Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coralmizu (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 15 July 2008 (→Oppose: Nope). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leonard^Bloom

Voice your opinion (talk page) (3/5/1); Scheduled to end 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) - I've been using Wikipedia since 2006, and in late 2006 I realized it was editable (through a pretty scary experience might I add: I searched "Scooby doo" and at the moment I was looking at the page, it was blanked and had some obsceneties on it). Only since 2007-10 was I an editor, with a huge gab between now and then. Recently though, I've "exploded" outwards as an editor: I participate in AfD's, and tag new articles with CSD. I still do a lot of vandalism reversion, and that's probably where a lot of edits come from though, but I've also grown to more additive edits, such as information, references, and a few images. To give a basic example of what I do, I like to say I play the "Random Game". I go to a random articles, and fix whatever I can. This has led to me quite a few new experiences with syntax and policies, and I play the game everyday! I also like to get involved in projects of whatever influences me. I don't really belong to any projects, although I do get the VGNewsletter, and I don't think I'll ever really join any. This isn't my real life anti-social behavior effectiny my editing; my interests are all over the spectrum, and I'll do whatever I can that interests me. In a brief bit about what I'd do with the infamous tools (yes, I know it will covered in Q1), I can only say for sure that for the first few real experiences with the tools will be in banning IPs that were properly warned. And, to end this in the way I end all communications, happy editing, Leonard(Bloom) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will, as said above, spend my first few days or so in the realm of IP bans and such. This is not unfamiliarity with the tools, but a personal philosophy of "starting slow". As time moves on, I hope to continue my routine as I do now, except with tools that will help when needed. I will certainly watch the places I need to (WP:AIV, WP:HD, and WP:RPP to name a few) as an admin, and I will certianly adjust myself appropiatly. To be conclusive, I'll help where and when I can, if I can. Leonard(Bloom) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My proudest moment here was finishing my additions to Frederic Porter Vinton. It started like this as a 1911 import, and I topped it off with this. I'm very proud of that, and I'm glad I had the chance to do it. Also, I can say that when I finish with my overhaul of Big Stick Diplomacy, I'll be very proud as well. But, I'm not done yet. Leonard(Bloom) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: My only conflict experience is with IPs who didn't like my edits. Sometimes they were in the wrong with vandalism on their part, and sometimes I made the mistake. Eitherway, conflicts are not my thing. I've seen plenty though, and have a pretty good idea on how to deal with them (if they are serious): log off. Archaic, yes, but time tested. Leonard(Bloom) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. While the vandalism edit below is of course disconcerting, I still say support per reasoned argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (6th nomination) and as someone who has been nice to me. So, good judgment and attitude in my personal experiences with the candidate. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Users edits look to be very nice. If I recall, he has saved my userpage once or twice from vandalism. While the vandalism is a little worrisome, when I look at the amount of greats edits and vandalism reversions he has done, it seems very strange that he would vandalize, so if he were to get adminship, he would have to be extremely careful where he uses his account. Johnman239 <3 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I was trying to remember where I saw that edit at before, and I remember seeing it on his talk page (after I was done thanking him for a fix on my userpage). I was confused by it, but it made sense from the explanation given. It was a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes here and there. I have no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, this is vandalism from three weeks ago. And a month ago you were misapplying WP:CSD#A1 tags. You need more experience. --Stephen 04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for lulz, but not in articles. —Giggy 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indented this for now; BorgQueen accepted his explanation and I do too. I think Metagraph's comment is ridiculously harsh, though I understand other rationales given by Stephen (though I'd prefer to see some direct evidence). For now I have no stance. —Giggy 04:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh what explanation? Care for a linky? Just saw the explanation below (nothing about BorgQueen, though.) Gary King (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BorgQueen was the person who reverted the in-question vandalism, I believe. Johnman239 <3 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation is different from his other explanation below. To summarize, message on June 21, 2008 essentially says that it was to entertain a friend but it was accidentally submitted. Message below claims that a friend made the edit. I believe that it was an accident, but at least some consistency between the two explanations would be nice. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's possibilities for both to be possible. Entering the edit, leaving the room and having his friend submit it. Regardless, it appears to be an easily fixed mistake, that Leonard is admitting happened; honesty is worth a lot. Johnman239 <3 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's very true. Anyways, I was AGF and still am :) Gary King (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggy, i don't take kindly to POV vandalism. If i choose to believe his response (which i am no way required too), if an editor is willing to A) Let his friends edit on his account while having a bit of fun, or B) Leave his account open for his friends to do what they will on, then i strongly oppose that user having any editing privileges, let alone admin powers. Vandalism should never be expected from an administrator, which is why we have RfA's. This is why i opposed, and believe it is well within my rights to do so. Metagraph comment 05:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose for recent vandalism. Not now, probably not ever. Metagraph comment 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That is my learning experience after logging in at a friends house, then leaving the room while still in. It is not me, and I already told this to the user that warned me. Leonard(Bloom) 04:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And i take it your friend knows how to use edit summaries, and misleading ones in an attempt to hide the vandalism at that? Doesn't look like simple vandalism from a person unfamiliar to the site. Regardless, i still strong oppose for not taking better care towards keeping your account secure. With admin powers, anyone in your account could do anything.
  3. Per I can only say for sure that for the first few real experiences with the tools will be in banning IPs that were properly warned. IP addresses are blocked, not banned. miranda 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Mistakes, vandalism, inexperience in project space, and a strange quote suggesting that you do not understand when it is appropriate to block. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Recent vandalism coupled with the inconsistency in attempting to explain it away. This does not instill trust. For now, sorry. Useight (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that both explanations could be true, and if we examine them, it looks like it would be that way. Consider, typing the edits for entertainment, Leonard leaves the room and his friend submits. Had Leonard been present when the submit button was pressed, I'm sure he would've near instantly reverted it. Sorry, forgot to sign the first time around. Johnman239 <3 (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Vandalism? That's really not a Good Thing. Incivility, perhaps, if you've learnt from it, but vandalism shows a deliberate will to cause harm to the wiki. Sorry, I can't support. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. I'm not going to judge you, but if the vandalism you did not commit but your friend did you shouldn't really have admin rights until you only use this account at your home, in order to prevent an attack. However, you do have good contributions, but personally I don't think you ready yet. BoL (Talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Leonard%5EBloom&oldid=225747144"