Project:Requests for adminship/Ks0stm

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

WP:SNOW. There is absolutely no way this will pass let alone a request for OS (which requires 25 yes votes and we likely don't have that many active editors anymore). I do encourage you to stick around and get used to editing here so in the future you can help out in that way. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm

Ks0stm (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi y'all! I'll start out with the glaringly obvious: I only have four edits on this wiki, all to my userspace. However, I am an administrator (since 2011) and oversighter (since 2013, with a break of about a year) on the English Wikipedia, in addition to being a global renamer and a member of the OTRS team. I noticed today that this wiki only has four oversighters (with limited hours of availability), and I figured that I would be bold and see if y'all would want me to help out as an oversighter. Apparently that first requires that I be an administrator, and so I humbly submit for your consideration a request for adminship.

While I have hardly any experience on this wiki, I took the time to thoroughly read the policies listed at WP:RULES, and especially WP:DELETE, WP:RD, WP:P, and WP:BLOCK to make sure to familiarize myself with the policies here, and I believe that I have enough of a track record as an administrator on the English Wikipedia to prove that I can be trusted with the tools and that I have the discretion needed to determine when and when not to use them.

I can certainly understand if y'all are hesitant to support my request considering I only have four edits on this wiki to date, but I hope that you will consider my candidacy with an open mind given my solid track record with the administrator tools on the English Wikipedia and my desire to help the Simple English Wikipedia as an oversighter, and I thank you all for your time in evaluating my request.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination. Ks0stm (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose only 3 against strong edits, no revocation, never seen on WP:VIP or on Recent Changes and no presence on WP:AN. Your experience on en.wikipedia.org is not even shown on simple.wikipedia.org obviously no real need tools, you can come here to be only sysop ? You'll do better to actively contribute here before wanting to become admin proving your experience here. Apipo1907 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
2. While I appreciate your experience elsewhere and desire to help here, there is a learning curve related to some things we do differently here. That's why I prefer to see more experience here before supporting RfAs. Some of the things can be learned by reading the various policies, etc., which you have done. Others cannot. If you're interested, I have a list here of some that I've identified.
   That being said, where is the requirement that oversighters be admins? Is it in the software, or is it local policy? If the latter, I would suggest re-evaluating that requirement. The kind of things that oversighters do is not likely to run afoul of our differences here as is the work that admins do. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - at this point of time, I would hope to see at least some activity locally. If local oversighters are not available, for some reason, that would be when stewards come in. That said, I wonder if any existing oversighter would like to comment on their current workload? Chenzw  Talk  11:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I don't think we are going to change our general policy, whereby no-one is appointed to these positions without being an active participant on the wiki for quite some time. It is easy to underestimate how different our ways are from En wiki! We have at present 5 checkusers, 4 oversighters and, incidentally, 5 stewards (counting so-called "inactive", who are sometimes pretty active, actually). So I don't think we need more at present, though I'm sure we all respect the skills you have developed on the big battlefield! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: You pretty much echo what a few others have told me on IRC in the time since I created this last night. At the time I created it I assumed that having local oversighters would be considered preferable to having stewards do the oversight work, since it's already in the oversight policy for stewards to defer to local functionaries unless none are available. Do you think I should withdraw this request in a preemptive WP:SNOW, or would it be worth carrying it through to see what the rest of the community thinks? Ks0stm (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note that there is no technical or policy requirement for an oversighter to first be an administrator. m:OS lists the criteria for someone being appointed, though any local policies on the matter can be more restrictive (i.e. it can be locally decided that oversighters should be admins first). It's also worth noting that stewards are always capable and willing to step in if there are no local users available, though in my experience as both a steward and oversighter elsewhere there are few situations where suppression is necessary immediately. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We do have a local policy that requires an OS to be an admin. See Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship#Criteria for becoming an Oversighter. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.