Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom 3

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

Leonard^Bloom

Final tally: (103/6/3), ended 09:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC).

Nomination

Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you, Leonard^Bloom, for the role of sysop. As a user with more than 17,000 edits beginning in October 2007, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, dedication, and civility, Leo has truly been a valuable asset to the project these past years. Apart from having two GAs under his belt, William Henry Sheppard and Big Stick ideology, Leo has extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria/non-free/media copyright policies. As can be seen from Leo's contributions, he is highly adept in tagging, addressing, or correcting issues with media files and in making accurate CSD/deletion taggings. Simply put, his deletion work is outstanding in all respects. Apart from working with media files, Leo is an active presence in Wikiproject Articles for Creation, where he works tirelessly filling redirect requests and helping new users write their first articles, a seasoned counter-vandalism user, and an experienced new page patroller.

I think Leo has proven himself as a knowledgeable editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this user to Wikipedia's administrative team would be an absolute net-benefit to the project. I hope you will agree with me that Leonard^Bloom would do well with the mop and bucket. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank Fastily for nominating me. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly maintenance work, as a janitor of sorts. Deleting appropriate items from C:SD, helping with file renaming requests, deleting rescaled images, and variety of other tasks. Vandalism reversion and new page patrol are also areas in which I have experience, and these would be places I would be comfortable working in, but neither are my primary interests.

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

A: A variety of things. I'm quite proud of the time I have put into the few articles which bear my name in any significant portion, such as William Henry Sheppard or Big Stick ideology, which are both GAs. As well as those, I have put a relatively small portion of time into a few stubs here and there. Besides work writing, I have done a large amount of general maintenance, on articles and files, which I look kindly back upon. I have been active in the WP:AFC/R program, and through that I have made probably around a third or more of the almost 800 redirects I have created.

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: I have been involved in two minor conflicts or debates. The first would be that surrounding Deford, Michigan (and later Cass City High School). Users were adding incorrect information, or resorting to edit wars to settle a dispute between two people claiming to live in the region and both disagreeing with information on the article. I acted as mediator, along with User:Toddst1, and we were able to settle the dispute. That was from a while ago, and was probably the most significant "dispute" I've been involved it. I was also partially involved in a naming dispute on Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança. That was much more like a debate than a dispute, but it ended quietly enough, and I don't believe there have been problems with the title since. As I stated above, I perform much more maintenance than anything else, and I don't see myself getting into major disputes. However, if one does occur, I believe I would act as I have in the past: rationally and calmly, trying to end the situation as easily and quietly as possible.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Wikipedians have rights. The most concrete is the right to vanish, but I do not see myself in the position to deal with this. As I said, my interests lie in maintenance and janitorial work. The second "right" would be the ability to edit, but this can be revoked temporarily or indefinitely (so I guess it's more like a privilege where you're innocent until proven guilty). An IP who is has been reported to AIV would lose that privilege for the appropriate amount of time. Please ask me to clarify if I didn't answer the question clearly enough.

Additional optional questions from Tbsdy lives

5. Editor X starts the following thread after editor Y makes a change to the Falklands War article:

"I find editor Y's editing puerile and it looks like we have a POV-pusher holding this article to ransom. They clearly have no idea that the Falklans War was fought over a 74 day period, and not a 96 day period as they claimed in edit xyz, and in fact if you look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on this then you will see that this is the case. The fact that you have said that the war lasted so long shows me that you have a clear anti-British agenda you are pushing - why else would you have modified this article to say that the conflict went on for such a prolonged time?"

Editor Y responds:

"How dare you accuse me of being a POV-pusher! your behaviour on this article is disgusting. You are clearly someone who doesn't assume good faith, and your edits show that you yourself are pushing an pro-British agenda. What have you got against Argentina? I can't believe you reverted my edit! How dare you. You are a piece of shit, and I demand that you reverse your edits AT ONCE!"

How would you deal with this situation? In particular, what, if any, actions would you take against editor X, and what actions, if any, would you take against editor Y?

A: I'd clearly block E. Y because E. X has a better vocabulary. In all seriousness though, I would probably ask both to calm down first and foremost. After that, I would try to find a neutral state for the problem they found in the article. As that may not exist (it seems they're arguing about a quantitative value), then a discussion would have to exist without one. I would try to see which side was better backed up by sources, and try to find the answer through core policy about reliable sourcing. Please ask for clarification if that doesn't make as much sense I hope.

A few from Smithers.

6. Explain CSD criterion G1.

A. G1 is patent nonsense. It is reserved for strings of text that can't, in any reasonable way, be interpreted to mean something. For example, "saddfgghadsfg245d^^%fg*" repeated really wouldn't mean much, but "Jhon smith is a rapp artsit," might just need someone to fix the typos.

7. Explain CSD criterion A9.

A. An album or single by an artist without an article, because they lack the notability. If the artist doesn't meet notability requirements, than the album almost certainly wouldn't.

8. Explain the difference between criteria A1 and A3.

A. A1 is context, while A3 is content. A1 would apply to a description of an unnamed person or place; descriptions without context. A3 on the other hand would be applied to an article with no encyclopedia content.

Additional optional questions from RP459

9. I see from your contributions [1] that you had 2 wikibreaks (I do note there was some activity during both periods) both approximately 6 months in length. Would you mind letting us know what caused those periods of inactivity and if the circumstances which caused those periods are likely to occur again?

A. Varying circumstances caused both, with both being rather serious. The second of the two put me in a position in which almost all activity not required of me was severely limited, as you can see. Such events are incredibly unlikely to occur again, but I can't make any certain promises. Sure would be useful to be able to see the future, but so it goes.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. If I had the willingness to make such a large decision, I'd probably close as delete. With a BLP, I believe to err on the side of caution. The arguments most relevant to a closing decision were of BLP notability and reliable sourcing, and it seemed to be split down the middle between people who thought the sourcing was reliable and proved notability, while the other half didn't. In such a case, I would promote a delete decision. No one was arguing that he should never have an article, but only that the sourcing available at the time wasn't enough to warrant an article.

11. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. As I said, I believe that BLPs require that editors err on the side of caution. The reason that BLPs are as big of an issue as they are is because we've been shown that we need to be wary of what this site can do for people in the real world. Hopefully that explains my opinion on the matter. It is not very detailed, however, because I've never been heavily involved with BLP policy and maintenance. I have helped maintain and source BLPs in the past (but, to be honest, it was probably not because they were BLPs that prompted me to do so, but merely because they were articles needing reliable sources), but have never tried my hands in any particularly pressing BLP-related debates.

Clarification: My views do not stray far from the guidelines and policy we've set up. If I ever put myself in the situation in which I would close an AfD on a BLP, I would not default to delete, for example. Do note, however, that AfD isn't a major interest of mine. However, as an editor or writer, I err on the side of caution as I said before. That is where my views come from, as an editor of articles. If anyone would like me to clarify further, please don't hesitate to ask.

12. What is your interpretation of IAR, and do you think that common sense should automatically overweigh policies in any area on Wikipedia?

A. IAR was crafted with good intentions, and I deeply respect the thinking that goes behind it: we're here to help the encyclopedia, not propagate theoretically needless bureaucracy, and if the latter harms the former, something is wrong. However, the policies by which Wikipedia functions were crafted with the best of intentions, by people who were using common sense as much as IAR would call for. I believe that IAR is appropriate when the policy is clear, rigid, and directly contrary to what a reasonable person would see as necessary in a specific instance. If the policy is heavily contested, constantly debated, and is in the direct and necessary benefit of the encyclopedia as a project, then IAR may not be the best route. That was all a very long-winded and superfluous way of saying, "Sometimes." I believe that IAR should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Please ask for clarification on any aswer if I was not clear enough.

Further Question: I don't think I made this question clear enough, so if you don't mind, I'm going to elaborate into how I view IAR, and then ask if you agree. IAR to me should be used everyday, and the more you start to have admin experience, or even just plain editor experience, the more you should be able to use it. Some people view IAR as simply meaning that you are completely going to ignore a policy to get to your idea of common sense, I see it in a different way. When using IAR you are not just simply throwing policies to the sidelines, but you are using those policies in your decision, and you are reflecting on your experiences with whatever particular issue you are dealing with. Your use of IAR should reflect how much experience you have, and how well you actually understand policy. So in summary, you should use IAR every single time you make an action here, and along with every single policy you cite for a change. Remember the purpose of this encyclopedia, is to be bold, so we should be bold with every edit. Don't you agree? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A. I would agree to that. I don't know if want me to elaborate upon why I agree, but, to be honest, it's a bit of an awkward question.

Clarification: IAR is a reflection of your experience. One must know the rules that are directly contrary to what the situation calls for. This is why I believe IAR is important, because when called into play, it is used for the best intention of the project. However, as I stated above, the policies we have in place should work for the most part, and while that could be debated, we, at the very least, address the vast majority of issues that could arise. "I believe that IAR should be applied on a case-by-case basis," is not clear enough. I don't mean to say that IAR is used in every situation or decision, merely to showcase experience, but that in the few scenarios where IAR is even applicable, I would evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. To the best of my knowledge, I have never found myself to be in a situation where I said to myself, "Well, it might be best to ignore the rules here and just go for it." In short, I agree with Coffee on the issue of experience: IAR is an example of being experienced enough to know the rules and guidelines, and where the policies lie, but to know the difference between when their use is for the benefit of the project (the vast majority of situations) and when it is not (the vast minority). Hopefully this can provide a bit more insight into my views on the matter. Please, don't hesitate to ask for further clarification.

13. Sorry, but one more follow-up: To be clear, when (if ever) should IAR be invoked to either override or ignore existing community consensus? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A. IAR should not override or ignore community discussion and consensus. IAR should be used in the rare circumstances where current policy is directly preventing a recognized benefit of a specific action.

Additional optional questions from SoWhy

14. In Q7, you were asked about speedy criterion A9. For clarification: Is there a reason to keep an article tagged per A9 even if the artist does not have an article?

A: A9 is, as the description says, "a lower standard than notability." It applies for articles that are about albums or songs that neither assert notability, nor have an article for the artist(s). I suppose the reason behind using such a CSD would be the same as using {{db-band}}, and not just {{db-a7}}. Specification within the general failure to assert notability.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom
• Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom 2
• Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom 3

• 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.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. As nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, please. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support --The Thing _{Vandalize me} 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
4. uberrima fides delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Without reservation. Leo has my trust and has shown he can handle the responsibilities that come with with the sysop flag. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Has the experience. Polargeo (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Sure. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Seen the name on many occasions; has earned my trust for a while. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Of course, Mr^Redirect. Tim Song (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - I don't need to go through this user's contribution history. I have long been aware of his contributions. It's a cliche, but I thought he would have been an admin already. It's good to see a user use his real name too! :D - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - To be clear, my handle is not my name. It comes from Leopold Bloom, a character from a book I enjoyed. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

12. Support. Experienced, knowledgeable, and civil. A sampling of his contribs (including deleted) looked good. Useight (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - Looking at his past RFA's and his contributions it looks like this editor has more than learned from the concerns that were raised in the past and would be a valuable mop wielder Ajbpearce (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Sure –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Support As an IP multiple civil encounters with this editor who appears to be here to write an encyclopedia and knows that acting in a professional manner on that task does not prevent enjoying being part of the community. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks good to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - trustworthy and civil. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Has the experience and the clue, and is trustworthy.  fetchcomms☛ 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Support No concerns, and even though I have never run into you before, the supports above are pretty convincing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. -- Mentifisto 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Support — Whilst I cannot remember a specific encounter, I have an odd feeling of trust. I have no concerns with you having the bit. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Conditional support so long as this user takes a pledge not to sign Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse. Signing such things is prima facie evidence that he isn't willing to make tough decisions. (And I'm sure there are several waiting to oppose you if you don't sign it because it's prima facie ad Hitlerum as well as one or two who will oppose you for making a pledge.) Recognizance (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Да ···Lauryn 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Why did Fastily have to provide such a good nomination statement? The only thing I can think of to say is that I second the nom. Obviously clueful and competent candidate- goo luck. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I note the concerns raised by DGG, but I believe we have an easily competent candidate here and, with respect to DGG, I reaffirm my support HJ Mitchell
25. Support - No worries, Lord Spongefrog (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Per Q5. When i first read the first sentance i was thinking, okay theres a problem here, but after the bit of joking around, the thought process on the event i think is just perfect. No worries here, fully support, Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Epic Support Demonstrates upmost clue & skill, and is frankly just blatantly awesome, except for the ^ bit which sends my browser into the ever so annoying %3 state.  IShadowed  ✰  18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Does good work at AFC, competent, clueful contributor. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Support — I have to second Cyclonenim's comment. You demonstrate what I think would make you a very good admin. Bonne chance! Booksworm ^{Do you speak Wiki?} 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Support better-than-even chance of being net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Support A clear case in my view: a solid record of content contribution, sound answers to questions, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Definitely Support per nomination and good answers -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate currently has unanimous support, candidate's argument in the sole AfD in which we both participated was reasonable and intelligently worded, and as candidate has never been blocked. Put simply, while I and my fellow editors see various positives, neither I nor anyone else has come up with any reason to oppose at this time. Bravo!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
34. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Yeah.  GARDEN  22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Support – Leo is easily one of the most clueful users I know. No problems with him being an admin. — The Earwig @ 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Trust the nom of Fastily and the user has overcome the issues raised in previous RFA.project will gain with the user having tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support - RfA is a test of trust. Can we trust this user? I could say yes. smithers - talk 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
39. Support - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
40. Y Not? Looks perfect to me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
41. I have long known Leo Bloom and he has always acted with integrity. He is inherently trustworthy and I think he has a good enough grasp of policy. ceranthor 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Support sure.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Competent and useful. MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
44. Support, clearly an excellent editor. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Support, per nomination. Blurpeace 05:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
46. No problems I can see. Should do fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - What I've seen of Leo around Wikipedia has been good, answers to questions are good, seems to have experience and there are no problems. -- Atama頭 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
48. Certainly, I see no reason to oppose. GedUK  10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Support - Looked over a lot of edits and it all looks really good. An excellent patrol history too, and a few CSDs (although those did drop off a few months before this RfA) that look pretty good. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Was Neutral Now Support Looking good so far, but I can't 'fully' support you yet unless you explain why you first wikibreak was taken. :P Minimac94 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Would you accept a private email? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Resolved. See User talk:Minimac94#Re. RfA. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 10:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

51. Support I've seen Leonard around and I haven't seen any problems (either there or in a look at his history). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Support Looks like a good candidate. Aiken ♫ 13:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Support: I disagree with almost everything this candidate believes in! Still he will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

53. Support Tan | 39 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
54. Strong Support per answers to RfA questions. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Sound knowledge in the areas that you want to participate in. Also this move was very respectable and shows your personal integrity and commitment to the project. ThemFromSpace 18:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
56. Support - seems like a trustworthy editor. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
57. Support I wish you had made it last time. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
58. Sure. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
59. Support Gosox(55)(55) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - Per answers. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
62. Who? That means perfect. Keegan (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
63. Happy to give this candidate my support this time around, best of luck! GlassCobra 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
64. Seems to have improved since last time. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
65. Support. Improved leaps and bounds since the last to RfAs. I can trust this user with the tools. Valley2city^‽ 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
66. No major concerns. NW (Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
67. Support —Terrence and Phillip 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
68. Support The disruptions caused by out of process deletions have everyone on edge, but there's no reason to believe this editor won't respect community consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. Yet another no-issue candidate falling victim to trivial matters, in this case finger-wagging by people who don't seem to understand what the abbreviation "IAR" is short for. Şłџğģő 10:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
70. Holy Monkey Balls Yes Leo has been extremely helpful at AfC, recently and especially with helping out new contributors seeking guidance. He has always had his head in a level and right place, and definitely has the right stuff. He has taken a cool and collected approach to editing, and has his priorities in the proper order. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Leo has been extremely helpful at AfC, recently and especially with helping out new contributors seeking guidance. He is a good editor. The reason I changed to oppose is because of the concerns raised by DGG. These are deal breakers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'd noticed. I find those so-called reasons rather spurious, and I read Leonard^Bloom's responses as fitting nicely into BLP/AfD/IAR policy, very well reasoned, and well toned given the ongoing debates. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

71. Support - Seems fine overall. Jesus Christ Himself wouldn't have been able to craft a perfect response to that IAR question that would have made all Wikipedians happy - and the candidate's wasn't too bad. It's a tricky current issue - just remember that IAR and admin tools rarely work well together. Sometimes, perhaps, but not often. AlexiusHoratius 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
72. Support per answers and AlexiusHoratius. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or worries. I find the concerns expressed by the opposers to be unpersusasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
74. User:Fail/Rainbow Support Fully qualified candidate. --FAIL!^Talk 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
75. Thumbs up. Triplestop x3 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
76. Support: clueful enough. Jonathunder (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
77. Support. I think an admin erring on the side of caution with IAR is a very good thing. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
78. Support - very cluefull. The concerns below about IAR and BLP don't strike me as significant enough to oppose. It is entirely possible for an editor (or an admin) to go through their life on WP never having to use IAR, and I like that he doesn't plan to use that as a fast/easy solution to everything.  7  07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - Have rubbed shoulders with this editor on about a dozen occasions. I have found him to be highly calm, welcoming and rational. I have no doubts in his abilities to use these buttons correctly. — R² 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - per nom. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
81. I have met this user in connection with the Articles for creation project, and believe he can be trusted to do a good job. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
82. Support-Erik 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Le Mesurier (talk • contribs)
83. Support - sufficiently experienced and sensible to be trusted with the tools. Robofish (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
84. Support --NotedGrant Talk 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
85. Support The lack of ability to negotiate subtle "gotcha questions" with political undertones is something that would concern me more if Leonard were applying to be head of public relations or something. Gigs (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    Seconded. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

86. Support The candidate has good contribs, clue, and a cool head. Eminently suitable candidate. --StaniStani  23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
87. Support – certainly competent and clueful, and thoughtful answers to the questions. Will do a fine job as an admin. –MuZemike 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
88. Support Obviously well-intentioned and experienced. To address to the opposes: "With a BLP, I believe to err on the side of caution." is a sentiment worth supporting, especially in a sysop. Steven Walling 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
89. Support, as per Gigs. sj 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
90. Support from Port Grace. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
91. Support –SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
92. Support and may I just say I'm not entirely sure why we're opposing a candidate because he didn't agree with an asker's viewpoint on a question, but it's certainly not a shocker considering the things I've seen in previous RfA's. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
93. Support A good editor.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
94. Support Looks like a very capable Wikipedian who has come a long way since his first RfA, and he sounds like someone who could be relied on to treat admin tasks fairly. One or two concerns voiced below about BLP and IAR don't really worry me, because they apply to hypothetical situations in which I strongly suspect the candidate would, in reality, seek assistance rather than make a solo decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
95. Support - I'm sort of confused as to why he's being opposed over his IAR views. His initial response to the question (not considering his response to the odd followup comment/question) seems not only reasonable, but spot on. Use on a case-by-case basis where it's either a clearly good use or in cases where the policy being ignored is heavily contested. I hope people aren't confusing Coffee's followup as Leonard's response. Anyway, of what I've seen of Leonard, I think he'll make a good admin. Lara 14:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
96. Support Seems clueful. Good contributions and answers to questions. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
97. Acalamari 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
98. Support Here we have an excellent editor who will do similarly excellent work with the tools. He's got article work – I enjoyed reading his GAs, such as Big Stick ideology – and a solid understanding of policy. I personally think his answers to questions 12 and 13 inspire confidence, and I obviously am not taking Coffee's views on IAR into account as they are immaterial. This candidate will be a capable admin and deserves our trust. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Good answers to questions and a good, clueful editor. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
100. WP:100.  Frank  |  talk  02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
101. Support Airplaneman ^talk 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
102. Support RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 05:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
103. Support BejinhanTalk 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. While housekeeping and other daily chores are important, I also prefer a good deal of content contribution, which I simply dont see with only 15 articles created. Good content contribution work is a healthy antidote against potential harsh treatment of content contributors (newbies and IPs included) and cognitive problems with understanding the wider implications of WP:IMPERFECT - a number of admins unfortunately do exhibit these traits, and we certainly don't need more of those. I'm not saying that you will be so, just that I want admins that have demonstrated that they actually can row the boat, not only directing how other editors should do so. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

   You realize that he has two GAs, right? NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

   His articles created are less than impressive. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

   Two GA's are less than impressive? smithers - talk 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   I think his content is impressive. He can row the boat. More importantly he can help keep it from sinking and that is the job of an Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's really not, but until such time as there's a quantitative guideline (5 FAs if Mr Fuchs had his way!) regarding content contributions or lack thereof, it's an entirely subjective question and there's no point arguing about it. Recognizance (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Very strong Oppose changed to neutral, see below because of his views on BLP and IAR. Policy is that BLPs like other articles default to keep if there is no consensus, except that there is an option for defaulting to delete if the subject requests, and is of borderline notability. To say that if the arguments are balanced, a BLP should be a delete, is against policy. (Nobody who thinks that way should ever be closing afds unless the policy actually changes. the example given was a very special case in many respects, not one to make a general rule out of, and in my opinion an unfair question to ask a candidate. I would like to think the candidate didn't realize the implications of his answer, not that he actively intend to reject accepted policy. If we had a routine situation that needed IAR we'd make a rule. IAR is for when we need a one time exception, and in my experience it's very rare. As an admin I've invoked it two or three times; and good admin should almost always be able to find support for the proper action somewhere in our maze of guidelines and policies and procedures. I would have voted support except for the answers to those two questions, and those who voted before they were asked should think again about this. I have commented on the talk page about these questions. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Are you just now aware of Coffee and his "here's my questions; I'll oppose you if you support current policy" crusade? It's been ongoing some time. Tan | 39 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Nice way to frame my questions. I can truly say you have no real understanding on why I ask these questions, it's not as you say that I'll oppose if they support current policy, it's to see that they actually know what they're dealing with in the BLP area. The IAR question is fairly new, but I've asked it a couple of times this month, and I explained it's purpose on the talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   As I explained on the talk page just now, I do not think the questioner was trying to trap the candidate. I do think he was trying to use the occasion to try to convince the candidate and others of his views on IAR. If the candidate does not really support them, I will not oppose on that basis. But I continue to think it is the firm policy that no administrator should close an evenly divided BLP AfD as delete, except in the special circumstance I mentioned, and I will not support a candidate who thinks otherwise. If the policy were to change, I would follow it myself, and would not vote for a candidate who would not follow it. This is different from what a candidate thinks ought to be policy--I would not and have not opposed on this basis, if the candidate gives a clear statement that he will follow the policy as it stands or refrain from that function. DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   DGG has raised a serious concern that is making me reconsider my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Wait, so is the oppose based on 10, or 12, both, or some combination plus something else? Shadowjams (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   DGG, you're totally twisting the candidates words. They never said anything about any class of article defaulting to delete. They said that, "With a BLP, I believe to err on the side of caution." which is clearly worth supporting in an admin. Steven Walling 07:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose (strike oppose - also, per DGG) per DGG. I should note that, aside from this one issue, I have no objections and indeed would have supported (I was fairly impressed by my spot-checking of the candidate's edits). However, current events have brought into stark relief the fact that administrators must be servants of consensus, and not step outside of it. Ray^Talk 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose per DGG. Candidate is a good editor but DGG persuaded me to change my views. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   oppose We've had massive problems with the notion that IAR should be a regular occurrence. IAR is one thing when consensus is clear. It is possible that Leanord doesn't realize the larger context of Coffee's questions (and if so should take a gander at what is currently on RFAR) but right now it doesn't look like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

   His crime is one of naïveté, yes. And that's a valid concern. (Not really. Get over it.) He has no intention of getting involved in the BLP row though. Leonard Bloom is a janitor asking for a mop, and one of the last people who would abuse it. Recognizance (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

   He's welcome to clarify that if that's what is going on here. But until he does I can't distinguish between naivete and saying something highly problematic. If clarification comes through, I'll be happy to move to support. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

   For the record, I have already clarified. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

   I've seen the clarification. It indicates you did not consider your original answers sufficiently. Or perhaps it only indicates that if Coffee questions your answers, you'll agree with what you think he he wants, and if I do, you'll agree with what you think I want. Not that opinions cannot change, even in the course of an AfD, and not that being willing to reconsider isn;t a very important virtue in an admin. I remain undecided about whether to continue opposing. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Good clarification. I have changed my mind again. I am beginning to feel like a total wimp, flip flopping all over the place. I am going to think things over, so it will be a while before you hear a wimp out of me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Careful, you'll spawn the creation of pancake related limericks. Gigs (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   There was an old Prof from Port Grace, who flip flopped all over the place. He made up his mind, which was a bit of a grind, and sent his Support from Port Grace. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Reluctant oppose, unless he clarifies that IAR should rarely be used for admin actions, and never unless in support of policy or consensus. He may have been tricked into it, but we'll see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose per your answer to Coffee questions as DGG explained. Sole Soul (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Especially about IAR. Collect (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Concerned about his troubling views regarding policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose per DGG. While I differ with your answer to the "rights" question, that's just semantics. The IAR/BLP interactions are not. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's even less relevant than semantics, since he has no intention of touching either issue. :) Sorry to badger - but the issue has been resolved after all... Recognizance (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Switched from oppose. Now neutral leaning support. I'm still concerned about IAR interpretation but his most recent clarification looks like it has covered most of those issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Moved from support. Outside the IAR question, this candidate is superlative. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Moved from oppose, on the hope that the revised answers are the genuine ones DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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.