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 Xeno (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 15 July 2008 (closing per WP:NOTNOW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Leonard^Bloom

(4/22/1); Scheduled to end 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) closed per WP:NOTNOW. –xeno (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Additional question from weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
4. Following that security blip mentioned in the oppose section, what steps do you plan to take to ensure that your account is not compromised again?
A: After hearing the general gist of oppose, I'm already looking into committed identity and a public only accounts. And, as I said it my comment below, that was a horrible learning experience: it will not happen again. Leonard(Bloom) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from BigHairRef

5. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not the only reasonable applicable and likely reasoning?
A: Well, if I'm understanding the question correctly, you are wondering how I judge a consensus that includes bits of "Support/Oppose per User:X" or something like that (with user X giving one of the many reasonable answers. I think if I was to look at an argument an find multiple of those kind of answers, I would treat only as valid as the argument user:X proposed. If user:X's argument was sketchy/iffy, then anyone using user:X's argument would have the same sketchy/iffy ideals. From there, I would compare those to the arguments of the other side, and make a judgment from there. Leonard(Bloom) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from NuclearWarfare
6. Please define notability in your own words.
A. Notable, to me, means that it has had a lasting effect of something, somewhere. An example of this would by arguments at the AFD for Johnathan Kaye or the AFD for Myungbaksanseong. Although I disagree with the outcome of the latter, I do believe that merging was appropriate, while deletion would not be. If I can find legitimate, secondary hits from Google, Google News, or Google Books, then I find it notable. More specifically, if the article in question can be found on a different site, in an encyclopedic format, then I believe it is notable. Leonard(Bloom) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A. Personally, before this RFA, I did not believe there was a difference (hence my usage, in which I used them, them they were interchangeable). Look at the words, and in which the context they are used, I would say that block was more IP oriented, while ban was for a longer period of time with more usage towards disruptive users. To also be noted, when I think of a "block" and a "ban", I feel ban might be for a longer time. Leonard(Bloom) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. When should a cool down block be used and why?
A. A cool down block should not be used. Blocking someone because they might do something seems to preemptive for my comfortability level. Blocking someone because they seem angered, to prevent them doing something that will get them blocked seems... redundant, for lack of a better word. In the end, if someone can't control their anger, it is their fault. Leonard(Bloom) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A.

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]
  4. Very Strong Support I've had frequent contact with this candidate and I've been highly impressed by his intelligence, his easy going personality and his dedication to improving and expanding the depth and scope of Wikipedia. Unlike many of the candidates who come to this firing squad range, this candidate is actually interested in building new content, which is a major plus in my book. As for the "vandalism" -- oh, please, a teeny aberration for which the candidate already apologised (and for which the administrator who questioned him has already accepted as a closed case). I am looking over this candidate's full record of contributions (not one mistake) and I like what I see. I am very happy to lend my support to this candidacy. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mild Support i have to say this though, i do have to give you credite for fixing dammage done to some articles. and o also give you credit for not being the person who actualy made the vandalism edit that people accuse you of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting above duplicate support. Another vote made by same person was made in Neutral and is newer so I will assume that is their new position. I have also notified them. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 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]
    Examples at Simon Dodd, Edward Baluyut, and John Parris (footballer) --Stephen 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific diffs for convenience and accuracy, because article appears differently when CSD is applied compared to now: Simon Dodd, Edward Baluyut, John Parris (footballer). Gary King (talk) 05:44, 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]
    I happily concur with your last sentence. —Giggy 10:34, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs)
  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]
    Imagine if the account had administrative rights and he left it for his friend to click whatever he wanted. Regardless of the explanation and whether or not it is consistent, I cannot support at this time. Useight (talk) 15:59, 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]
  7. Oppose The vandalism doesn't bother me as much as the new examples (I provided the diffs) that User:Stephen has shown. No context CSDs are applied to articles that clearly have context. I don't know if it's because that's the only CSD reason you use for CSDs? But anyways, sorry, those happened too soon. Gary King (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Vandalism is one strike and you're out for me, within less than a year of the RfA. Even worse is the fact that this vandalism was much less than a year before the RfA. S. Dean Jameson 06:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The worst part is that you apparently don't know how sequel is spelt.[1] user:Everyme 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I believe that the 'vandalism' may have been done by another person while this candidate was logged in. But Stephen's examples of misapplying the criteria for speedy deletion convince me that this user is not surgical enough in applying the criteria. What we don't need is an admin who will be heavy-handed with the 'delete' button. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, candidate has (at best) been very careless with their account security. I am not confident that there won't be another similar lapse in the future, and if the user had the tools, the amount of damage caused could be amplified. Not worth the risk, I think. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Oppose - Just not ready yet. Mistakes have been made, some of which seem to have occured too near this RfA for my liking. And a "vandal-fighter" who yet goes a vandalises articles just 3 weeks before opening an RfA? Or if not, leaves his account open for friends to play with? This is not the behaviour or attitude expected of an admin in the slightest. Lradrama 10:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Recent vandalism, no matter how good and nice a user may be, isn't acceptable editor behavior, let alone admin behavior. Wizardman 11:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: Per above stated reasons regarding recent vandalism (although you have offered up an excuse) and for a lack of experience ("...realm of IP bans and such..."). seicer | talk | contribs 12:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Metagraph and Iridescent. Completely untrustworthy. SashaNein (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Giving full AGF about the vandalism edit, the CSD A1 diffs are too concerning.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Nothing I can really add to the unsettling arguments above, but I feel that account security is of utmost importance for admins, and thus afer that recent incident I cannot support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I can overlook the vandalism thing, but this was ridiculous. – iridescent 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose To much vandalism in a too recent short period of time. America69 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - reluctantly. Your heart is clearly in the right place, but it's just too early. You need to gain more rexperience in project areas, and with policy in general. Take time to learn the policy better, continue editing normally and in a good few months you will be better placed. - Toon05 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose 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 and Iridescent's diff. Rudget (logs) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per all of above comments. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:16, 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]
  2. Neutral im also stating something on this part because im not sure at this second if he is ready. however i also have to support him. so this comment is neutral.Hawkey131 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Leonard%5EBloom&oldid=225847601"