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

Final (6/13/11). Withdrawn by candidate at 06:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) – RfAs seem to draw a lot of the same crowd, of which many I am not familiar. This is, I hope, not out of some defect on my part, but merely a cruel twist of fate: in the moment in which I wish to show I can help the encyclopedia a bit more with a mop, my hands lie in those who I never really got to know. Hell, I don't get to know a lot of you wonderful editors 'round en.wiki. I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve, to quote a good friend of mine. As my userpage proudly proclaims, I am a gnomish fellow. You may see me formatting the references on articles changing them from plain URLs to the appropriate citation template, or adding descriptions to images that were uploaded with them (a new found pleasure) or even assorted XfDs when I feel like rearing my ugly head. I have a long history of vandalism reversion, with twinkle and rollback in the begininng, and now I use Huggle. I also have a large number of CSDs under my belt (and, as my last RfA showed, some mistakes as well; these have been remedied for the most part). New page patrol (for articles; recently I've started patrolling images as well) is something I profoundly enjoy doing, and not just for the masochist in me who loves to read a thousand articles on the gay student who's really bad at runescape and then sadistically cherish the moment when I tag it to be deleted; I format references, add tags, add an image or two occasionally, and sometimes expand the article with actual content. That's not to say that I'm not without content building experience (I hear you ladies and gents go batty for that sort of thing), but I will be the first to admit it is not my love. This is all a lot of chit-chat, just to give a simple description of the user in question for the audience, and some are probably wondering even now why a gnome in all regards but physical would want the mop and robe. The answer is fairly simple, I think. I honestly and strongly believe that I can improve the encyclopedia just a tad bit more than usual if I had the tools. That's it; that's all. Have a nice evening. Your humble servant, Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe a bit preemptive, and maybe not. I'm not too sure, however, I do know that I am at the leisure to close my nomination at this, or any, point. I am also sure that I have too many mistakes as of late, and apparently not enough forethought on my nomination statement. This is good, though, because it's that much more experience under my belt. Maybe I'll try again in a few months, who knows? I withdraw my current nomination. Thank you to all who participated, your humble servant, Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: With my experience in New Page patrol, I hope to be useful in deleting articles that are obviously violations of WP:CSD. With my experience in vandalism, I would like to be able to help out in times of high vandalism: protect pages or block/ban IPs/users. Another place I hope to help out in is WP:BL and CAT:AB, where help is needed. A very specific interest of mine is in the requests for renamed media, an area I dare say I've found myself stricken with a need to help there. It's a niche, and I wish to fill it. New image patrol is also an interest, but something I've only recently gotten into and lack a large amount of experience in.

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

A: That depends on who you ask. To those who value article and content creation, it may be getting Big Stick ideology to GA or creating short stuff like Frederic Porter Vinton and Michael Ashley (astronomer). To my homies on huggle, it may be the long hours spent reverting vandalism and reporting users/IPs. To those watching the new stuff, than maybe it's the CSDs, or maybe it's the small stuff, like talk page templates, formatting references, wikifying, or tagging articles. My favorite contributions are the things that personally make me happy, like adding geographic coordinates to articles and images, or formatting ref, or adding the information for lost and unloved images, or tracking down the contact information for people to get their images for a short, low-quality biography or a ship. That names a few out of many things I love to look back upon. (Observant observers will note that these are all really recent edits for the most part. Besides the fact that I went on a really fun editing spree last night, my browser is also being funky, so I'm trying not to have to load too many things; my contributions are thus very untapped.) My contributions really are all over the place. I wish you a joyous roller coaster ride if you dig through my contribs diligently.

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 and no, which is a horrible answer I regret having to give. However, it is true. As my initial description pounds in, I am a gnomish editor; it's in my blood. That means, at least for me, that I don't fall into disputes often because I don't really do things that make disputes. More often than not, I hope I'm fixing something. However, I'm not a complete and total hermit, and I have been in a dispute or two. The dispute that comes to mind when I think stressful is the problems I saw over Deford, Michigan and Cass City High School. One user (who was later blocked for edit warring and a sock) kept adding information that was proven incorrect. I am human sadly so emotions come easily. I found myself a bit put off by her actions, but I like to think I kept my cool and acted accordingly. I appoached the matter with a calm head, and, at least in my head, came up with a way of apporaching similar disagreements. Because the disagreement was primarily on the matter of the reliability of the information in the article and the relative sources, I have seen a very effective method for dealing with this, used by User:Toddst1. In summary, it would be to remove the sections being questioned or under dispute to the talk page, and discuss it. Unless I'm really out of the loop (which is a possibility) and this method is actually described in more detail at WP:Official method for dealing with disputes revolving around the accuracy of articles, I think this is a nice variant of the other methods I have seen used before my time. In general, I'm going to rattle off a cliche, and say that I hope to be able to approach disputes with a calm head and common sense. I think I have proved to be a calm, respectful person in the past, and I don't see why wearing a robe would change this.

Additional optional question from Tedder

4. Your contribs have been very intermittent. Why is this, and do you think that should influence !votes for your adminship?

A: They were intermittent because, at the time, school ate up a decent chunk of my time. I do not think it should be a heavy influence, particularly because such a gap as that will not happen again. With changes in the real world, such as scheduling alterations and a lighter load to name a few, I will be able to dedicate much more to Wikipedia. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from User:Drawn Some

5. Please explain what this phrase in your nomination refers to: "gay student who's really bad at runescape". Is this referring to a particular article or person? What exactly do you mean by "gay" in that phrase? It's unclear in meaning. Drawn Some (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I was wondering if someone would ask me this. The current generation often gets quite confused upon the definition of the word, and anyone who reverts vandalism or tags G3/10s in any decent amount will eventually see this. The "gay student playing runescape" was just a reference to this, and, in particular, a recent article that basically called a student somewhere "the gayest, worst runescape player ever." If I recall, this is the article I am referring to. I hope that answers your question, and thank you for asking. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Leonard^Bloom: Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Leonard^Bloom can be found here.

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

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. -t'shael^chat 06:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm going to support this. Yes, he's made mistakes in CSD, but I believe that he is capable of learning from this. He's obviously dedicated to the project, although I'm disgruntled by the vandalism brought up in the first RfA (one year ago). I think he can be trusted with the bit. Does work in AfD, AIV, CSD, RCP, and article building, he's also polite, and I've had good interactions with him, etc. And coupled with the disappointing oppose reasoning (that sort of stuff belongs in neutral if you ask me), this leads me to Support, despite the mistakes - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think that a few mistakes are enough to make me say oppose. We have all made mistakes and we all will learn from them. I would think that he would be a bit more cautious about when to delete and when to keep when using the bit, but overall he seems to be a good editor. Just as a side note, reading through the discussion down in the neutral section I think we are seeing a very diplomatic person willing to work through conflict and cooperate with other editors. This just solidifies my support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm supporting mainly per the reason that the candidate is an experienced user that has made a few mistakes, but most importantly owns up to them. Admins are not supposed to be perfect; if they were, a passed RFA would only happen once in a blue moon. I would trust Leo as an admin, just in the hope that he is more careful with the "delete" button when working with CSDs. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am also going to support the user's application. He has shown a willingness to learn and to take on the broom. As far as my interaction with the user, I have nothing negative to remark. --MoRsE (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm just curious, when have we interacted? Your name is familiar, but that could be said about a lot of people. I remember seeing your name elsewhere fairly recently, but I'm drawing a blank. Thanks. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I bumped into you in the Riga class frigate article some days ago :) --MoRsE (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ahhhh... that. Also, thanks; I hoped I would of been right in assuming it was a better image. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support Only weakly as looks like you might be too quick to delete. Otherwise fine admin material. I thought your nom was rather charming. It needs to be read slowly to be appreciated though – a cardinal sin for some. And mentioning sadism always risk setting off alarm bells with folk you don't know. If you need another RFA write your nom like your talk page posts for an easier passage :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, god forbid we have an admin who tries to lighten up our internal processes. Just go a bit more carefully on the A7s, ok? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

1. Sorry. Per your CSD tagging, which you indentify as one of the areas you intend to work in. Some examples: A7's with indication of importance ([1] [2], [3]); A1 with context ([4]); A1 on a (malformed) redirect 1 minute after creation ([5]). Some of those were tagged only 1 or 2 minutes after creation, which in my opinion shouldn't be done unless the article is an attack page, copyvio or blatant vandalism. I suggest you read this essay and see what you can learn from it. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for taking the time to find those, and thanks especially for the essay. I will strongly consider it next time I new page patrol. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not ready yet, but looking forward to next time per Jafeluv Please remember that to qualify for speedy deletion under A7, a subject should make no claim to any significance. It might be helpful to take a few minutes to search for notability, context, and sourcing for a subject before tagging for deletion. One of my favorite examples of having done so is Eunice (genus). At first, I thought it was a cleverly veiled attack. By the time I was done, I had a nice stub. New editors don't always do a good job of creating a new article and need the help of the more experienced users. Dlohcierekim 14:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Sorry, I have only to read the nomination statement to know that I don't want to have to read any more communications written in that style. Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose—I have to agree with Looei: it's not the dignified, focused style I want to see in an application for promotion: far too informal and discursive in a way that suggests the candidate is unprepared for the responsibilities. Sorry. I'd like to see more content editing, and perhaps a learning curve for technical activities such as WP:NFC as an introduction to the potential to serve the project in an administrative capacity. Tony (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - I agree with the previous two statements. Writing an encyclopedia is serious business, and being an admin even more so. Based on your writing, I do not have confidence that you would take the admin job seriously. Sorry.--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per the three above me. Sorry, but to be frank I didn't feel the need to go past "To my homies on huggle" in your statement. While we're here, in light of your talk about "adding appropriate descriptions to images", care to explain what was going on here? – iridescent 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Images for that article were some of the first I ever uploaded. The descriptions were of lower quality, and I seem to have thought at the time that the descriptions follow images or some such like that, or else why would I be talking to myself, "same as last time". I have plenty of other instances of descriptions added accurately and in more detail. That was almost a year ago. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose Sorry, but the concerns listed above sway me to oppose. Sorry. America69 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose One of the worst nominations I've read for what is a serious position of responsibility. Not a lot seems to have changed since your last attempt; you are still badly tagging articles, probably to 'sadistically cherish the moment when [you] tag it to be deleted', which is hardly the proper reason. --Stephen 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose After searching through more of your contributions, re-reading your nom statement and then reading all of the other !votes, I regret that I must oppose per user:T'Shael/RfA. -t'shael^chat 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for taking the time to explore my contributions and being helpful in clarifying in the discussions in the neutral section. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose Sorry, brevity and economy of style are close to godliness, and I don't see any of that. Peter Damian (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you clarify upon "brevity and economy of style"? I'm a bit confused. Do you mean style in reference to content creation, or am I missing the point entirely? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean in reference to expressing yourself, either in article or talk pages. Peter Damian (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. Thank you for clarification. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose If the candidate is going to be writing block rationales with the same standard of communication as his nomination, we'd have a serious problem. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Per Jafeluv.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - for now - due to the wretched nomination soliloquy and CSD concerns. Leonard, you can do better. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Leaning to support. I like a lot of it, but I have concerns on your speedy tags. [6][7][8][9]. The last one in particular was a little odd as it was clearly a redirect. Flip side is lots of good stuff, GA, AIV, pleasent demeanour. I'll revisit this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the kind words. As for those CSD tags, well, I really can't say anything else besides that they were mistakes, but they are few and far between, and as time goes on, even more so. I almost always try and make known that I do have mistakes, and I like to think that I'll usually be the first person to admit I have made one. As for that last one, the redirect? If I recall correctly, I've cited that one as a mistake before, but it's something I should of seen. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the same problem as Pedro's diff number four and it was done earlier today. This concerns me because if you're that quick to fire off the tag button, will you be that quick to delete something? Incorrect taggings are easily fixed, incorrect deletions might never be noticed. -t'shael^chat 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, that one was a problem with Twinkle, Leonard tagged it at the same time as I moved it, and as most of us manual new page patrollers know, Twinkle isn't very good at catching edit conflicts. He did then tag the article which I had moved it to, as it was here, and you could argue that that's okay under WP:NOTINHERITED (although that is only an essay, and it is designed for WP:XfD rather then WP:CSD. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you Kingpin. I was rather voraciously looking through my contribs to piece together what had happened; I didn't believe that I had made such a mistake today. In general though, I would like to say this: my answer as to what I would use the tools for initially. Obvious violation, clarification being that I would only intend to delete G3s and G10s; I specified this in my answer because I do make mistakes. I wish to emphasize this, because I did not make it as clear as I could in my answer: vandalism and new page patrol are not the main reason. Frankly, the backlog seen in these two parts of Wikipedia isn't as back as, say, most anything at WP:BC or CAT:AB. I note experience in vandalism, and in new page patrol, as these are important qualities in an admin. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, I've had trouble with Twinkle in the past and can believe that this was a tool error. However, Pedro's diffs are still concerning. Don't get me wrong, though, I see a lot of good stuff, too. Still haven't really made up my mind as to support or oppose, but I appreciate your time to clarify, Leonard. -t'shael^chat 08:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It can only benefit me (and/or the encyclopedia, depending on how you see things) to clarify things, and I wish to be of as much help as possible. However, at the moment, I'm going to bed. You're welcome for the clarification. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Liking what I see, but when the first thing I check, File:Volga-937-1.jpg, doesn't have OTRS permission (which I'd expect an admin to know) ... I get a little wary. Apologies, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no excuse for this. Thank you for notifying me of this, and I will contact an OTRS member as soon as possible, to verify the fwd'd permission. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you! :) Side note: it may be a good idea to crop out the odd red border. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Being a little trigger happy raises concern. If there is concern with frivolous tagging then unnecessary blocks might follow. Read the article first, then decide. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Leaning to support. Will check back later. Aditya ^α _ß 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not sure what's up with your nom statement, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral Julian took the words out of my mouth, though the bad taste is still there. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement doesn't sit well with me. Because I can't be more specific, I'm neutral until I can figure out exactly what about it is bothering me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral. per all the above. While Leonard^Bloom has clearly done some good work for the project, the issues with CSD tagging and the nom statement are making me a bit edgy about supporting. Yet, I have seen this user around WP:AFC and this user's work for that project. I know that Leonard^Bloom would make a good sysop with a little more experience so I !vote neutral for now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't have a problem with your comments in the nomination statement (because after our interactions I know you to be a mature and intelligent person), but your mis-taggings are a little worrying. Work on those, and on your demeanor a bit, and I believe a future request would most definitely be successful. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you the kind words. Could you offer a bit of clarification on my demeanor and how it could be improved? I'm a bit confused in that regard. I think I have almost always (if not always) acted helpful and good-natured to anyone who comes my way. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As one of those opposing because of it; to be frank, your nomination statement and answers to the questions read as if they were either written by someone ripped on coke, or by a young child. As you say, you're not familiar to a lot of us; if you're going to make incoherent "to all my homies!" posts at your own RFA, you're highly likely to be one of the admins who thinks it's funny to make wisecracks when blocking/deleting, which generally has predictable consequences. – iridescent 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Appearing immature is not my intent. If my word choice or tone comes across that way, I'm sorry. I have been told that my writing/communicating style can be "quirky", but I do not believe that it reflects my contributions to Wikipedia. As for cracking jokes? Well, I have never fed the trolls in the past, and I don't intend to. If you feel that you can make an appropriate judgment of my character by reading and disliking my odd sense of humor, then I'll respect that. I will disagree with it, but it's your own opinion and you have seen more go people come and go through RfA than I have, which counts for a lot. Thank you for the clarification upon your point. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. NeutralHuman beings are not robots, they can learn from their mistakes, as robots just keep running into lawn gnomes and hitting each other. It's just that those CSD issues are a little too recent, don't let this deter you from learning editing. I know that you eventualy will make a great admin.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the kind words. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral per most of the above. Some small errors lead me to believe that you may be a little quick on the delete button at this point, but I do strongly encourage you to come back to RfA soon, as you do appear to be a dedicated, helpful, and genuinely nice person who clearly has the best interests of the wiki at heart. The LotR reference certainly helps as well. ;) GlassCobra 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the kind words, they mean a lot. Thanks for catching that; worst-case scenario would be no one catching it, and thinking that I'm insulting them with the "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve" bit. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (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.