User:Legoless/RfA

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Legoless - Request for Permanent Administratorship

Legoless (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)

March draws near, and the temporary role changes discussed in October are almost up. Modesty is a poor quality to have when writing one's own RfA, so I'll try to make this brief lest I start to sound conceited. I've only been active on the wiki for over one and a half years, but in that time I've made edits to almost every namespace, wrote the majority of two new ones (Stormhold and Books), and participated in several major projects. I'm current #15 on the list of active users, although that accomplishment is largely superficial. I'm knowledgeable about most of the TES games, and I've helped to overhaul the Lore namespace. As far as administratorship goes, I was a patroller and blocker before become a temporary admin, and since Skyrim's release I haven't deleted the main page, so I have the experience. My activity levels are constant, but not great. I prefer to stay neutral on most things; you can interpret that as being good or bad. That's about all I have to say, I think. --Legoless 23:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Obligatory questions section. Please post any you might have below.

Q1: What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator that you can't accomplish as a patroller? How will it help the wiki? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?

A: Deleting pages, mostly, as well as the ability to deal out longer blocks. My accomplishments on the wiki can be seen in my request above, but if someone wants more detail then I'll (grudgingly) provide it. Many of my mistakes can be seen by flicking through my talk page archives. I can't think of any specific examples, but I'll just say that I've learned to worship the "Show preview" button.

Q2: What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future?

A: Recent controversies have shocked me, and the long-term effects remain to be seen. UESP's biggest challenge is slowly bringing our Skyrim content up to the standard of Oblivion's, but I wouldn't call that "the near future" by a long shot. The wiki's main challenge is probably going to be holding on to the title of the top Elder Scrolls site on the web, but again this isn't a major issue as our content and coverage are unparalleled.

Q3: How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?

A: I don't view policy as law. When a policy hinders a particular situation, it should be ignored. That said, I'm a style Nazi and can't stand having a layout changed, so my views are slightly hypocritical. More serious policies (i.e., blocking policy) should be strictly obeyed but still open to change and overruling.

Q4: Under what circumstances do you block an editor who has never received a warning?

A: Spambots? Can't think of any other reason.

Q5: What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?

A: I write terrible lore pages and then scrap them. I occasionally go on the IRC channel or the forums, and people can contact me by email from the wiki.

Q6: What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?

A: Like AKB said above, there are guidelines laid out specifically for these sorts of conflicts which are worded much better than I could hope to do here. Discussing the matter will resolve most conflicts. If it doesn't, ask the community.

Q7: Since Skyrim's release, you have used your administrative abilities sparingly (15 pages deleted, 5 accounts blocked, 0 pages protected). Do you feel that these administrative abilities are necessary for your editing on the wiki? If so, why? And how to you plan on improving with these functions? elliot (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A: Most of my edits are content and grammar, so administrative powers aren't vital to my editing. I'm running for administratorship so that, when the need arises, I can use them. Eric Snowmane is correct in assuming (below) that I'm hesitant to use the powers brashly. I don't understand the last question.

Votes

All registered users are welcome to vote Support, Neutral, or Opposed. Comments are also welcome.

• Support:I just wanted to say that I feel like the fact that he has seldom used his administrative powers is not necessarily a bad thing. To me, and granted I don't know his thinking on it, it seems like he is simply using them sparingly. In my eye, it is better if an administrator is careful and uses his rights less, than for him to go completely crazy with them and risk big errors. Again, that is simply my thoughts on your question, Elliot. All that aside, he is an excellent editor, and since there are only a few regularly active administrators right now, I believe that it would be beneficial to keep him on board full time. Snowmane^T•E•C 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral: Your edit count recommends you abosolutely without a doubt. However, based on your answers above I am neither in favor of nor am I against you becoming an sysop. You seem ambivalent at this time. Sorry, brother. —SkoomaManiac 03:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support:After reading the votes that follow and your responses to a general lack of support, I have concluded that you're being shy and overly modest. I think you'll make a fine admin. —SkoomaManiac 21:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was expecting this kind of response. I admit, "ambivalent" is the perfect word, as I was initially uncertain whether to run at all. --Legoless 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't mean to put you down at all, bro; I think you definitely have the aptitude to be an admin, and if your answers were more confident it would have been a definite yes, but unfortunately, at thus time I'm not convinced this is what you really want. —SkoomaManiac 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I give the exact same reasons as above (vote on AKB) for my support, as well as the same caveats (not out of laziness, but because my reasons really are the same: Legoless has been personally and directly helpful and welcoming to me, and I have seen the same in his interactions with others). Skooma, what do you see as ambivalence? I don't see that in what has been written or implied above. He took the initiative in actively making the request. Maybe based partly on his use of "grudgingly"? If so, I think that he means that he wants to be modest: He is pointing to his record and offering to provide more evidence of his contributions/qualifications without wanting to appear full of himself. Like I was lucky enough to get my masters from an Ivy League school, but it's not how I introduce myself. (Ooops!! Well, I can't erase that now, as doing so would constitute false modesty.) He has explained his purpose in wanting the designation very clearly. Again, I'm not positioned to make a comprehensively informed judgment, but as far as the "too many cooks" argument goes, I'd point out that most such nuggets of wisdom are deemed so precisely because reality is seldom so simple. We have "look before you leap," but also "he [sic] who hesitates is lost." Is "too many cooks" really useful to apply here, and more so than "two minds are better than one", etc?

OK. Now we have him affirming his ambivalence. So, why don't we, as a community, help him to evaluate if he wants to be one and to assess whether he would be valued as one. A reluctant leader is not always a bad one, and in fact the opposite is very often true. Is this like "Rocky" or something? He can't make extra contributions to the site without being voraciously hungry to enjoy additional privileges and wield them at every opportunity? --Jreynolds2^{Talk E-mail} 04:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now): (edit conflict) Unfortunately, we don't have a lengthy list of mostly uncontested administrative chores to rely on here like with AKB. I'm making Legoless a victim of his own restraint and timing at this moment, for which I apologize. Snowmane makes good points, but I'm just not knowledgeable about the finer points of the needs and best interests of the site when it comes to the administrative functions. He's no doubt an excellent editor and one who I often mimic when in doubt. As an admin, we know he would use the privileges relatively sparingly. Is that a bad thing? It means he's theoretically more available than most to act as an impartial arbitrator on any given conflict, and he's far less likely to get involved in a wheel war, the increased risk of which seems like the biggest downside to a proliferation of administrators. But ultimately, there are too many questions I can't answer, so I defer to the position taken by the majority of the non-temp admins who voice an opinion here. This is entirely because of my own ignorance, not because I have any substantive reason to doubt Legoless' qualifications. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Some of Legoless' responses are ambivalent, true enough, but the ones I consider important show the kind of person he is, and I have no qualms with that person being an Admin. As far as number of administrative actions goes, twenty administrative actions as of one's RfA is twenty administrative actions more than we have during most RfAs, so that's a non-issue for me. The important thing is that he's there when he's needed. As far as making the decision to run goes, though, the only thing I can say is that there's never a requirement for an Admin to use their privileges. In the end, though, the decision is his. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: When I first started editing several months ago, as an ip address, I made a number of mistakes and somebody gave me a warning about nonsense but Legoless removed it and gave me advice on editing etc. I'm pretty certain that if Legoless didn't do that I never would have continued editing or have made an account. Legoless has, at least in my opinion, been very friendly, helpful and an excellent editor who has done a huge amount of work for this wiki. He has been here for over a year and a half but he is already the 15th most active user which further shows his level of work. For these reasons I think he would be a good admin to have on the team. In the time that he has already been an admin he hasn't caused any meltdowns and he has helped to manage the increased edits to the wiki. So I don't see how removing him would really benefit the wiki. I think he would make an excellent admin. RIM 16:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Legoless would be great support to have going forward, even if he only uses his powers sparingly. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I've taken a little while to think about this. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with Minor Edits. Now, however, I've decided to cast my vote in favour of Legoless' Administratorship. Though several different things won me over, the main one is that of his contribution to the Books, Lore, and Stormhold namespaces. Additionally, having worked extensively with the user in question, I've always felt him to be exceptionally obliging fellow, continually supportive of editors new and old, and he has always proven to be an editor of an exceedingly amicable nature. Furthermore, Legoless continues to be this same prolific and helpful editor, and, as an editor who has always gotten along with him, I am of now definitely of a mind that Legoless will turn out to be an outstanding Administrator.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Your a great editor and admin. I don;t want too repeat, so let me sum it up. You have a leveled head my friend.Br3admax 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral: I don't want to oppose, as a courtesy, but I can't bring myself to support this. I'm not sure that you want it, and I don't feel you are experienced enough with some of the finer things on the wiki, which I believe to be important as well. elliot (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: There's absolutely nothing wrong with using your administrative powers sparingly; we could definitely use a few quiet admins. I'm not entirely sure you really need to be an admin, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You've done excellent work, and you being an admin won't hurt. ?• JA^Talk 06:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sorry Lego, but I’m convinced that elliot is correct above. I don’t get the feeling you really want this and I’m not really impressed with the lack of usage of your administrative tools (which basically meant that the rest of us had to work harder when SR arrived). Quiet administrators can be fine, but know that this is not a patroller nomination, and the administrator job makes the UESP a duty, not just a hobby. I expect admins to participate (at least privately) in ongoing disputes, relevant discussions, ups and downs – I expect them to be around at all times (not literally, but, even is it sounds tacky, in spirit) - it can be incredibly funny and incredibly hard. I know you as a brilliant editor and good friend, but I also know this is the right decision – if you don’t want to be prolific, you should just stay a brilliant editor and patroller – it would be more beneficial for the site. --Krusty 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I was thinking the same thing. Does Legoless really want to be a patroller, or is he going for it because he feels it's expected from him? I was thinking of adding that question above, but I can do it here as well. Because you shouldn't do it if you don't want to, I'm sure you've been thinking about it, but I want to make sure ~ Dwarfmp 16:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: By patroller, I'm guessing you mean admin. I do feel that applying for permanent adminship is more for the site than it is for me. I still 'want' the powers, but I don't see how that ties in to the nomination. I would think that openly admitting to 'wanting' to remain an admin would be seen as greed or lust for power. However, I've taken onboard Krusty's point about adminship being more of a responsibility than a hobby. This had made my skittish, but I'm still willing to go ahead with the RfA. Interpret that as you like. --Legoless 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: Yes, administrator of course. Sorry about that. Well anyway, seems you've got enough support. I also didn't like Krusty's way of wording it, but if all three of us at least become admins, we're going to make each other's lives easier. I don't want to be tied to the position, it's still voluntary. But I haven't had any complaints about negligence or anything, I'm sure we'll do fine ~ Dwarfmp 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Legolas is a hard working editor of this site and deserves to have permanent adminship, he is absolutely brilliant in his skills, and unlike some people who would "hate" on him for not "wanting" it, well if he didn't want it, then why would he request it, just saying Honda1996 23:02 February 16th 2012

CONSENSUS: Support (10 Support, 2 Neutral, 1 Opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)