Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theleftorium 2

Theleftorium

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (119/0/0); Scheduled to end 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Theleftorium (talk · contribs) – I’m pleased for the opportunity to co-nom TheLeftorium for adminship. With any admin request, there are two basic considerations: can the contributor use the tools, and can the contributor be trusted to use the tools wisely? With TheLeftorium, the answer to both of these questions is yes. The contributor does invaluable work in copyright cleanup, having logged many hours at WP:CCI and especially WP:SCV, where he routinely encounters articles that need to be deleted as copyright violations or where history merges are needed to correct cut & paste page moves. He has also expanded more into image issues; one thing we definitely need more of is admins who will help out with image copyright concerns. (Though I realize that Left feels like he needs a lot more experience there before using his admin tools, his progression at SCV makes it clear to me that he'll get there.)

He is careful in evaluating and understands our policies. He doesn’t have an itchy trigger finger, salvaging when he can (see for one example [1]), but he knows when something needs to go. His deletion log shows a history of appropriate G12s, F9s, etc. He also follows through on matters that concern him rather than just leaving them for somebody else to handle (see for one example [2]).

To me, another important aspect of adminship is good communication. TheLeftorium is good at making sure that contributors know how to verify permission if they are in position to do so or how to attribute if lack of attribution is the only problem (Two examples: [3], [4]). He is cordial and seems to go out of his way to be helpful and informative: User talk:Theleftorium#27th Battalion, [5], [6].

As User:Ceranthor notes in his nom, in his last adminship bid, TheLeftorium encountered some difficulties related to copyright concerns and source selection. I for one have been very impressed with how well TheLeftorium took on board those concerns and has worked to address them. I don’t think we need have any concerns about copyright matters, and I believe that his continued work in producing good and featured content on Wikipedia speaks for itself about his ability to address those issues.

I hope that you will share my confidence in his contributions and in the value of granting him the tools. I believe giving him access is very much to the benefit of the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Wow, what a tough nomination to follow. I can only repeat what Moonriddengirl has said.

Theleftorium is, without doubt, an exemplary candidate. An outstanding contributor, he has given us four featured articles (The Simpsons Game, The Simpsons Hit & Run, The Battle for Middle-earth II, and "Lisa the Vegetarian"), two featured lists (Extreme points of Sweden and List of national parks of Sweden), one featured topic (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Simpson family), 109 good articles (see User:Theleftorium/Contributions please!), and 8 good topics. He has listed all of his AFD participation at his 'contributions' page, as well as all of his pretty much solid GA reviews.

At his last RfA, Theleftorium faced concerns of a misunderstanding of copyright law and policy and dubious sourcing. To address these concerns, he has stopped uploading the loads of non-free content and instead has become a highly active participant at the SCV noticeboard. He has cleaned up most of the articles with source reliability concerns as well. Oh, and he was a finalist of the WikiCup! He is constantly besting himself, it seems!

I strongly believe Theleftorium has the amount of clue necessary to become an admin, and constantly shows that he is clearly dedicated to improving his own self while improving the encyclopedia too. He is an excellent candidate and I believe that he will make an excellent administrator if granted the bit. ceranthor 19:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to have you two as my nominators, and I'm grateful for your trust in me. I accept. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I will continue my work at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, where I would be able to delete blatant copyright infringements as well as overwrite copyvio articles with rewritten ones. While patrolling SCV, I often see pages that need history merges so I’d like to help out with that as well. In addition, I plan on doing some work at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

In the past weeks I’ve also become interested in image copyright and that’s another area I’d like to get involved in. However, I will be getting more experience there before I do any administrative tasks. I’d primarily focus on Category:Wikipedia files that may violate copyright and Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old.

Finally, I would like to help out at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming.

I’d also like to note that if I’m given the admin tools, I will jump not into any areas that I'm unfamiliar with.

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

A: I’d say my best contributions to Wikipedia are my latest content contributions and my work with copyright issues. Since my previous RfA I have written one featured article that I’m quite proud of: Lisa the Vegetarian. By listening to the criticism from that RfA I believe I’ve been able to improve my content contributions significantly.

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: Yes, I’ve been in conflicts on Wikipedia, but I think I’m quite good at not stirring them up because I try to talk to other users in a calm and mature manner. Listening to what they have to say and apologizing if I screw up also helps of course. An example of a conflict (although pretty minor) that I can think of at the top of my head is this ([7]). I think it shows that I can handle a situation maturely and stay civil even if someone is attacking me.

I very, very rarely get mad on Wikipedia. But there have been a few times that I’ve gotten stressed because of real life, even a few months ago, although I believe I’ve learned not to let that happen anymore. An example of this would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags, which I’m a bit ashamed of to be honest. Not only did I nominate the article way too early (as a result of not checking the history page), but I think I acted too pushy. Basically what I’m trying to say is that I learn from my mistakes and quickly move on.

Additional optional question from Begoon

4. As a candidate who expresses an interest in working with copyright issues (which I think is admirable and needed), could you briefly give your opinion on this discussion? The purpose of this question is not really to ascertain your actual position on that issue, but more to gain an insight into how you will assess debatable issues of that nature. Thanks.

A: Reading through that discussion I notice that there’s a disagreement between the editors about how the non-free content policy should be interpreted, and both sides bring up some good points. The discussion doesn’t seem to be leading anywhere, though, so at this point I think it would be a wise decision to request wider input from the community (perhaps through Wikipedia:Requests for comment or at one of the noticeboards). I don’t believe any admin decision should be made until consensus has been reached, at least in this case. There’s a large chance that it will just worsen the situation. And I would, of course, not make a decision based upon my own opinion.

I hope that you are somewhat satisfied with this answer. If not I can always elaborate. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely satisfied, thank you. No need at all, for me, for any elaboration. Thanks also for taking the time to clarify the question with me on my talkpage before answering, and my apologies that it was vague enough for you to need to. :) -  Begoon (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Richwales

5. Some concerns over copyright issues were raised in your first RfA. Could you discuss this matter for us and help us understand how you will deal with copyright issues in the future? I know your nominators talked about it, but we should hear from you directly.

A: Certainly. :) A year ago it came to my attention that I had plagiarized sources in several articles. I barely even knew what plagiarism meant. I also had some issues with non-free images and I didn’t have a great understanding of the NFCC. When these issues were pointed out to me, I felt bad for causing damage to Wikipedia. Now I realize that I also should have felt bad for causing damage to the copyright owners or the authors of the work I plagiarized. I didn’t realize that it could hurt them; I just thought about myself.

In August last year, I came across WP:SCV and thought it would be a great way to learn more about copyright (see here). Thanks to the help of Moonriddengirl and all the other great editors working in the copyright area, I have learned a huge amount of stuff that I knew nothing about a year ago. If I’m given the admin tools I will use them to help other users who are in similar situations as I were in, by letting them know about the copyright policy and helping them clean up their mistakes. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from MC10

6. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A: CSD A3 is for articles that don't contain any content at all other than categories, external links, images, and so on. CSD A1 is used when there's not enough information to know what or who the article's subject really is, but unlike CSD A3 it contains some actual content. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

7. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A: I've declined many A7s on Wikipedia already. Here, for example, I declined one because A7 doesn't apply to schools. Here's another example, where I declined the speedy deletion of a television show on a large TV channel (an indication of importance). Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Shadowjams

8. Would you briefly discuss fair use policy in regards to images. Shadowjams (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A: Wikipedia’s fair use policy allows the use of copyrighted images if they meet certain conditions. Not only do they have to fulfill the requirements of fair use as defined by the US copyright law, they must also meet Wikipedia’s own stricter criteria for copyrighted content. When we upload a non-free image we have to consider, for example, Does the image help readers understand what is written in the article, or are words enough?, etc. Another thing we have to think about is if a free version that serves the same purpose could be created. This is especially important when it comes to copyrighted images of living persons. If the person is still active in his or her area, it is quite possible to take a free picture of that person. At the end of the day, Wikipedia’s goal is to be a free content encyclopedia that’s available to everyone and that is one of the reasons that we have such a strict fair use policy. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from wiooiw

9. When would it be acceptable to block an account without giving a warning?

A:

10. Do you believe Wikipedia:Intelligent Administrator should be a redirect to Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse? If not, can you think of a better redirection of that page?

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Theleftorium
• Requests for adminship/Theleftorium 2

• 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 their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Super early support (saw this coming a few days ago). Can trust the candidate with the tools in an area where the tools are greatly needed (copyright). --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Mkativerata. MER-C 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Support -- Unequivocally. I trust this editor. During the past year, Theleftorium's presence at copyright violations has been invaluable to me in alleviating the persistent backlogs there. His access to the admin tools will only be a benefit. — Cactus Writer ^(talk) 09:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - Fantastic work has been done by this user. Willing to admit that mistakes have been made in the past, and that we learn and move on. This is important, as we all inevitably make mistakes. Indeed, there's been a lot of high quality RfAs as of late. Orphan Wiki 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Positive impression of user from previous work, review of contribs reveals nothing of concern. Interview in working on copyvios a plus as this is an underserved area. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Has a clue, willing to work in copyrights, what more could we ask for? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Strong support What's not to like? The strong nominations, with a look at his previous RfA along with a review of this user's contribs only lead me to support. On a side note, I'm sorry for your loss.  – Tommy [message] 14:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
8. I strongly supported last time, and so far I'm only seeing more to like this time. There's a left-handed mop with your name on it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Support I have seen this person's work around, and it all looks strong. Ditto on the answers above. Seems like a good candidate for admin. Sheeana ^Talk 14:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Support; are you kidding me? Almost an automatic support when saw that MRG had nominated someone. Courcelles (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - I've known Left for several years now due to his peerless work at WP:DOH. He wanted to join in and help out, and quickly started making the rest of us look bad. Also, very impressed at how quickly he learnt from problems brought up at the last RfA. Nothing but praise from me. Gran² 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Very good admin candidate. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Support – I've been waiting for this RFA to start so I can give my support vote. His work is excellent; I trust Theleftorium with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
16. Okilydokilydoo.  f o x  15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - Copyvio is a major area of concern in the vast cyberspace of Wikipedia, and I thank the candidate for seeking to work in this important sector. Candidate learned from a previous Rfa, has good content experience, and stands ready to be handed the tools. There are some names I highly respect already in support, which additionally make my !vote easy. My best wishes for a fine Rfa and adminship, Jusdafax 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
18. Support—Yes! No concerns here. Airplaneman ✈ 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
19. Generally competent + good understanding --> huge net benefit. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
20. Support The only vague concerns I had were from the last RFA. The candidate's eagerness to learn from that, and his excellent answer to my poorly worded question above dispel utterly any of those concerns. I have "seen him around", and his contributions always seem well-considered. Couple that with the illustrious Support and nominations here already, and my !vote was easy this time :) - Begoon (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
21. Yes. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
22. Support per fox. —fetch·comms 17:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
23. Support The ability to acknowledge one's past mistakes and learn from them is essential in an admin. Patience is another valued quality. Candidate has demonstrated they posses these qualities. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
24. Support Good work on the Simpsons articles. Not only that, he's worked in the other areas and has done very well thus far. Minimac (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
25. Support. I opposed last time over copyrights and non-free concerns but my interactions with this editor since have shown that he has fully taken those concerns into account. No problems at all here. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
26. Support i see no concerns. Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
27. Support A content creator who can learn from his mistakes is a positive combination. I'm actually tempted to oppose because the project could probably use you more as a pure content creator. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
28. Support. Good contributor, fair range of experience, no recent concerns... easy call. Shimeru 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. Seems like a mature, humble, and open-minded candidate. No problems -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Colonel Warden (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Great to see an administrator hopeful with great content contributions! Derild4921☼ 20:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. I'm satisfied by candidate's reformation re: the copyright issues. A person who used to have a problem in this area, but who has clearly turned over a new leaf, may actually be more reliable than if they had never been in trouble in the first place. The thing which pushed me over the edge to support was when I went looking for his old Simpsons web site (mentioned in his previous RfA) and discovered he had taken it down. Richwales (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
33. Belated nom support. Now that I'm back in town. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
34. Support – Experienced; responsive to concerns. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Highly qualified candidate. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
37. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
38. Support, Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
39. Support, strong candidate, quality contributions to the project. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
40. Support, He is a pleasure to work with, and I know he will be a great admin and use the tools properly. CTJF83 pride 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. No problems. MurfleMan (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
43. Support, trust the noms and I'm not seeing anything of concern in the candidate's contribs. An intention to work with copyvios is an added bonus. EyeSerene^talk 07:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
44. I opposed last time, and have been impressed with Theleftorium's contributions to copyright issues after the first RfA. Being able to handle criticism well and learn from your mistakes is a good quality in an admin. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
45. Support. Without a doubt a highly valuable and trusted user. Needs and deserves the tools. -- œ^™ 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. Cannot find a reason not to, amusingly the debate which sprung from the oppose !vote here only reinforced that you have learnt since the last RfA. --Taelus (Talk) 09:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Clearly learnt and grew from the copyright issue thing, no doubt will put the bits to good use. Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
48. Very late co-nom support! Per my nomination; there are so many reasons to support. ceranthor 13:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Per above and a review of the users contributions. Immunize (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Had this one watchlisted. ThemFromSpace 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Won me over. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. We really need more administrators willing and able to work in the area of copyright. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Came accross some cp work earlier. no objections raised over this editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
54. Support The more I learn about copyright, the more I realize how much there is to know - having more sysops with copyright expertise is a plus.--SPhilbrickT 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
55. Support, looks like a great user who's put a lot of effort into both demonstrating that previous concerns have been rectified, and assisting in neglected areas of the encyclopedia. Excellent choice for admin tools. Oppose section is not convincing. ~ mazca ^talk 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
56. I know from experience the most sure-fire to learn something properly is to be reprimanded in public view for doing it wrong. Leftorium is obviously a good-intentioned, experienced contributor, and his coolness in the face of criticism last year was commendable. Juliancolton (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
57. Looks good to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
58. Support. From what I see, deserves the mop and will use it well; as per others above, I'm happy to know that copyvio issues will have more experienced help. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
59. Support well qualified, I've seen a lot of good copyright work from the candidate. Hut 8.5 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - No "Current" issues here, Good luck Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - I very rarely comment at RFAs (only a couple of times in the past 5 years) but this is an editor I've noticed being hard at work all over the place, and his adminship, while probably not overdue, would certainly be welcome. TheGrappler (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
62. Might as well support, Mr. R00t ^Talk 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
63. One two three... 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
64. Oppose is patently unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    It is better to speak to the merits of the candidate. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

65. Support I don't see any problems. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
66. Support a history of good contributions. Can be trusted with the mop. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
67. Supported last time, happy to do so again after Kudpung's comment has been clarified, and no further concerns have been raised (likely because there aren't any). decltype (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
68. Support - A good contributor. --Skizzik^talk 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
69. Support - I see no problems, ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
70. Support - Seems reformed, and demonstrates the ability to learn from mistakes; no concerns in recent contribs, and it's clear to me the candidate has common sense. WRT the single current oppose, I support BarkingFish's right to state their piece, and on that note, I find the opposition supercilious. "Let he who is without sin cast the first meatball" ^{Ravioli 8:7}  Chzz  ►  13:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
71. Support per Chzz: ramen. TFOWR 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
72. Support - He knows his way around Wikipedia, as he is a great contributor, and deserves the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
73. Support, nothing amiss. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
74. Support The last RfA would have discouraged many users from continuing here. Theleftorium took the valid criticisms and improved as an editor instead. Plus, any user name related to stupid Flanders is okily-dokily in my book. AniMate 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
75. Support Has my support. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
76. Support happily. In his last RFA, I said I would support given even slight improvement in the areas of copyright and sourcing, and I'm glad to see that the improvement has been much more than slight. Exemplary editor, and should be an exemplary admin. -kotra (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
77. Move to support. Second chances seem to be the order of the day here, so what the hey. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
78. Strong support We need admins as such. I comply, but I also think that it could be better if the user has applied this request by his own. Alex ^discussion 21:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Even though this comment will be indented, as well it should, per WP:RFA "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote".", I wanted to voice my support. Theleftorium is an excellent contributor, knows policy, and is very civil. Fully supported in this endeavor. 76.27.40.75 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    Indented !vote of IP user Airplaneman ✈ 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

79. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, article rescuer, etc. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - Will do fine as a sysop. Their contributions appear to be seemingly far from wrong. Schfifty3 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
81. Shouldn't have failed the first time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
82. Support. See no current issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
83. Support - (moved from 'neutral'). Here we have one candidate who has really learned from his previous RfA. Appears to be a good all-rounder, and earlier slip-ups were probably simply part of his learning curve. Most of his creations are nevertheless very cleanly presented. I'm impressed with his answers to the additional questions (which I generally hold for an unnecessary evil in RfAs). I belive when he says he will stay out of areas he has less experience with untill he has observed more how other sysops successfully deal with various situations. Now as 'poacher turned gamekeeper' I'm sure he will be a good Wikipedia housekeeper, and after further research and reflection, I see no reason not to give him the mop & bucket.--Kudpung (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
84. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
85. Support: Couldn't ask for better evidence of having learned from experience; no concerns from a review of last thousand-ish edits. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
86. Support - Theleftorium will no doubt make an excellent admin. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
87. Support - In contrast to opinions expressed elsewhere, I believe that someone who has learned thoroughly from earlier misapprehensions/screwups/whatever, and has come back and actively worked to improve things, deserves every support. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
88. Strong SupportWas already going to support, but after a short conversation with the user changed to Strong, this user is very communicative and civil.Acather96 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
89. Support - Easy one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
90. Support. My own limited interaction with him has been positive, and I see no good reason to make me think he wouldn't do a good job with the admin bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
91. Support Can't find any concerns. =D Netalarm^talk 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
92. Sure. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
93. Support This user can be trusted with the tools. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
94. Support I've seen this user take the shellacking from his last RfA and used the experience to learn and grow. Dave (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
95. Support. All indications are that this user will be a good administrator. --PinkBull 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
96. Support - After dealing with a convoluted question of mine with extreme grace, and then providing an excellent answer to a better question, and of course all of the above, I have no concerns. The user's not a copyright lawyer, but that's a good thing too. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
97. Support - This user seems to be commited and has proven thier value to me James'ööders 05:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
98. Support We need this type of people as admins! :) BejinhanTalk 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Definitely. LittleMountain5 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
100. Support Here's your ton. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
101. Support. Looks good to me. Fences&Windows 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
102. Support if it's possible for a Norwegian to support a Swede. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
103. Support. Obviously. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
104.  Verified because I'm convinced by the supporters and work he's done. —I-20the highway 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
105. Kill me for using the cliche, and also feel free to kill me for the cliche of calling it a cliche, but I thought Left was already an admin. Oh well, looks like that assumption will soon become true. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
106. Support, seems fine, learned some valuable lessons between last RfA and this one. Will do well with the mop. Dreadstar ☥ 05:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
107. Support oh-diddly ree no. Dincher (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
108. Support Impressed by improvements, it is a good auger of success...Modernist (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
109. Support Will make a fine admin. Give him the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
110. Strong Support Absolutely. ^GB86 22:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
111. Support. I've checked his underwear, and while he may have an uncomfortable obsession with The Simpsons, he does contribute significantly to building this encyclopedia, is polite and helpful to others, and doesn't look like he's going to press this button. SilkTork *^YES! 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
112. Support —Soap— 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
113. Support - Per the other 112. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
114. Support I've had good experiences when interacting with the candidate. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
115. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
116. Support due to his many cromulent edits. I was happy to co-nom him last time and I would have been proud to do it again had he asked. Personally, I think he's far too good of an editor to become an admin, but I wish him the best of luck. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
117. Support Can't say anything that will add value to the comment directly above.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
118. Support Given that 50% of his contributions are article based (could be better though) and is a fine DYK and GA contributor. Don't let adminship dimiish your article editing though. Agree with above if anything you are like myself, too good to be an admin! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
119. Honored to support Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - I don't consider this candidate suitable due to previous issues. If it's happened before it could potentially happen again. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been a full year since his last RFA, have you found any recent copyright problems where the candidate demonstrated an poor understanding of policy? Otherwise it is difficult to understand what your concern is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Which is why I haven't outright opposed. My concern is that if he's done it before, the risk is there that he could do it again. I'm not saying he would, simply that it would be a risk. And I don't take risks :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC):::: Talk:Homer Defined/GA1 might be useful as a demonstration of how he's taken these concerns on board; here, he actively argues against a GA reviewer who wants to include a non-free image in his article. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If we weren't allowed to make mistakes in life, it would be a pretty harsh, almost unbearable place. We don't want to create this atmosphere on Wikipedia. We all make a good number of balls-ups from time to time, and what's great is that we learn from them and don't make them again. And as far as I can see, Theleftorium has done just that. Don't continue to punish folk for what's in the past, but celebrate the (much vaster quantity of) good this user has done, and will do if he's given a chance. He seems more than capable. Orphan Wiki 19:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not creating an atmosphere. I'd rather strike my vote than support him or oppose him. Fwiw I feel that the atmosphere you're creating is that people can't express how they genuinely feel without people telling him he's wrong to do so. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that you have nothing to support your position. By the standards you have laid out anyone who has ever made an error would not be qualified for adminship. I don't know where you expect to find such a candidate. Nobody said you couldn't express your opinion, but when your opinion appears to be nothing more than holding a grudge about a problem that is well in the past and has not been repeated you should expect to be challenged on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse 'neutral' with 'oppose'. --Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'm moving this as an oppose based on what I said above. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For latecomers to this conversation, I want to note that "what I said above" has altered considerably in the course of this conversation. For previous versions, see [8] and [9]. (Context; WP:REDACT.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose An RfA without even one oppose??!? How can I let that happen? :):) Will you all kill me if I didn't move this oppose? :) Come on guys, where's your sense of humour this weekend? :):):) Theleftorium, best wishes to you in advance for becoming an administrator :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer to your question: non-existent, apparently. Plenty of RfA's have gone through without an oppose, and there's no need for this RfA to have one, even if it's meant as a joke. You've made your point, move on. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to Support.- here we have one candidate who has really learned from his previous RfA. Appears to be a good all-rounder, and earlier slip-ups were probably simply part of his learning curve. However, and more recently, still needs to learn about how to credit articles he has translated from his native Swedish, and to avoid making claims that could be interpreted as POV or OR, (probably never got round to finding sources), and to clean up some of his creations (suych as Venus 2000, for example), but most of his creations are nevertheless very cleanly presented. I'm impressed with his answers to the additional questions (which I generally hold for an unnecessary evil in RfAs). I belive when he says he will stay aout of areas he has less experience with untill he has observed more how other sysops successfully deal with various situations. Now as 'poacher turned gamekeeper' I'm sure he will be a good Wikipedia housekeeper, and I see no real reason not to give him the mop & bucket, but for the moment I'm not committing to a support !vote, and this is definitely not to be interpreted as an 'oppose'.--Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I'd just like to point out that articles such as Venus 2000 were not created by me. I simply removed the copyvio, and then the history was cleaned at WP:CP. I hope you don't mind me asking, but what do you mean by "credit articles"? Cheers, Theleftorium ^(talk) 07:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung refers to properly attributing the source when translating from sv.wiki. I was under the impression that you seldom (if ever) did translations, so I'd be interested in seeing any examples of this - along with examples of "claims that could be interpreted as POV or OR". decltype (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Solsidan (TV series) is an example of where I forgot to include attribution on the talk page. Back then I thought a note in the edit summary was enough (because that's the only thing required when you copy something from an article to another within the English Wikipedia). Sorry about that. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why that would not fulfill the requirements for attribution, in that the original authors are credited through a hyperlink (...) to the [article they] contributed to (although I prefer the template). Authors not being properly attributed is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but if that is all there is to it, I have no concerns. decltype (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)