Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leebo

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

Leebo

Final: (74/0/0); ended 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leebo (talk · contribs) - I've crossed paths with Leebo (formerly known as Leebo86) many times over the past four months. Leebo registered just at the close of 2006, and has been consistently active since then, logging over 5000 edits. His first few edits clearly show he was involved in the project as an anonymous editor before registering--early on, he participated in an AFD where he showed very good knowledge of our notability policies. Leebo is an active vandal fighter and new page patroller, carefully adhering to WP:BITE as he diligently warns and greets new users (which accounts for a high User talk edit count). His article contributions demonstrate a considerable amount of research, and one of his new pages was featured as a "Did you know?" in March. He is conscientious, patient, knowledgeable, and willing to learn: in other words, perfect admin material. I enthusiastically nominate him for adminship. -- Merope 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with many thanks to Merope. Leebo ^T/C 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As Merope said, I've been editing since December 2006, and as an anonymous editor before then. My answers might be a little long-winded, so I'll just jump into that.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia were actually the what intrigued me to begin editing. I read a lot of policy, guideline, and essay pages before I registered or edited. As Merope indicated, some of my first contributions were in deletion discussions. Looking back, I appreciate not being chased off in those discussions for having a low edit count.

1. I anticipate assisting with CAT:CSD most often, as it is the area I am most familiar with. As a new page patroller, I have tagged many articles for speedy deletion, and just about all of them have been deleted or significantly improved upon by the original creator. There may be a tag or two that I've placed that were incorrect, but I don't leave articles that I tag and forget about them. I follow up with the creators and discuss improvements. The tagging of these kinds of articles and discussions with the creators accounts for the majority of my approximately 1000 deleted edits (see the count here and subtract my existing contribs for the deleted count). The best things that should come out of New pages patrol are good articles and informed newbies. It's not about "cleaning up trash" or scolding new article creators, it's about guiding them to contribute effectively and I will take that same approach in reviewing articles that have been tagged by others.
2. I contribute to article deletion discussions enough that I feel confident to close them and read the consensus appropriately. When I contribute to discussions, I try to follow the progress and update my position as changes are made to the article. I've been involved in at least a few large, messy discussions and followed them to completion. One in particular, the discussion for Hutman Artcars, started with my discussion regarding the article on my talk page and on the creator's talk page (which he user-req deleted later on following the article's deletion). It was a frustrating discussion, because I really wanted to help the creator, but it's an example of how I've tried to see things from beginning to end.
3. I revert and warn vandals regularly (which may be apparent from the vandalism to my user page) and I've made about 80 reports to WP:AIV. I plan to assist with the backlog that occurs there, as well as handle persistent vandals that I encounter on my own without assistance.
4. I've made a handful of requests to WP:RFPP, so that is an area that I may look into later, but I will need to gain more experience before I jump in.

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

A: My best contribution to the project, from a writing standpoint, is the article featured in Did you know that Merope mentioned above. The article is Ken Noguchi and I wrote it because I had mentioned him in another article I started (Moonlight Mile (manga)) and I wanted to turn his red link blue. It was my first attempt at creating more than a glorified stub. I researched him expecting that I might find some short excerpts about him and was surprised to find numerous articles in sources like CNN and the New York Times. I took this time to hone my formatting skills, creating a timeline/table and becoming more competent with citation templates. It was extremely satisfying to see it listed on the front page. I've created some other stubs, and my next project will be fleshing out the Manchester Road Race article that I created, because I'm going to take pictures and do research when the 2007 race rolls around.

These are relatively minor article writing accomplishments and aspirations, but (if you'll excuse a sports analogy) I see myself kind of like a batboy at a Major League baseball game. I love the atmosphere, and I'm soaking it in on a regular basis; I get to wear the uniform and occasionally toss the ball around. However, my main focus is on facilitating the pros in their endeavors, keeping things running smoothly for them.

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 don't often edit controversial topics, so I have not been involved in any heated edit wars. I do receive a large amount of grief from vandals, but that's just a minor annoyance rather than a conflict. There have been a couple of situations that have caused me stress though.

1. An article I created was nominated for deletion by a user I had interacted with in a previous deletion discussion. During the discussion, various hostile messages were directed toward me by anonymous editors and the article nominator. It's probably the closest I've come to losing my cool, but I think I handled the situation effectively, if not exactly gracefully. It was an important learning experience for me, in that it just helped me to take a step back and deep breath when the editing gets rough.
2. Without any single incident to point to, I often try to insert myself as a mediator on talk pages where disputes are occurring. These are often frustrating, because editors involved in the disputes sometimes have a difficult time accepting a mediator as a neutral participant. I get accused of being biased and whatnot, but I try to remember that people often vent anger subconsciously; a calm, composed response helps far more than a sarcastic retort to an angered participant. Note that this is not a role I take on as part of any official Wikipedia dispute resolution process, just my efforts as I get the chance.
3. I've made mistakes. I've reverted things I shouldn't have. I've tagged articles incorrectly. I've stepped on a toe or two. It's embarrassing and it's easy to want to ignore the situation, but I try to always apologize for mistakes I make and seek to remedy them. It doesn't always convince the other parties, but it helps me to remain focused on improving the article in question. One thing I've learned from playing team sports that I can apply to editing is that the worst thing one can do after making a mistake is to be too cautious in the future. Losing the boldness is the wrong step to take after a mistake.

Optional question by AldeBaer

4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: Very early on in my history of reading Wikipedia, I remember being quite intrigued by the articles in the list of cognitive biases. As Wikipedia articles, they may need a lot of work, mostly in adding citations, but it was one of the first things that jumped out at me and made me read more here. Nowadays, I enjoy browsing Category:United States Supreme Court cases, and other case law related categories, because I find them quite interesting. I love finding stuff like fricative consonant and marveling at the detail our editors have put into writing articles for each kind of consonant. I love absorbing facts like this that I know I'll never really be able to use, and Wikipedia never ceases to provide them :)

Optional question by lucasbfr

5. What is your stance on policies? How far are you willing to follow, or not to follow them? To help you think about it, let's consider the kind of borderline example you will often encounter:

• An AfD that has only 1 "Delete" vote, but you agree with the nominator that the article doesn't meet the notability criteria;

• Well, if there is only 1 comment calling for delete, then I would relist the AfD, but it sounds like you mean there is only 1 delete among multiple keep comments. In that case, it doesn't really matter how I feel about the article's relationship to the notability criteria. Wikipedia:Notability provides us with guidelines for making judgement calls, and if enough people are able to provide solid reasons for keeping an article that I disagree with, it should remain per that consensus. Now, I'm also assuming they made good keep arguments.

• a {{db-a7}} tagged article stating that Kevin, 12, from Missisauga is the CEO of IBM;

• In this case, we have the knowledge that Sam Palmisano does not go by "Kevin," he's 55, and as far as I can tell, he's not from Canada. This article would be speedily deletable under criterion G1 because it's patent nonsense. The {{db-a7}} isn't the best criterion for this, because it does make a claim to notability, but we happen to know it's a ridiculous one.

• a {{db-reason}} "obvious hoax" article about Die Hard V stating that in this upcoming movie, John McCLane will save Bin Laden;

• I think I would handle this the same as an admin or not, because "obvious hoax" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. I would either prod it or start an AfD stating that I personally could not find any indication that the film was proposed or in production. If you open the door to speedily deleting "obvious hoaxes" there's a line that you could cross where it becomes too subjective, and that's what discussion is for.

• an article that was speedied under A7, that has been recreated and that is now {{db-repost}} tagged

• If the original claim of A7 still applies, then if can be deleted again under that criterion. Repost speedy deletion is for articles that were deleted per a discussion that have not be significantly changed. If the article was deleted through speedy/prod, or was significantly changed (hopefully with a claim to notability), repost does not apply.

• a user that has been {{uw-vandalism4}} warned in January, edited once today, got {{uw-vandalism4}} warned again and immediately reported to WP:AIV

• There are some unknown variables here, such as the severity of the vandalism and their activity between warnings, but I would lean toward waiting to see how the user responds to the most recent vandalism warning. If they do not continue, a block may not be needed at that time.

Of course these are only food for thoughts, you don't have to answer to all these case studies :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Leebo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Leebo: Leebo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Leebo before commenting.

Discussion

• This may sound kind of dumb, but why can't WP:SNOW be used to close an RfA such as this. I mean, 20 people would have oppose him for this to fail (currently none are opposed). So doesn't this RfA have a snowball's chance in hell of failing? BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to cut the time short. I, for one, often make a mental note to look at RfA's as the week comes to a close, so I can understand people who may wish to comment toward the end. Also, it's not that I do not expect or anticipate oppose comments, but I assume that any opposes at this point would likely be useful, constructive criticism. Leebo ^T/C 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Leaving them open a full week also gives an opportunity to object for people who edit infrequently. There are sometimes RfAs where an infrequent editor raises serious problems fairly late in and the RfA subsequently fails. —dgies^t_c 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-Nom-Support - I have seen this user a lot on Admin noticeboards , WP:AIV and WP:RFCU and his work has been excellent. He has contributed a lot towards in XfD's in general and I believe he can be trusted with the tools ..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 15:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support ~5000 edits, great contributor, likes to help out with administrative related tasks, great wikipedian. -chuckfromchan^talk 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Nominator support, obviously. -- Merope 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Watchlisted-before-it-existed-Support. Leebo's shown himself to be responsible and knowledgeable of policy. —dgies^t_c 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, also edit conflicted. Leebo and I have known each other for a while. When we got together back in December of 2006, he couldn't stop talking about Wikipedia - and not just the reading that I have done for a couple of years, but editing and contributing. I was interested, but confused. Leebo tried as best he could to explain things to me, and was patient and helpful throughout. I went back to school in Ohio, so I didn't get to actually talk to him about it again until summer. Then, trying to get going as an editor myself, I asked Leebo if he would adopt me as a user. He has been helping me along ever since the beginning of May. He is knowledgable of both the various tools for editing and the conventions of editing; but he doesn't let it hold him back from being bold. Whenever I have questions, even if they are varied and complicated, he is kind and patient, willing to answer questions for hours. I take great pride in being an adoptee of Leebo's, and I think he would make a wonderful administrator. bwowen ^T/C 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Edit-conflicted Support. Strong candidate, knowledgeable and level-headed. Input to AfDs is very impressive. Will use the tools wisely, no doubt. Peacent 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
7. edit conflicted too. Support I have seen this editor around, and find them to be civil and dilligent. The tools above evidence a good variety of editing, and I have no doubt of a need for the buttons to help extend the work being done. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I've see you around, and you would make a fine admin. Well done for the work, and I like the response to Q3 part 3, but I feel it would be good if a few more editors would think about that too! Stwalkerster talk 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Has a need for the tools, and no reason to believe that editor will misuse the tools. PGWG 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support You're not seriously telling me that this user isn't already an admin? Rly? Wow! GDonato (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Absolutely - can definitely be trusted with the tools. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Easy support, and I'm on the "What, you're not already an admin?" bandwagon here. Have seen this user's contributions quite a bit and have found them always to be helpful and demonstrating a firm grasp of policy. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Won't abuse the tools, and I think we can expect good things. I like the sports analogy, that's sort of what I'm like sometimes. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support fine editor who I've seen frequently at Talk:New England. BH (T|C) 18:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - awesomely honest and comprehensive answers to questions, a lot of experience, civil conduct. I see no reason to oppose here. SalaSkan 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - I've seen Leebo around here and there and he has seemed sensible. Friday (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 20:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support - I see Leebo everywhere, I actually offered a nom a while back, but he decided not to go through with it at that point in time. He truly is an excellent user who always stays calm in heated debate - I fully trust his ability to make a fine administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Edit-conflict-Support trustworthy and level-headed. —Anas ^talk? 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Definitely a good candidate, who I've seen around doing impresssive stuff. Good luck. Majorly (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support-I've seen the user around many places, and all his edits seem good. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support I have come across him all over the project. Appears level-headed, with a good grasp of policy. Good admin material.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Support --Tone 22:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Very pleasing answer to Q1 about new page patrol, would make a great admin. Best of luck, - Zeibura ^Talk 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Default Support. —AldeBaer 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Support of course. Acalamari 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support Leebo demonstrates a lot of patience and integrity, with a good understanding of policies, and should make a fine admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Yo. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 23:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support--Húsönd 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Very good user who has a need for the tools. Good luck!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 00:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - He appears to be a solid candidate. Majoreditor 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support don't see anything bad about him yet :).(lemonflash)^talk 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - Very impressive. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. I first ran across the candidate in the AfD he mentioned in question #3.1 - and was impressed by his handling of the sockpuppet-y assault that ensued. If he wants the mop, I'm all for it. -- MarcoTolo 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support top-notch editor, and anyone Merope thinks is alright is probably doing well :) Riana ⁂ 10:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Great editor who will make a fine admin. Lots of experience in the areas he intends to use the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 11:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I vote for admins very rarely but this candidate is so strong I felt I had to. (Quentin X 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
41. Support on the basis on my own experiences with the User. WilyD 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Terence 15:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DynaMed is impressive. Kamryn Matika 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - ^Khukri 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Support reliable support of both users and policy.DGG 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Per Kamryn Matika. Coolness under pressure. PouponOnToast 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Cigar time - good luck! The Rambling Man 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support I don't see why not. He has gained trust of users and seems to understand policy well. --wpktsfs (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Double Support This user really should be an admin. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
51. SUPPORT. He has been very helpful to me in editing a very incomplete biographical entry. Marciamaria 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support First interacted with Leebo when he beat me to creating the Manchester Road Race article, and quite politely contacted me to inform me of the article's creation (I had a red link on my user page as a "to do" which he followed). His subsequent history has done nothing to disabuse me of my good opinion his civility and thoughtfulness. I have no doubts that he will wield the mop to good effect. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Let's keep it rolling...give them the tools. Jmlk17 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I am confident we won't regret it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. Great answers, trustworthy. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Strong Support Trustworthy answers. He is well overdue for adminship! Politics rule 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - excellent technical editor. I've crossed paths with him on several occasions, in the course of vandalism reversion, and always agreed with his assessments. His responses above only solidify my view. --Haemo 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Support - I very much liked most of the responses about deletion/speedy deletion topics. - jc37 07:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Good, thoughtful answers to Q5. Shows a steady hand and no knee-jerk tendencies. JodyB _talk 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support I have always been happy with this users contributions. His answers to the questions, especially 5, shows a clear understanding of policy. Has good judgment in situations. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
62. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Support A good admin this user will be. Captain panda 03:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support An excellent candidate in all respects and I am, like others, impressed with the quality and thoughtfulness of his responses. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Support Excellant answers to the questions, should make a good admin. Davewild 07:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Excellent overall user, it is almost disappointing that WP:SNOW can't be applied to this nomination. Sr13 11:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Support. I don't see any issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Solid contributions, no concerns noted. --Paul Erik 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Support very much so :)—arf! 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Support. This user will make a great addition to the overworked admin "team". Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
71. Support Have seen this user around. No problems. Xiner (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Let me be the 72nd to support your RfA. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
73. Support, I thought I supported a couple days ago, apparently not.--Wizardman 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
74. 'Support Actually I did too. I hope I haven't double voted somewhere else. --BozMo talk 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.