You really have no need to. It was only a joke, I can appreciate that. I stand by my opinion, though. The main point is I think you're too new. If you reapply in a few months I'd support. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose, a bit too new for me; would also like to see a few more project edits--TBC TaLk?!?  22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per TBC, but I add that you are doing a great job editing so far. -- Samir  धर्म 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Lord Deskana. --Shizane 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose per TBC. --WinHunter (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose as CrazyRussian & TBC, you are doing a excellent job & most probably be happy to support in the future.-- blue 520  09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Lord Deskana, notice on the users page is a vandalism magnet. The user only started editing heavily in march so the user hasn't reached his 4 month yet. Just too early for an RfA. Try again in 1-3 months(if this RfA fails) and I'll probably support ya.-- Andeh 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Doesn't meet my admin criteria. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) *Cyde, no one meets all of your admin criteria. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) **I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of the current admins don't meet Cyde's admin criteria.-- Andeh 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) ***I think this is just a (hilarious) joke vote. Take a look at one of the criterion: Must be no more than 50% cybernetic but no less than 20% cybernetic." My guess is that Cyde doesn't expect the closing 'crat to count this vote. -- Where 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Mr Lefty, Cyde's are mainly humorous, though I think your reply is incivil. Computerjoe 's talk 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) *Sorry, I didn't intend to be incivil. I was merely pointing out a fact. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13)  Oppose I just don't think you're ready, sorry. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 11:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, no reply to email. See my RfA criteria. Petros471 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to it now. I didn't have a lot of computer time yesterday, sorry. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral. Petros471 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose A little too early for me. — The King of Kings  02:36 July 01 '06
 * 2) Oppose As others above have said, editor has too little experience at this time. Xoloz 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Not enough experince. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Looking at the recent conflict on Clockwise and counterclockwise, I don't feel that much effort was made to reach a consensus (for instance, renaming the article to clockwise and counterclockwise/anti-clockwise, which is what is listed on Clockwise (disambiguation)), although on Lucie-marie's talk page you claimed that Lucy-marie was reverting against consensus. I also do not support the use of block warnings for content disputes, especially one that you (you being the person making the block warning) are involved in. I'm not saying you were uncivil, just that you could use a bit more experience dealing with conflicts, and I am certainly willing to support in the future. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * Neutral - Because of lack of activity on WikiProjects. I'd support depending on further info. -- Szvest 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * I am a member of WikiProject disambiguation, and I do go around formatting and creating disambiguation pages. I'm also affiliated with WikiProject computer and video games - I add info to video-game-related articles whenever I can. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral I like more experience in my administrators. -- Will Mak  050389  19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, nothing to oppose for but a little short on experience to support, especially for a self-nom. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Seems like a good editor, but doesn't appear to have quite enough experience yet. Will definitely support in a couple of months. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'd like to see a bit more of you, looks promising. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Swtiching to oppose, sorry.
 * 1) Neutral. Petros471 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Not necessarily to oppose, and support either. But Occasionally, He makes some mistakes so, I could have supported if he didn't move page into page that Deskana mentioned. *~Daniel~* 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

All user's edits. Voice -of- All  21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Mr. Lefty (over the 2977 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 155 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 28, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 26, January, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.89% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 84.99 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 374 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 2977 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.2% (6) Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.18% (65) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.66% (347) Minor article edits marked as minor: 44.92% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1953 | Average edits per page: 1.52 | Edits on top: 21.43% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 48.57% (1446 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 7.76% (231 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 32.65% (972 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 11.02% (328 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 41.79% (1244) | Article talk: 2.55% (76) User: 6.48% (193) | User talk: 31.11% (926) Wikipedia: 14.61% (435) | Wikipedia talk: 0.24% (7) Image: 0.87% (26) Template: 1.55% (46) Category: 0.24% (7) Portal: 0.2% (6) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.37% (11)
 * See Mr. Lefty's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username Mr. Lefty Total edits 2852 Distinct pages edited 1949 Average edits/page 1.463 First edit 03:45, 26 January 2006 --- (main) 1188 Talk 76 User 188 User talk 889 Image 27 Image talk 1 Template 45 Template talk 10 Category 7 Wikipedia 408 Wikipedia talk 7 Portal 6
 * Edit count:

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:
 * ITIS User Statistics. Icey 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: My first, and probably primary activity would be fighting vandalism with my new tools. I find it irritating to report a vandal to AIV, but have it be sometimes upwards of ten minutes before they're blocked, so they have time to cause even more damage.  As an admin, I would check AIV regularly to block persistent vandals and clear any backlogs there.  I would also patrol CAT:CSD regularly to look for nonsense or attack pages to be deleted.  I would check XfD pages periodically to check for backlogs as well.  Finally, I would check various sections of the admin noticeboard to look for things I could help with, e.g. resolving disputes, 3RR blocks, etc.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Well, of my significant contributions, I'm proud of my work at Portal:Biology, having created several stubs and helping somewhat to clear a backlog. I've also helped in expanding articles about United States area codes - I have an infobox pending over at List of infoboxes/Proposed.  I've also worked to expand and add images to Lists of U.S. state insignia.  However, I'm equally proud of my gnomish work, like creating disambigs, redirects, categories, and all those things that make Wikipedia a more efficient and smoother place to navigate overall.


 * 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: Other than persistent vandalism, there was one particular incident where User:Lucy-marie insisted on changing the Clockwise and counterclockwise article to "Clockwise and anti-clockwise," even though she was told not to. We reverted each other's edits a couple times, and finally I left her a note on her talk page, after which she stopped.  In the future, I will try to hold myself to the one-revert rule and try to establish civility and consensus earlier.
 * Optional questions by A  c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs )( Optional for a support vote, that is. :) )


 * Now, let's say you are an admin, and you check WP:AIV to find out that User:Bob has been listed as a recurrent vandal at the Example page, and also violated 3RR on the page Cheese. What do you do?
 * A: First I would look at his contribs and talk page to make sure everything checks out. If it did, and it was his first offense, I would give a 24-hour block.
 * 1) Same situation as above. Now, you go to check Bob's contributations, and you see no such evidence of vandalism or 3RR violation.  The User who added bob to WP:AIV (User:Rick) is blanking Bob's userpage repeatedly, and calling him a sex-obbsessed vandal-whore on Bob's talk page.  What do you do?
 * A: I would not block Bob, and I would block Rick for talk page vandalism and personal attacks, probably for 24 hours if it was his first offense. If it was a recurring habit, I would give a longer block, possibly indefinite.
 * 1) Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
 * A: I'm somewhat of an optimist, so, half-full.
 * 1) Lastly, if you are not promoted to admin, do you still plan to become one?
 * A: Yes. I see the primary complaint above is that I'm too new; if this nomination fails because of that, I will likely succeed at a later date.


 * '''Optional question by Chaser


 * 1) Under what circumstances would you make an indefinite block without direction from ArbCom or Jimbo or consulting with other admins?
 * A: I believe that an inappropriate username or a vandalism-only account are the only conditions under which a user can be indefinitely blocked with no direction from the ArbCom, so if a User:I HAD ANAL SEX WITH YO MOMMA!!!!1!one (which would be enough for a block anyway) was using his account solely to vandalize, I would indefinitely block him. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, and giving out personal information about other users. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 04:11, 28 June 2006 (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.