Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 3 May 2013

Legoktm

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (52/3/2); Scheduled to end 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Legoktm (talk · contribs) – As someone who has been on the site far too long, it takes quite a bit to impress me when it comes to a user I have not seen yet. Legoktm has managed to do precisely that, as he seems to have been everywhere on the site in recent months.

If you want qualifications, he's got them. He runs User:Legobot, which does a wide range of tasks. He contributes at the village pump and at WP:AFC. He's done anti-vandalism work and has contributed to OTRS. He has also worked on articles at times as well, so he isn't ignoring the main part of the encyclopedia. I've even seen him helping out with copyright issues at times.

Lego's a guy who is willing to contribute anywhere. More importantly, however, he's a courteous user who actually tries to help out others best he can. He's not someone who's going to misuse the tools, and if anything will go out of his way to make sure the tools are being used well. Wizardman 02:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination, I accept. Legoktm (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I can help out in areas like CSD (leaning more to the G's), AIV, blocking VOAs/LTAs, fulfilling {{editprotected}} requests (in the Template and MediaWiki namespaces), deleting/undeleting things for OTRS tickets, and generally whenever a user needs help requiring the admin toolset.

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

A: As far as articles go, I’m rather proud of my work on Half-pipe skiing and getting it on DYK, which was just a random article I found while new page patrolling. I’m also proud of the various tasks User:Legobot handles, making things easier for other Wikipedians. I've written a few MediaWiki patches to try and improve it from the backend as well.

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: Conflicts? Not really. I’ve had disagreements with users before, but as far as I know it’s always been worked out through discussion.

General comments

• Links for Legoktm: Legoktm (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Legoktm can be found here.
• Edit statistics are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please respond to the concerns about your !votes in deletion discussions as raised by the first two opposes. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have responded to both opposes below. Legoktm (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Any day. He's very good to work with and I believe this is a perfect fit for him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Definitely clueful, understands policy, and also holds sysop/crat on Wikidata and is familiar with the tools. --Rschen7754 03:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Wizardman 03:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
4. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support — The candidate has a wide range of experience, having worked with anti-vandalism, deletion, technical stuff (bots, Village Pump, edit filter, etc.), content editing, and more. Legoktm definitely has clue and, from what I have seen personally, helps other users whenever he can. And as a bonus, he has experience from Wikidata as a sysop and 'crat. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Legoktm does an impressive amount of work in an impressive number of places. —Emufarmers 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Support — Looks good to me. Webclient101 04:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Anonymouse stated it very well and it would be an overall net positive for the project. — -dainomite   05:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support. mabdul 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support I'm pretty sure I told you to try an RfA the other day, didn't I? MJ94 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Support despite not being able to find me a picture of a vintage Lego tire, still an all around excellent user. --kelapstick 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen enough of this editor to consider Legoktm sufficiently trustworthy and clueful. This is reinforced by their role on Wikidata. Best wishes. Jschnur (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Support — ΛΧΣ 06:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Support per nom. INeverCry 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Strongest possible support — I've only ever had good interactions with him. This is long overdue. Legoktm is eminently qualified for the role. Kurtis 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support. Tolly4bolly 08:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support. Phenomenal work with Legobot, and a very impressive CSD log. The candidate would be very useful to have around helping with CSD and protected edit requests. His content contributions may be a bit on the thin side, but giving him the tools would certainly be a net benefit to Misplaced Pages. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support as a fellow Wikidata bureaucrat.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Weak support. Seems sensible and constructive, but should improve some of the articles to DYK--C--B status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Support About time.—cyberpower _Online 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support Awesome guy. You should have been a sysop lot of time ago. --Ankit Maity_Contribs 11:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Support Clearly a net positive. I haven't seen him bite off more than he can chew, so I don't expect him to go maverick anytime soon. Good clue and understanding of what we are here for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Support I largely agree with what the nominator has said. His bot work is good, and template work will be a good fit for him. The AFD statistics tool oppose doesn't have much ground on which to stand. If WilyD can pull up instances where the candidate obviously misrepresented the deletion policy, it would give his oppose more weight. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to take Kiefer's advice and write a GA or at least a B-class article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support. No problems, I think he can be trusted with admin tools. 069952497a_{Stuff I've done} 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support. He'll do very useful things. --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
26. !!! Secret 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
27. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose this guy not having the mop. Max Semenik (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support yes indeed! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Lego needed this years ago. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I had this RfA title watchlisted--I'd seen this editor in a number of venues and they've always demonstrated CLUE. Review of contributions confirmed those impressions. In view of the AfD-related oppose here, I went and re-reviewed AfD contributions, there haven't been many in the last year (and that might be a reason to go a tiny bit slow in closing AfDs), but I saw nothing that gave me concern, and a couple indications of the right attitude and clue toward the process--this is an editor who is more concerned with the process getting the right result than being right themselves. --j⚛e decker 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - no concern, wide range of expertise and seems thoughtful. Will be of benefit to the community as a whole. GiantSnowman 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - his intended admin tasks are realistic and consistent with his demonstrated interests. I trust him to be careful not to use these tools where he doesn't have the experience. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I've posted a question inviting the candidate to respond to the opposers' concern about his deletion !votes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - Anonymouse hit the nail on the head, I think. Pol430 talk to me 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - He is not an admin already? Wow. From all my experiences with him at the IRC, Legoktm has been certainly very much suitable for this adminship. Also, Anonymouse explains very well why. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
37. Support, obviously. Legoktm knows what he's doing and he can be trusted with the few additional buttons. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 21:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support, given that he will supply me with cookies until the end of time. Petrb (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Support because I like Legos.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - Lego has tons of experience. I think he can be trusted with the tools. Command and Conquer Expert! _{review me...} 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Support - per nomination statement.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Strong support, obviously. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
43. Support - yeah, I'd perhaps like to see some more activity at AFD before he jumps into closing discussions there but I'm fine with in-the-job learning. Stalwart111 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support I like the candidate's versatility; opposes are no concern here. Miniapolis 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
45. LlamaAl (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Familiar with Legoktm; I am surprised he was not already an admin. I think he will do just fine. Clearly, he has good taste - I like his Nyan Cat. ceranthor 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Not a length CSD log track record, but no mistakes in there either. Their AFD track record is possibly a bit low not because the editor doesn't understand consensus, but a suggestion of their ability to apply guidelines to articles in line with the status quo. For me this is a bigger issue, but certainly not at 75%. Healthy balance of contributions in all spaces. Very happy to support. I will continue reading their answers to questions since it's still early in the RFA. Mkdw 02:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
48. SupportPumpkinSky talk 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support absolutely. Legoktm is an extremely clueful and helpful editor, and exactly the sort of person who should be an administrator. Regarding the oppose section, I do think that "AFD accuracy" is a terrible reason to oppose. We require that administrators understand policy and know how to judge a consensus. But there is no requirement that every administrator agree with consensus. In fact, I think Misplaced Pages would be far worse if "agreeing with the majority on most issues" was a prerequisite for getting the bit. I'm confident that Lego will acknowledge consensus when it appears, and that's all that matters. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Remember that being involved in an AFD can often provide a different perspective from closing one. When the AFD is closed, all the arguments are seen and can be evaluated--during the process, the arguments are still being formed. If "AFD Accuracy" is the measure to be an administrator, then all we need is someone with 100% predictability. We wouldn't need to have the discussion in the first place. But we have the discussions, and I think we are better off hearing both sides and not just one side on any topic. A good faith editor.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
51. Definitely. Steven Zhang 03:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
52. T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose'. only 32% of the edits are in article space, and mostly of his created articles are stubs. -NavotenoAngelo (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User is a confirmed sockpuppet. Vote struck.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelo1345 for reference. --Rschen7754 08:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Given their terrible track record at AfD (when confronted with an article the community would retain, they more often than not argue for it's deletion), I have to infer they simply don't have the understanding of the purpose and practices of Misplaced Pages necessary to process deletion requests; yet the first task they mention taking on is CSD; that would undoubtably go very poorly. WilyD 08:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   This is a very weak reason to oppose. In my opinion he has a firm grasp of the concept of consensus and processes (like CSD and AfD), and this record is definitely not of any concern. This inference is short-sighted in my opinion because firstly, the statistics don't directly correlate with his actual judgement, and secondly, there is little correlation between AfD statistics and CSD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   That's a totally ridiculous assertion. Someone who obviously doesn't understand what should and shouldn't be deleted shouldn't be processing CSD requests, even if they can read a discussion and determine concensus. They're planning to work as an admin on something a) they clearly don't understand, and b) where nobody else will be paying attention to what they're doing. That's a recipe for disaster. WilyD 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   What "terrible track record"? Out of the 49 votes at AfD where he favoured deletion (that's including "speedy delete" and "redirect"), his vote matched the end result 38 times (roughly a 78% accuracy rate). His overall record at AfD is 75%, which I personally consider to be positive.

   If we're assessing Legoktm's current policy knowledge, we need to examine the more recent evidence. Just under half of his AfD votes were from February 2009 or earlier, so to get a sense of his present understanding of deletion, we'll have to look at his participation within the past year. In that time, he has made five votes which explicitly did not match the end result: one was parsed as "transwiki", but that was contingent upon WikiBooks accepting it and would otherwise be counted as "speedy delete"; another, he nominated but subsequently withdrew; and finally here, he initially favoured deletion after mistaking the article for a copyright violation, but later realized that it was actually the source that had borrowed content from Misplaced Pages rather than vice versa. The other two were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HKAGE and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1953–54 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds, the former having been speedily deleted multiple times before recreation, and the latter running contrary to our policy on indiscriminate collections of information (as a disclaimer, I would have voted "keep" at both AfDs had I participated in them).

   Finally, how would his interpretation of GNG impact his ability to handle speedy deletion requests? As a general rule, CSD is for blatantly obvious cases; if there is any doubt, the article in question gets sent to AfD (or is otherwise slapped with a PROD tag). I'm not sure how someone's voting record reflects on their ability to handle speedy deletion. Kurtis 12:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Out of eight discussions where the result was "keep", they correctly identified three. Worse than a coin flip is terrible. WilyD 12:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'll try and go over the more recent AfD's I've participated in to explain my rationale and thought process behind my comments:

   • 1953–54 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds - The article was (and still is) just a list of match scores (with a small intro at the top) which IMO falls under WP:RAWDATA. I stated that the cup was notable, but not necessarily each year's qualifying rounds. I supported redirection because there was still the possibility that sources could be found and notability would be established, so deletion wasn't the right answer.
   • Software Portfolio Rationalization - I had previously PROD'd this article for WP:OR concerns, but never followed up on, so when DGG nominated it for deletion, I supported.
   • The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book - Because of the order in which I placed my comments, the tool considers my comment to be "transwiki" when in actuality it was a speedy delete. I believe sometimes we delete content that could easily be used on sister projects, except the right people don't see it so it is never imported and the content is lost.
   • Henry Moore (mechanic) - I'm not sure where I found this article, but I couldn't find reliable sources to connect the person to the V8 engine, and nominated it for deletion.
   • 2012 Iranian fighter jet incident - I recommended deletion per based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, with an option to transwiki to Wikinews since (to the best of my memory) it was written like a news article.
   • Aad Nuis - This article was PROD'd for being non-notable, which I removed (I spotted the notification on a user's talk page I watchlist), after which it was quickly sent to AFD where I voted keep and added a reference.
   • Suicide of Amanda Todd (2) - I voted a procedural keep due to too quick of a re-nomination.
   • Mount Pearl Samurai - Initially thought they were not notable and recommended redirection, however DMighton pointed out that they were eligible for the Alan Cup and therefore notable. I then assisted with locating urls to mentioned articles. The AfD was closed as no consensus.

   If you want, I can go back later (I will address the TWAIL below) and explain my thought process. To be honest though, I don't really plan on getting involved in AfD, I haven't even visited that page since December. As for my CSD's, after DGG gave me some advice, I think I've gotten much better at it (2012 archive post September, 2013, last month+current log). Legoktm (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Reviewing the candidate's contributions last October, I find Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). The history of this is that the candidate tried to speedy delete the topic within 5 minutes of its creation. Over the next day, the topic is greatly expanded with dozens of sources and the speedy is refused but the candidate then takes it to AFD. The result is a snow keep and only then does the candidate conclude that the topic is "obviously notable" when a simple google search would have told him this at the outset. Warden (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

   Looking back now, I realize that I made a mistake with that article. The version I originally saw was this. I saw phrases like "critical school" and "oppressive system", which made me reach for the G11 button. It was odd that it took over 24 hours for an admin to respond to it, so I assumed it was on the border-which should have been a wake up call for me that it wasn't CSD-able. The declining admin left me a note that it didn't meet G11, and to consider AfD. As you can see from my nomination statement, I didn't do a WP:BEFORE, I just looked at it and sent it to AfD. I was more concerned about it not being NPOV rather than notability, hence in my "closing statement" I said that it was obviously notable. So my mistakes here were a) not removing the CSD tag myself, b) not properly doing a WP:BEFORE c) using the AfD process for an article that had NPOV issues, rather than using a maintenance tag, or just fixing it myself. Legoktm (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

3. oppose if you're a productive user, keep being productive. i'd rather you stayed there than went to go work o csd etc. there are enough mop-weilders about doing that. ... aa:talk

   Couldn't that reasoning apply to any admin candidate? It seems like a poor oppose rationale when he's doing well in multiple areas, including CSD. MJ94 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm sitting on the fence for now. He's a very weak content contributor - only 32% of the edits are in article space. He created 74 articles, all before 2009, and all of the ones I looked at were the stubbiest of stubs, with inline citations rare (at least, as he left them). His proudest achievement, Half-pipe skiing, barely makes the length requirement for DYK. This will certainly be a test for whether an admin has to be a content contributor! However, he does seem qualified for doing the tasks he wants to do. For example, he has made lots of CSD nominations, most of them successful. He looks likely to continue a pattern of helping behind the scenes. If no one turns up any serious problems, I will probably end up supporting him. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your analysis is correct for the most part. I'm not a very good writer, so I'd much rather spend time doing something I'm good at (and that would benefit the project much more), like finding sources, writing some code for a bot task, fixing a template, etc. Legoktm (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "This will certainly be a test for whether an admin has to be a content contributor!" - FYI, earlier this year somebody who did not write any articles was granted admin status, claiming he needed it for his doctoral thesis, or some such thing. (I didn't vote in that RfA, and can't remember his handle, so I'm now unable to find a link, sorry.) Kraxler (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about User:West.andrew.g, who had his RFA here and has over 200,000 contribs and is the developer of the WP:STiki tool. He has 6800 article contribs mixed in there. Lego has 6815 article entries, about the same number, but actually a higher percentage since he has about 24k edits. Even so, we have recently given the admin bit to several people who had less article contribs than Lego. User:Basalisk had fewer total edits than Lego has in article space, yet passed just fine. The real issue is if he has sufficient experience, and I would say 6815 article contribs, regardless of the total number of contribs, is sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Pending the answer to NYB's question. The issue with !votes/comments at AfD are a not insignificant concern. Nick (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral. There are enough dodgy AfD !votes to make me hesitant to endorse CSD deletion tools. Content creation is mediocre. Axl ¤ 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)