Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fourthords
Username: Fourthords
User groups: reviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Dec 05, 2004 08:44:24
Unique pages edited: 9,850
Average edits per page: 3.08
Live edits: 20,626
Deleted edits: 9,675
Total edits (including deleted): 30,301
Namespace Totals
Article 11962 58.02%
Talk 2034 9.87%
User 566 2.75%
User talk 2891 14.02%
Wikipedia 1753 8.50%
Wikipedia talk 376 1.82%
File 693 3.36%
File talk 19 0.09%
MediaWiki talk 2 0.01%
Template 148 0.72%
Template talk 125 0.61%
Help talk 3 0.01%
Category 17 0.08%
Category talk 25 0.12%
Portal 3 0.01%
Portal talk 1 0.00%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2004/12 3
2005/01 6
2005/02 7
2005/03 48
2005/04 96
2005/05 52
2005/06 52
2005/07 47
2005/08 30
2005/09 51
2005/10 51
2005/11 77
2005/12 45
2006/01 120
2006/02 106
2006/03 275
2006/04 96
2006/05 147
2006/06 662
2006/07 402
2006/08 403
2006/09 377
2006/10 259
2006/11 380
2006/12 374
2007/01 395
2007/02 361
2007/03 536
2007/04 594
2007/05 423
2007/06 493
2007/07 416
2007/08 499
2007/09 331
2007/10 433
2007/11 361
2007/12 415
2008/01 400
2008/02 395
2008/03 421
2008/04 215
2008/05 362
2008/06 251
2008/07 287
2008/08 286
2008/09 190
2008/10 336
2008/11 346
2008/12 266
2009/01 318
2009/02 437
2009/03 505
2009/04 220
2009/05 290
2009/06 234
2009/07 187
2009/08 195
2009/09 214
2009/10 198
2009/11 174
2009/12 108
2010/01 195
2010/02 176
2010/03 260
2010/04 135
2010/05 158
2010/06 86
2010/07 139
2010/08 109
2010/09 132
2010/10 174
2010/11 162
2010/12 178
2011/01 195
2011/02 123
2011/03 183
2011/04 139
2011/05 131
2011/06 178
2011/07 91
2011/08 87
2011/09 103
2011/10 62
2011/11 56
2011/12 70
2012/01 57
2012/02 112
2012/03 90
2012/04 72
2012/05 47
2012/06 68
2012/07 59
2012/08 35
2012/09 41
2012/10 35
2012/11 26
2012/12 13
2013/01 19
2013/02 16
2013/03 20
2013/04 10
2013/05 26
2013/06 32
2013/07 35
2013/08 27
2013/09 30
2013/10 26
2013/11 17
2013/12 9
2014/01 34
2014/02 33
2014/03 49
Top edited pages
Article
357 - Bo_Burnham
201 - Heather_O'Rourke
175 - Stella_Hudgens
144 - Law_&_Order:_UK
117 - Star_Trek_(film)
109 - "Weird_Al"_Yankovic_(album)
105 - Rosalind_Chao
105 - 33_(Battlestar_Galactica)
96 - Peter_Ostrum
91 - Luther_Burger
Talk
48 - Law_&_Order:_UK
39 - Heather_O'Rourke
34 - "Weird_Al"_Yankovic_(album)
27 - Star_Trek_(film)
25 - Caught_in_a_Mosh
22 - Bo_Burnham
21 - 33_(Battlestar_Galactica)
18 - Osborne_Reef
18 - 300-page_iPhone_bill
15 - Luther_Burger
User
375 - Fourthords
27 - Fourthords/vector.js
12 - Fourthords/Court-martial_of_Terry_Lakin
10 - Fourthords/Raines
10 - Fourthords/Template:XCOMRaces
9 - Ellen541167
6 - D4g0thur/Userboxes/Stephanie
5 - Fourthords/Twinkie-Wiener_Sandwich
4 - Rougeblossom
3 - Fourthords/Mortal_Coil_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)
User talk
491 - Fourthords
39 - Wardog108
34 - Yamla
25 - Jamster_4
19 - Tarheel44
18 - KelliePicklerFanatic
15 - Hattori_Hanzo
15 - Sam1012233
14 - Husnock
14 - Nuvirgos
Wikipedia
91 - Possibly_unfree_files
35 - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
16 - Village_pump_(technical)
14 - Requested_moves
13 - Articles_for_deletion/Mortal_Coil_(Star_Trek:_Voya...
12 - Files_for_deletion/2006_June_27
11 - Articles_for_deletion/Better_Halves
11 - Requests_for_adminship/Fourthords
11 - Media_copyright_questions
10 - Non-free_content_review
Wikipedia talk
79 - Non-free_content
41 - WikiProject_Star_Trek
27 - WikiProject_Television/Stargate_task_force
14 - WikiProject_Television
13 - Verifiability
13 - Manual_of_Style/Television
10 - Notability
9 - Television_episodes
9 - Notability_(fiction)
8 - Manual_of_Style
File
11 - You're_Pitiful.jpg
10 - Janeway_original.jpg
7 - CSI_Miami.png
7 - TerribleTerryTate.png
7 - 62_AW_English.jpg
6 - Heather_O'Rourke_as_Carol_Anne.jpg
6 - Major_Payne.jpg
6 - Lina_Medina.jpg
5 - BlastFromThePast.jpg
5 - Human_Trafficking.jpg
File talk
1 - Virgin_Killer.jpg
1 - CSI_Miami.png
1 - Example.jpg
1 - StarTrek_Logo.png
1 - Secretwarcap.jpg
1 - 2005_0308_urkel.jpg
1 - Omayra_Sanchez.jpg
1 - Janeway_original.jpg
1 - King_of_Terror.jpg
1 - Bob_and_Doug.jpg
MediaWiki talk
2 - Spam-whitelist
Template
10 - United_States_armed_forces
9 - U.S._presidential_call_signs
4 - User_WPStargate
3 - User_USAFe5
3 - PD-USSR
3 - User_USAF
3 - Star_Trek
3 - Infobox_television_episode/doc
2 - NFS
2 - Reliable_sources
Template talk
31 - Did_you_know
13 - WikiProject_Biography
9 - Infobox_television
8 - Infobox_television_episode
7 - Unreferenced
6 - Infobox_actor
5 - No_rationale
5 - Article_history
4 - Ambox
3 - Birth_date
Help talk
2 - Section
1 - Gallery_tag
Category
2 - Sports_in_Lexington,_Kentucky
1 - Fictional_scientists
1 - Kentucky_Thoroughblades
1 - Kentucky_Wildcats
1 - Anime_and_manga_terminology
1 - United_States_Air_Force_airmen
1 - Films_shot_in_California
1 - Category-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - Portal-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - People_from_Lexington,_Kentucky
Category talk
2 - University_of_Notre_Dame_alumni
1 - C-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - Disambig-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - B-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - FA-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - A-Class_Stargate_articles
1 - Stargate_images
1 - United_States_Air_Force_airmen
1 - Bases_of_the_United_States_Air_Force
1 - File-Class_Stargate_articles
Portal
1 - Biography/Selected_anniversaries/October_19
1 - Environment/Selected_organization/2
1 - Current_events/2005_July_14
Portal talk
1 - Current_events/2005_July_14
Question
[edit]I think it fairer to ask this here than on the main RfA page. Obviously candidates are not responsible for the views of their supporters, but given the nature of the supports by Wikid77 (#32) "WP needs more deletions to confront "wp:Data hoarding" of vast oceans of (unsourced) trivia." and by jnl (#33) "It is good that candidate does not read WT:CSD discussions (Q 14D), and therefore is likely not influenced by the petty process wonkery of arm-chair deletion theorists therein, or care about unimportant trivia like whether or not A7 is applicable for planned events or not (Q 14B)" I think it appropriate to ask Fourthords whether these expectations of the likely use of the mop are accurate. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Clarification from Wikid77: Well, I did not post my comments as being the basis for an additional question, so let me clarify about "deletions to confront 'wp:Data hoarding' of vast oceans of (unsourced) trivia". In many cases, it would be appropriate to wp:Speedy-delete many pages which rant about some unsourced, non-notable trivia, such as celebrity gossip or a phrase taken from the Urban Dictionary and posted as an article. Already, Fourthords had noted a prior tedious debate for deleting the unsourced production codes of TV shows in several pages, which might extend to prior deleted pages which should have unsourced data removed, before a deleted TV show is restored for view. In prior years, a page-to-be-deleted could go viral, as indexed with improper/BLP data in Google searches, unless the page-to-delete were first trimmed to minimal facts then edit-protected for 2 days before deletion, to allow major search-engine databases to de-index invalid data rather than have it go viral (for weeks/months) once the page is deleted and the index left holding the search-links to display improper data. Hence, the ocean of unsourced trivia spills out into the cybersphere of search-engine snippets and mirror-site webpages which might copy tabloid articles unless rapidly blanked-then-protected-then-deleted by an active admin. However, there are also problems of fully-protected hot-topic articles where the wp:INVOLVED admins are limited in pruning the text, but an outside admin with trivia-removal skills could use admin-edit access to prune a fully protected article while the INVOLVED admins debate what text to add later, and note that removal of unsourced text (or hearsay) can be more challenging to admins not familiar with the intricacies of wp:RS reliable sources. Anyway, I hope that clarifies some of the many ways in which a skilled admin can help to remove vast oceans of trivia, using the tools. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Please don't pile on
[edit]If you haven't read Advice for RfA voters and Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions recently, please do so now.
I don't want Fourthords' RfA overly influenced by my comments. I tried to craft them to discourage pilling-on. So far, it looks like I may have succeeded. Everyone needs to make up their own mind based on their own thoughtful and thorough review of his answers to the questiona and his edit history. I'll be greatly disappoined in any who opposes "per Doctree."
It's obvious that Fourthords leans toward the deletionist side; I lean inclusionist. That's not why I opposed. I spent a lot of time looking at Foursthords' history. From my review, it's obvious that he would never intentionally harm Wikipedia. It's clear that the vast majority of his contributions are good; many are excellent. Not only has Fourthords never been accused, he has never been less than civil in interation with others. From my thorough review, I confirm that he has never made a personal attack. Never. Don't take my word for it; go look for yourself.
I intentionally provided only one diff. Did I find more? I obviously I found something or I wouldn't have moved to oppose. Go look for yourself. But consider that if I saw a lot of problems or a pattern that convinced me that a Fourthords adminship would most likely harm the encyclopedia, I would have posted a string of diffs with detailed commentary on why I opposed. I don't see such a pattern. I didn't see a lot of problematic edits. If your review finds nothing that you consider negative, you should support. If you find something negative, please provide your own diff and comment if you choose to oppose. Fourthords deserves that courtesy. Successful or not, he needs good feedback in his RfA. If you can't find the time or won't take the time for a thoughtful and thorough review followed by helpful arguements to justify a support or oppose, please sit this one out or stay in neutral.
I hope the low number of participants so far is because regulars are doing their own assessments and carefully considering where they will land. Unfortunately, some piling on is inevitable as the close nears. Those who pile on based only on the comments of others probably don't watch or read RfA talk pages. The closing bureaucrat will give votes that jump on a pile at the last minute the weight deserved (little to none, in my opinion even though I have done so myself). Thanks to all who took the time to read this, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I too need to clarify: I have supported a good number of deletionist candidates. Perhaps I should say initially deletionist, because they generally become more inclusionist with actual administrative experience -- just as I am considerably reader to delete that I have been at the start. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I leaned slightly deletionist when DGG supported my adminship and he certainly knew it but it didn't stop his strong support that likely made a difference in a very close RFA. Two years later, I lean more inclusionist. I think DGG is correct that once you have the tools and responsibility in your hands, you tend to ease up on borderline cases that aren't hurting the encyclopedia and just might be improving it. Your perspective changes just a little. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)