Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Legoktm

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Legoktm

[edit]

Final (149/3/4). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 10:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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.
Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
4. I see that less than 40% of your edits are in the article space. As an editor of Wikipedia who is seeking to become an Admin what areas of content do you have the largest interest in editing in? why?
A: Personally my interests are hockey, however I tend to edit whatever catches my interest. I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia, so if I spot something that needs fixing, I'll try and fix it. Legoktm (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
5. From mid-2009 to mid-2012 there were few edits by Legoktm, what reasons lead to the reduction of edits, what reasons lead to the return to activity on Wikipedia?
A: Mainly real life commitments that got in the way of editing frequently, those are greatly reduced so I have more time to edit now. Legoktm (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast
6. I see that Legoktm has only 85 unique AfD votes of which 45 were delete votes; how does the voting trends at AfD have an impact, if any, on your stated goal of working int he CSD realm? why?
A: No, I don't believe my AfD "voting record" will affect my CSD work. I don't intend to participate much at AfD, and I believe I've covered my !!votes more in depth in my response to the opposes below. It's important to remember that CSD and AfD are fundamentally different. CSD is for uncontroversial, clear-cut cases where there's no chance it should stay, whereas AfD is a discussion to decide whether it should be deleted. Also, an administrator's job is different in CSD and AfD. In CSD, the admin should be checking that the article meets the criteria and then deleting it. In AfD, the administrator's job is to assess consensus and enact the result of the discussion.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. Wizardman 03:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Legoktm does an impressive amount of work in an impressive number of places. —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — Looks good to me. Webclient101talk 04:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Support. mabdul 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. Support despite not being able to find me a picture of a vintage Lego tire, still an all around excellent user. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  13. Support — ΛΧΣ21 06:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. INeverCry 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Tolly4bolly 08:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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 Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as a fellow Wikidata bureaucrat.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  20. Support About time.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Awesome guy. You should have been a sysop lot of time ago. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  24. Support. No problems, I think he can be trusted with admin tools. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. He'll do very useful things. --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. !!! Secret account 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose this guy not having the mop. Max Semenik (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support yes indeed! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Lego needed this years ago. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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 deckertalk 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  35. Support - Anonymouse hit the nail on the head, I think. Pol430 talk to me 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  38. Support, given that he will supply me with cookies until the end of time. Petrb (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support because I like Legos.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Lego has tons of experience. I think he can be trusted with the tools. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - per nomination statement.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support, obviously. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  44. Support I like the candidate's versatility; opposes are no concern here. Miniapolis 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. LlamaAl (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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. Mkdwtalk 02:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. SupportPumpkinSky talk 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  51. Definitely. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nomination. Faizan -Let's talk! 04:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. I trust Lego completely. He has always been clueful, friendly, and sensible user. I've felt that he should have run for a while now, and I'm glad that his time has come. (X! · talk)  · @268  ·  05:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support No issues. Widr (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Editor is really helpful when it comes to answering questions in the IRC --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - No concerns, aside from the fact that he isn't an admin already. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 06:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I don't recall ever having problems with this user. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - no brainer. Manning (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- KTC (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - overall impression of the candidate is good, and the responses to the concerns brought up in the Oppose section also give a positive feeling as to Legokym's judgement. Best of luck. ~ mazca talk 08:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Another easy choice - this is a good start to May so far :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - No problem with me. User is competent and has the experience necessary to do the job. Kumioko (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No problem.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Legoktm is clearly experienced and trusted enough to be made an administrator. AGK [•] 12:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No problems. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yessssssssssssssssss. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. seems fine. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Great candidate. Arctic Kangaroo 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Yes please! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I don't !vote in permissions requests often, but when I do, I vote for legoktm. <fanboying class="unnecessarily-long-support-!vote" style="gushiness:100%">Lego's one of the only editors I've ever met who seems to have fully internalized that user rights are about what you can do for the community, not about what you want to do. He requested EFM because he wanted to help monitor AbuseFilter bugs and false positives on private filters. He requested sysop on Wikidata because he was finding a lot of duplicates needing deletion, and was later nominated for 'crat after establishing himself as one of our best users, including working heavily on bot policy. If we could replace all of our admins, good or bad, with {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} Legoktms, I'd happily support it. I've found that sometimes, somehow, certain admins manage to be bold whenever moderation is called for, and unnecessarily bureaucratic when decisive action is needed. Legoktm is the opposite of this: He knows exactly when to go with his gut, and when to seek broader input. If anyone else said at RFA that they hadn't really been in any conflicts, I'd call bullshit. But... he hasn't. Pretty much makes the right call in anything he does. So yeah.</fanboying> — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - clearly a trusted user and I have nothing but respect for someone who helps out at OTRS. --B (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I'm familiar with this user's work. Having encountered this editor several times, I can say that this one is easy to work with and knows the policies. I agree with User:PinkAmpersand's strong positive comments above. - tucoxn\talk 20:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Administrative experience on Wikidata and a great understanding of pretty much everything there is to understand! What's not to like? TCN7JM 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I looked this over yesterday and all seemed to be in order. Good candidate. Chick Bowen 22:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, good candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Reedy (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Net positive contributor, the misuse of administrator privileges are very unlikely. TBrandley (T • C • B) 01:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Per nom Pug6666 01:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)
  82. Support - I am quite familiar with this users' work across Wikimedia projects and en.wiki adminship would definitely be suited for him. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Clueful. Killiondude (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support . Has sufficient tenure and edits in a variety of areas in spite of the long relative absences. No reason to believe that the candidate would abuse the tools and he appears to understand quite clearly the differences between CSD and AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. No significant concerns, has ideas how to use tools... why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support You mean he's not an admin already?! Tazerdadog (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support A great editor. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support- Camyoung54 talk 12:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Huon (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Mediran (t • c) 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support --Addihockey10 e-mail 15:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Looks OK to me. Seen around not causing trouble. Plenty of clue and cautious. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I do not consider the AfD errors particularly significant. I've done similar, and so has everyone who does not stick to the utterly obvious. If we all agreed, or never made mistakes, we wouldn't need discussions. That he withdraws a AfD when he sees he was wrong to enter it is a plus, not a minus. And reverse copyvio is a particularly tricky area. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support 100% support. Great candidate. Vacation9 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I was concerned with the opposes mentioning AfD results, but then I went and checked: [1], and I see nothing unusual. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I trust him with the tools. --Snow Blizzard 10:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support unreservedly as one of the most reliable guys on the site. Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, absolutely. Jafeluv (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support sound and trustworthy user. Snowolf How can I help? 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Legoktm is clueful and would make a great admin. I was waiting to get WP:100 but unfortunately Jafeluv beat me to it! Thehelpfulone 15:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. support —DerHexer (Talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - I don't know the user personally but what I've looked at since the AfD seems solid, as does the proceedings here. Shadowjams (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - per WilyD below. AfD needs people who approach the system with well thought out rationales that go against popular opinion. The one thing that AfD doesn't need is oatmeal brained 'yes-men' who have obvious inclusionist or deletionist agendas that they are carrying with them. I only see a net positive here. Trusilver 00:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 00:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support A long-term contributor whose contributions to Wikipedia go far beyond what we can see in Special:Contributions/Legoktm. —Soap— 02:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I've seen the way he acts on Wikidata, and from that I really don't need to check on anything else. (I did anyways, but I didn't need to.) Sven Manguard Wha? 02:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I have personally observed Legoktm on several instances from my watchlist, and always have been impressed that his conduct and comments reflected clue coupled with empathy and tact. A review of contributions support my impression and nothing of even a remote concern has manifest. I am happy to support this nomination. My76Strat (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. + Keegan (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Not that much of a contributor in article space, but the overall production is great. ZappaOMati 03:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - A consistently constructive contributor, no convincing reasons given for opposition. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Today I am delighted to finally nominate User:Legoktm for adminship.(Looks like I missed all of this recently) Legoktm has been on the project since 2007 contributing over a wide range of areas and namespaces collecting over 20,000 edits. When it comes to policy Legoktm has a very broad knowledge and understanding, If I ever have a Wikipedia related question where the answer doesn't spring to mind Legoktm is always at hand. They have article writing experience, DYKs, are a member of OTRS, works well with tools and has a selection of bots as well as also being sysop on Wikidata. I have no reason to doubt Legoktm at all and I am sure they will use their mop well serving the community. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Great contributor (even if not focused on content creation), clearly someone who will make good use of the mop. No concerns about maturity. -- Scray (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support No evidence they will abuse tools or position.--MONGO 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support No concerns! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Stephen 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per Wizardman (good thing I proofread this...I originally said per "wizman"...) Go Phightins! 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. This RFA confused me; thought he was already one. bibliomaniac15 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Plenty of clue and experience. I see no reason why Legoktm cannot be trusted with the mop. — sparklism hey! 06:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Seen him around, like the cut of his jib. I'd trust him with the bit. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I also don't see the AfD stuff as a convincing reason for not giving him the mop. He seems to have the experience we want an an Admin as well as the conduct. I think he'd be an asset. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support: Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support user can be trusted. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support: good contributions, helpful editor. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I've seen the candidate around, and I cannot think of any problems. A strong candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support—I am familiar with Legoktm and I believe he can be trusted with the administrator tools. Harej (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support — Looks good.Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Wide variety of experience in many areas over a long period plus thoughtful and considerate. Yes, definitely support. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support No concerns. Looks good actually. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support I don't see any problems with him as a janitor. He has a firm grasp of the required knowledge needed to efficiently help out users, and I think an admin toolset could help him out with his duties. Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support—Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Absolutely. --Bsadowski1 03:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support I'd trust him with the mop. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - trustworthy, reliable, competent QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Good guy and I presume he'll learn from Warden's objection.--Razionale (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Solid contributor who I feel will make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I trust they will make a fine admin. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support As long as you block Isarra for real next time ;) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - Seems abundant with clue, so I'm adding my "me too". - MrX 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Everything looks absolutely fantastic to me! Inks.LWC (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Well, I'm just one of many supporters that is about to land you adminship in just a few hours, but I just want to say that he is an excellent fit to be an admin. Best of luck with your edit. Cheers! World Traveller101 21:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support His understanding of policy, bots and common sense makes him an ideal candidate for the task. I tend to avoid RfA - haven't voted in years but I can gladly make an exception for him. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  146. Support Because adminbots. 'Nuff said. 930913(Congratulate) 02:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support just because. Eeekster (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Last minute support! -- Ϫ 05:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Legoktm has been instrumental in getting Wikidata off the ground as an administrator there, and his performance there has been second-to-none. I am confident he will be a true asset to the English Wikipedia, as he has been to Wikidata. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
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)[reply]
User is a confirmed sockpuppet. Vote struck.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelo1345 for reference. --Rschen7754 08:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. He didn't use his other accounts to vote here, so why should that invalidate his argument? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard practice to strike votes of banned socks. --Rschen7754 10:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite the policy that allows you to do that? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Points 1 and 3 on the list of illegitimate uses of sockpuppets explicitly prohibit this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but where exactly does it say in that policy that one can just ignore the arguments and strike votes? More importantly, I'm afraid the points you cite do not apply here: point 1 doesn't apply because NavotenoAngelo only used his main account to vote here, thus he didn't create "an illusion of support", and point 3 also does not apply because he didn't use any "undisclosed alternative accounts" to vote here: again, he only used his main account. Maybe this policy discussion should be carried on elsewhere, as it would be unfortunate to further disturb this RfA with this minor incident. Thanks again ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Correction: Although he only used 1 account to vote, that account was a sock. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This account is a sock puppet of Angelo1345 and has been blocked indefinitely"—the voting user was a sock himself, not the master account Angelo1345. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess point 3 applies. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, I saw myself squarely on the bandwagon. However, with an epiphany's force, I've seen the better answer. And I am swayed to believe that we ought to indent the block evading user's comment without striking through it. A banned user's breach would be when we indent and strike through. I intend to research the nuances of our block-ban policy before I fully adopt this belief—though my recollection of things read is indicative to me that this is the raw spirit of policies written, and the letter of its prose. My76Strat (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) My alt account is User:My76Strap.[reply]
  1. Oppose - Given their terrible track record at AfD [2] (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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia rather than vice versa. The other two were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HKAGE and Wikipedia: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 could possibly reflect an inability to make sound judgments on new page patrol. Kurtis (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. Oppose Reviewing the candidate's contributions last October, I find Wikipedia: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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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 02:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Does that also suggest that only non-productive users should become admins? Mkdwtalk 00:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having flashbacks. Killiondude (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That one was a flash in the pan. Once upon a time, we had a guy who blanket opposed every self-nom because he saw them as "prima facie evidence of power hunger." His tirade lasted for years before everyone finally got sick to death of him. Kurtis (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Go colts!. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  2. Neutral. There are enough dodgy AfD !votes to make me hesitant to endorse CSD deletion tools. Content creation is mediocre. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. First let me say to the subject of the RfA, thanks for answering my questions. Although I find no reason to oppose the subject outright, and am sure that given the current straw poll results that the subject will be given the Admin tools, I would be more inclined to voting in support of the subject if the subject had more experience in content creation. I understand that content creation is not everyone's preference, but at the core of Wikipedia is the content which has become a valuable resources to the millions of readers of the millions of articles which make up Wikipedia. Without having experience in creating content up to higher levels of quality, it maybe more difficult for an Admin to tackle some critical areas that the community has asked Admins to oversee. Good luck in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral- Would have been a Support, but I didn't see this before it had been mentioned to me. :D Not worried that I'll skew the result. Dru of Id (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Legoktm&oldid=1151017942"