Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ks0stm

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

Ks0stm

Final (76/21/8); ended 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Ks0stm (talk · contribs) – Ks0stm is a fellow weather enthusiast, but with an advantage over me: he's currently taking his passion to the next level by choosing to study meteorology at a respected and celebrated atmospheric sciences college. Wikipedia has many excellent editors who contribute to the growing base of climate-related articles, and I've had the pleasure over the past several years of collaborating with several of them. Ks0stm, or Steve, was among them, although he and I worked in slightly different areas—I wrote more on tropical cyclones and nor'easters, while he remained focused on severe weather. Here's where Steve stood out. Most weather writers keep to themselves, although he learned more and more about how Wikipedia works from an internal perspective. He involved himself in several of the administrative pages and endeavors, including AfD and the not-infrequent reporting of vandals. Steve maintains a well-balanced edit regime, and his versatility in that respect means he can slave over an article one minute and help out a new user on one of the noticeboards the next... and, hey, how many young folks are into ham radio these days? My reason for nominating Ks0stm, and asking your approval for the certain pleasure to work alongside him as a fellow administrator, is multifaceted. His level of knowledge in an important and fairly extensive field of research, and one that he has put into use as an editor, will allow him to use the admin tools with a particular level of professionalism. He maintains a high level of decorum and maturity when dealing with colleagues, which is an excellent quality in a prospective admin. And finally, he understands how to put the project into perspective, with his studies taking precedence over this website we've all spent far too many evenings on. As my editing becomes increasingly refocused on meteorology articles after several years with my admin cap on, I've found myself working with (and around!) Ks0stm more and more, and I believe it would be for the benefit of the project to promote him. Juliancolton (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 intend to work in the areas involving admins that I have the most experience in: WP:UAA, WP:AIV, speedy deletion, and relatively uncontroversial WP:ITN and WP:AfD discussions...in general when it comes to ITN and AfD I would rather express my opinions as an editor in controversial situations rather than act as an administrator.

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

A: One thing that I think shines well is Storm Prediction Center. It's a type of article that I don't normally edit (government organizations) made interesting by my interest in severe weather, and is a good example of how I can use my meteorology related knowledge in editing. Other than that, I would say my contributions have been rather low key and spread across the project, but substantial nonetheless.

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: One situation in particular that comes to mind is a post I made to the Reference Desk [1]. It was subsquently removed as being a request for medical advice [2], a move that I heavily disagreed with. I then reverted [3], and when that was reverted [4] I resisted the urge to revert again and instead initiated discussion [5], in the style of WP:BRD. Given the chance again I would probably express my opinion with less strong of wording, but it's a good model of how I operate under stress...when conflict arises, I initiate discussion and accept consensus, even if it's not a consensus that I agree with.

Additional question from Surturz

4. Will you agree to a term limit? For example something like that for the US President: you agree to resign your adminship after 4 years and optionally seek RfA again, and permanently resign as an admin after 8 years. If not, why do you think admins should be appointed for life?

A:While I would not agree to a term limit in the style that you speak of where adminship is resigned at certain specific, pre-set times, I would certainly not say that admins should be appointed for life like, say, US Supreme Court justices. I much prefer the concept of a recall process, and in my case I would voluntarily submit myself for a reconfirmation RfA should certain prerequisites be met. At this time I'm not for sure exactly what these prerequisites would be, although at the moment I'm leaning towards if a request for comment or other discussion were to determine that I should submit myself for reconfirmation. Regardless, it's one of those things where I would be willing to listen to input from the community, both on whether I should submit myself for reconfirmation or what my requirements for doing such should be. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement, nor is there an ongoing or indeed past discussion, for admins to automatically resign after a fixed term. This may be a topic for discussion, but not here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hokeman

5. JulianColton has given you rave reviews in the nom statement; however, he didn't exactly explain why you needed the tools or how you anticipate using them once you get them. Please expand on that thought (beyond your answer to Question 1).

A. I would most likely put the tools to use in helping out in the areas I mentioned in question 1 (and perhaps WP:ANI; see the question below), most likely to help clear backlogs in those areas when they arise and also when I'm lacking anything else in particular to do around the wiki. The reason I choose those particular places to help out is they are the places I have experience with and thus are places I feel that I could put that experience and knowledge to use as an administrator. Administrator actions are not all I will do around the wiki if made an admin, however...I will also strive to not lose touch with the content building side of Wikipedia. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from The Utahraptor

6. I see you have made over 150 edits to WP:ANI. If made an administrator, is this an area that you will focus on? Why/Why not?

A: I might pop my head in for "uncontroversial" threads...I sincerely hope I don't involve myself as an admin in threads of the type where any admin action or non-action is likely to contribute to a brouhaha. In general, when admin actions or non-actions at an ANI thread are liable to cause a fair amount of controversy in and of themselves, I would prefer to stay out of it as an admin. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Σ

7. You mentioned working in CAT:CSD. How would you tag this page? Assume that the current article does not exist (No saying A10).

A: The Tappy Jack Shack page would not qualify for CSD...I would nominate it for deletion at AfD. The Sigma School also does not qualify assuming it is not a hoax (G3) because educational institutions do not qualify for A7. If I'm banned from saying A10 for the Stalin and Hitler articles (and for the sake of being able to answer assuming they refer to people other Stalin and Hitler) I would say {{db-person}} and G10, respectively. The pants article I would say is close to being G3 as hoax/vandalism but not quite blatant enough that I would feel confident taking action on it. If forced to act I would probably nominate it at AfD and people could !vote speedy delete per G3 if they felt that fit. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. What is your opinion on the usage of {{db-reason}}?

A: I can envision some general scenarios where that template might be of use to further explain how you think a page meets one of the CSD criteria. Other than that, I don't really see that it would be used that much given that most other criteria have templates available and given that {{db-multiple}} exists. I see the possibility that it could be used to nominate pages that don't fit any of the criteria, but I don't think it should be used for that. If a page doesn't fit into any CSD, send it to AfD or PROD it rather than creating your own CSD. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from My76Strat

9. Please help me reconcile this ambiguous concern. Your nominator stated, and with your acceptance you imply concurrence that you are "currently taking his passion to the next level by choosing to study meteorology at a respected and celebrated atmospheric sciences college." Yet this comment suggests you may be younger than a college student. I have no issues with your demonstrated clue or the level of maturity which you exude. I would have a problem if there was some disingenuous effort to portray yourself as older than you are. Please help me understand how these comments co-exist?

A: That would have been during my senior year of high school, which concluded May of 2011. I am now a freshman at the University of Oklahoma studying meteorology. My parents run my house in the style of "our house, our rules", so they really don't care if I'm over or under 18 when they ground me, which fortunately is very rarely necessary. If you would like further confirmation of my age or student status, send me an email and I would be more than willing to provide further evidence you request in return. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is certainly sufficient for me. I only wanted to reconcile the two statements, and you've done that nicely. My76Strat (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Σ

10. Please name as many instances as you can where is it inappropriate to A7 an article about education.

A:Any article about an educational institution and any article about a faculty member, education(al) website, or school musical group where the article credibly indicates significance/importance seem to be the most likely instances...beyond that I'm sure there are a few others, but they are probably be infrequent enough that I wouldn't think of them until I see them. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Divide et Impera

11. What would be your approach if A reports B and C at WP:AIV for the following: They are teaming against A and each one of them has two reverts within 24hrs. Both B and C are clearly pushing their POV and reverting A, but are not taking A seriously in the talk page, just trashing his contributions with edit summaries and reverting him. A feels frustrated and thinks incorrectly that they are straight vandals, so he comes to WP:AIV. Do you: a) Send A to another noticeboard? b) Notify another admin who is familiar with A, B, C, and their topics? c) Take action by yourself through review of B and C contributions and if you discover that they are two POV pushers, you give them warnings in their talk pages or sanctions?; d) Other (please specify)?

A: To be honest, that's a situation where I would probably leave it to another admin to make the decisions about what to do...I would most likely choose option B, so long as the admin isn't involved. It's the kind of tangled mess that I wouldn't really want to involve myself in as an admin unless I absolutely had to. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SL93

12. If you decided to participate in an ANI discussion where you were in the minority opinion on what action to take against an editor, would you leave the discussion alone or defend what you think is the better action? In relation to policies of course. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would more than likely weigh in with what I thought should be done and why if the thread caught my interest, it's just a matter of whether the thread caught my interest enough to comment. Regardless of what if I was in the minority I would not make any administrator actions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Σ

13. A user creates an article about an antivirus, and then a Wii game, and then a programming language. The articles are not able to be G11 tagged, and you have not heard of any of them in your life. Which CSD criterion applies?

A: =P You sure seem to have alot of scenarios/questions (not that it's a bad thing...it keeps me thinking and gives me good breaks from homework every now and then). Anyway, in that event I would check Google for any hint of them...chances are if they exist there will be at least some mention of them on Google, especially seeing as they are technology related topics. If I reasonably exhaust Google as a resource for looking for them without finding any hint of them, then I would nominate the articles for deletion at AfD per WP:HOAX. I would only speedy them under G3 if they were so blatant of hoaxes that I did not need to search on Google to see if they existed or not. Other than that possible application of G3, I can't think of any CSD criteria that apply. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if you find references, but they are not 3rd party reliable sources (thus failing to establish notability)? --

Σ talk contribs

04:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that instance, I would AfD under WP:GNG for failing to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (this particular type of nomination is actually the majority of my AfD nominations). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Links for Ks0stm: Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Ks0stm can be found here.

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

I don't think question #4 is especially fair given that this is not grounded in policy of any sort, and we can't say what Wikipedia will be like in 4-8 years. --Rs chen 7754 00:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. According to WP:INACTIVITY, admins don't get removed over time, unless they are inactive. smithers - talk 00:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Edit stats on the talk page. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 22:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather cringe at posting this, because I can see how it might come off as if I'm just saying what the crowd wants to hear in order to drum up support, but I assure you this is an honest statement on my part and not me just saying what the crowd wants to hear. I notice how several (all but a couple) of my opposes and neutrals so far state concern with my answer to question 3. Many of these comments in particular note that it appears I am unwilling to admit that I was wrong or at fault. Although I did not mention this specifically in my answer to question 3, I do realize I was in the wrong. (I figured that people would assume that I knew I was in the wrong...one of my real life personality traits (according to my friends) that shows up at times on wiki is that I oftentimes will give people the benefit of the doubt above and beyond the norm, and frequently I forget that the amount of benefit other people are willing to give oftentimes is less than I would give myself in the same situation). What made me realize I was wrong was when I went back and reviewed that sequence of edits later that evening when I was less stressed and thought about the edit summary to this edit. It made me think about the question more, examine in a different light how/why it was considered a request for medical advice, and learn from the experience. I gained from the situation a better, more solid understanding of what constitutes a request for medical advice and personal insight into how to react less strongly to stressful situations where I am in the wrong. I also assumed that it would go without saying that I was sorry for the actions (another one of those benefit of the doubt situations), but evidently this I should have also explicitly stated...I am sorry, it was quite the opposite of stellar behavior, and it is not something that I will allow to happen in the future. As for the short time that has passed since that event, I can't do much to address that...the best I can say is that so far as I can remember it's pretty much the only time anything like that has transpired involving me. I pretty much assume at this point that this RfA is not going to be successful, but at any rate I felt like I should express all this out of the simple fact that it needed to be said. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have no plans to thankspam everyone who participated, allow me to take this opportunity to thank all editors who have participated for their comments, views, and concerns, for good or for bad. I told Juliancolton when this started "It'll be an adventure, for good or for bad," and it's certainly lived up to that. I appreciate all of the feedback and will most certainly take it to heart. Once again, a big thanks to everyone who participated. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Like what I see.PumpkinSky talk 23:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's done some GAs in the roads projects as well, seems like a good editor. --Rs chen 7754 23:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I intended to mention that in my statement. How it shows willingness to work in multiple areas, etc. Thanks for point this out. Juliancolton (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - partly based on nom, partly on spot review of last 500 contributions. Looks like a good addition to the corps. Frank | talk 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm - I've seen several references to Q3 so I spent more time looking at the exchange. Even if it makes me scratch my head just the teensiest bit, I cannot say it rises anywhere near the level of concern that would make me regret supporting. Clearly Steve is aware of 3RR, edit warring, that opinions may vary, that discussions can be had regarding such differences, and that talk pages are the place to do so. Further, the original edit answering the question contained two things it should have: admission that perhaps less strong wording would have done fine, and an understanding that sometimes consensus goes against one's own opinion on a matter. That's an attitude we need around here. Frank | talk 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If memory serves me correctly, I've only interacted with this editor once, to tell him about an edit of his I undid. He responded in a friendly, courteous and conciliatory manner, and a brief review of his talk page archives and his edits to some other users' talk pages shows that this was not an aberration. 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. –BuickCentury Driver 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? - user has no editing restriction or arbitration restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cerebral answers to questions bespeaks a strong candidate--Hokeman (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good candidate. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm fully confident you'll do great with the mop. smithers - talk 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Support – having seen this guy contribute positively and interact well with others around the 'pedia, it's an easy yes. Airplaneman ✈ 03:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final-friggin-lutely. And if I have to make up a word for this, it means something. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demote to admin and assign a mop. Don't see any reason why not. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support from the answers to the nom, it looks like he will make a great Administrator. -- Luke (Talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has always been a level head at WP:ITNC. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was almost going to oppose because of the vague support for recall but that would be as silly as opposing over a term limit. The rest of the nomination and answers to questions look to be on the right track. Also deleted contribs look good with AFD's and prods and speedy delete nominations. Looks to be a tidy person not leaving a mess behind. There is also a second account KsØstm (talk · contribs) with no contribs. Uploads looks to be pretty sparse though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We could do with more admins at ITN and Steve's input there has always been sensible. I've seen nothing to doubt that he'd do an excellent job as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a strong support in view of the laughable opposes below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)laughable[reply]
Make that a strong support in view of this laughable's dislike of the Opposers.Plutonium27 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This user seems like an excellent candidate for the mop. Topher385 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns I can see, seen good stuff from this user. — Joseph Fox 11:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. —DoRD (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Q3 doesn't look all that good. Sort of ugly, in fact. In my opinion, though, not ugly enough to disqualify the candidate. —DoRD (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The candidate supports the idea of admin recall. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since people have moved this vote to the oppose section and generally don't seem to get it, this is a sarcastic comment due to the current oppose based on a lack of term limits and due to opposes in previous RFAs because the candidate was supportive of admin recall. In general, this is a protest against people who vote against the system, not the candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know my personal views on admin recall, see this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has a been a good active editor with sufficient contributions, has proper disposition to be an admin.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The opposes should consider that sometimes quality is a quantity of its own - this is such a time. Also admin recall.--Cerejota (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support candidate seems qualified and I can't find any problems. I did see a few reports to AIV that weren't blocked, but in each case blocking would have been a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. I'm also not impressed with the oppose rationales, especially the first two. Hut 8.5 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen a bit of Ks0stm's work, and it all looks great! No concerns, besides slightly sporadic editing in the past. Now Oppose (see below) HurricaneFan 25 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've had nothing but great experiences working with him. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partly to cancel out the unpersuasive oppose votes. No cause for concern is evident causa sui (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well qualified candidate. I did notice one article where the candidate tagged it as A7 and I might have indulged in slightly less AGF. 23lbs struck me as awfully heavy for a baby and none a somewhat unusual number of friends, but it was a while ago and seems an isolated incident. I've read the oppose section and am not sure which I find odder, criticising someone with a GA for lack of content contributions, or opposing someone in order to promote a policy change. Neither struck me as a good reason to oppose this or any candidate. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm familiar with Ks0stm from various places around the encyclopedia and he has always had clueful and coherent input from what I recall. The oppose votes below are completely unconvincing, anyone that can help bring an article to GA status through over 100 edits definitely knows something about content. -- Atama頭 16:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ks0stm's work has been exemplary across the areas in which he wishes to edit in as an admin. Giving him the mop would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. —mc10 (t/c) 18:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm always on the oppose bandwagon for not contributing content for Wikipedia, but it'd be ignorant of me to do so here. Unlike other candidates I've opposed, this one actually has tried to write for Wikipedia instead of deleting everything for brownie points or having everyone else do all the work. Good Article promotions to Storm Prediction Center and K-104 (Kansas highway) are more than enough for me. No valid reason found to oppose yet. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The admin community could use some new blood. --MoRsE (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to support! :) Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support And also Try not to get blown away --intelati^talk 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need more, not less, competent people to deal with Wikipedia's backlogs and pressing issues. I find no reason not to support. Moogwrench (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen the candidate around here and there; they seem alright. The situation in Q3 was a bit of a screw-up, but not terribly concerning if that's the worse that has happened. AlexiusHoratius 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent and qualified, and per nom. Swarm ^{u | t} 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good! MJ94 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems. Mop please. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strong candidate, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy candidate, oppose opinions regarding Q3 are of no concern to me (they are taking the medical disclaimer a bit too dogmatically, it is only a disclaimer and not a prohibition against asking such questions). Them From Space 17:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not? — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Q3 is concerning, but I put more stock in a user's track record than answers to questions. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Q3 is concerning, but at least he realizes it and if that is the worst people can come up with, he'll do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ (moved to neutral) Q3 is a concern, but also a concern echoed by the candidate. That single incident is itself uncharacteristic and insufficient to eradicate the many good qualities and examples of clue. My76Strat (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should do fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support moved from Oppose. I have some reservations about this editor, particularly surrounding Q3. But I see far, far more good than I do bad. Trusilver 07:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the candidate will be a net positive admin. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not only is Q3 not that big of a deal, it happened at a time when a bunch of questions were getting removed from refdesks for various reasons, not all of which had clear consensus. Knowing the environment, it would be a shame to let that generate so much heat. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, honestly, I don't agree with opposer's concerns. This user can handle the tools IMO. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Support - We need more admins, and this user is good enough if not better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having watched this RFA run, and taking into account the support and oppose commentary, I'm personally of the opinion that adding the bit is a net positive. Should this pass I'm sure Ks0stm will take note of the concerns raised in opposition. Pedro : Chat 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per reasons above I see no reason to oppose. We need all the admins we can get. --Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As best as I can tell, he has more than adequate knowledge of the rules that admins should abide by. The opposes and neutrals have not unearthed anything that would make me think that making him an admin would harm the encyclopedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been watching this one for a while trying to figure out where to land. I have some concerns but I don't think those concerns out weigh the good so this is where I end up. GB fan 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per glowing nom review and conversation in neutral section. That and I couldn't find anything wrong. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible editor. Quite a few of the opposes are spectacularly unpersuasive. Also, I trust Julian. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moved from Neutral.) I like the answers - keeping cool and rational. Peridon (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I've looked at that Q3 set of diffs and thought pretty hard about them. My reading of the original post by the candidate is that it actually was not a request for medical advice, but rather, a request for information beyond what was found in a search engine search, but it was poorly expressed in a manner that could very easily be misread as a request for medical advice. Not a great performance, and disturbingly recent, but not as bad as it has been made out to be, and the candidate drew attention to it himself. I don't see editors here showing evidence that it has been part of an ongoing pattern. It seems too much of a single event to rise to the level of a deal breaker. Frankly, I'd rather see more maturity and more content experience, but I end up feeling on balance that I trust the candidate to be an administrator. Please don't prove me wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I would have liked someone to ask a difficult AfD question, but he appears not to be interested in the difficult cases there. <g> Collect (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tryptofish. If Q3 represents this Wikipedian's darkest moment, there is not much to worry about here. The Interior (Talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After a thorough review, I can say the concerns raised by others appear to be glitches in an otherwise excellent Wikipedian career and don't outweigh the helpful work the candidate has done. The candidate is levelheaded, knowledgeable and learns from his mistakes. I'm certain he'll make a fine admin and he has my full support. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit conflict) Although the candidate does not check all my criteria, I trust Ks0stm not to misuse the tools. Points have been raised in the opposition section about age/maturity which I tend to agree with somewhat, but do not find them compelling enough for me not to voice my support; I tend to see those comments directed at age criteria in general for adminship, rather than an evaluation of the candidate's expected performance as an admin. I see no obvious patterns of behavior that would not be befitting for an admin and I am sure they will take this and other concerns expressed by the opposition on board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems level headed, and capable... Changed to Neutral...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After further reflection I am confident that all things considered requires this nomination to succeed. My confidence in some of the CSD tags has diminished slightly, and I do ask Ks0stm to use the tools for CSD with abundant caution unless he is absolutely sure. I trust Ks0stm and that has not diminished, so I have every reason to believe he will take this advice and bring it to bear with his administrative actions. And why in the world should I let Murphy determine my actions? I think not. My76Strat (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tryptofish seems to sum up Q3 well. I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. Gigs (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see any cause not to support. I feel I can trust this user. Mlpearc powwow 17:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Candidate has reasonable content contributions, and has also demonstrated thoughtful reasoning and calm and polite answers in their answers to the numerous additional questions. As has been persuasively argued both here and elsewhere, the negative incident described in the answer to Q3 shows a mistake at the time - which the candidate acknowledged in his initial answer - but is not so catastrophic as to imply a total lack of judgement. The candidate clearly has an adequate breadth of knowledge of policy, and a longstanding commitment to collaborative improvement of the encyclopedia; I don't see any significant concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with the candidate myself. Best of luck to you. Malinaccier (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moving from Neutral). Although I'm still a bit concerned about Q3, I've decided I don't see it as an impassable roadblock, and I'm hopeful that Ks0stm will take everything said here to heart and strive to keep improving (something we all should be doing, of course). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Candidate has not committed to a term limit or to specific recall criteria. Sorry. No other concerns. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A specific recall procedure is not really important at this stage imo, just an expressed openness to recall under some kind of community request as the user has commented in his reply to question 4 that they would be open to some form of community recall. Off2riorob (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can wait for the question to be answered further before supporting or opposing. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? This person is a charity worker, that doesn't get an income for any of the work he does, and you think he should stop after a term? I can't name any other non-profits that kick their volunteers out after a certain amount of time... smithers - talk 05:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked extensively with non-profits, and all volunteer structure with positions elected by the community or selected by management (ie the rough equivalent an admin is here) are subjected to removal of the volunteer in question. Even the boards of directors (including, for example, the Wikimedia Foundation BoD) have elections with set term limits, recall etc. I seriously dispute that you have any significant experience in the field, or maybe you have been exposed to badly run non-profits with awful governance standards. Also, other large Wikimedia projects do have recall processes or even term limits for admins, and have been successful with them. You can have whatever position you want in that debate, but do not mock those you disagree with with platitudes and strawmen, and claims of authority that do not hold up to scrutiny.--Cerejota (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this oppose vote or the question it's based on are in any way relevant to this or any other RfA. There are specific venues for discussing admin selection/removal policy and methods. It's not here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I foreshadowed this oppose !vote >here<, and was led to believe it was okay. A fuller explanation of this vote is on my talk page >here<, and I am willing to continue the discussion there. --Surturz (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok in that it is not disallowed, it's not ok in that it is a silly reason to oppose that will likely be discounted by the closing crats should this prove to be a close call. It's clear that you intend to make this a de facto standard question by asking it of every candiddate and opposing those who give the wrong answer, which is something the community has repeatedly not been ok with. Kurt and Doug have both been gone a while but you might want to consider that both of them were basically ostracized fo rbeing one-note RFA voters who did not consider anything beyond their pet issue at RFA. The community has repeatedly rejected term limits because they don't make sense. Equating Adminship to political office is utter nonsense, that's why you are getting this reaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really understand this oppose - it's not policy and doesn't reflect on this candidate's ability to cope with a mop Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I oppose on the grounds that this candidate has a severely inadequate track record as a content editor. He has less than 2500 contributions altogether in article space. Most of his edits just revert vandalism, do minor copyediting or add images, although, more encouragingly, he does add the occasional reference. There is almost no evidence of substantial additions of content. I oppose, because Wikipedia has far too many administrators without the faintest idea of what is involved in actual content contribution. Yet, most bizarrely, they are given the right to jerk the content editors around and block them. This is why most real content editors have left Wikipedia. We also don't need more children administrators. Sorry Ks0stm, you seem like a nice lad and I know my oppose will fail in this dysfunctional madhouse. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose on the grounds that, although my comments are generally true, Ks0stm did contribute reasonable content to Storm Prediction Center. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take total offense to this as the nominator. I suggested him largely on the basis that he spends most of his time working on content, which includes the development of at least one substantial GA, Storm Prediction Center. Please reconsider. Juliancolton (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that oppose !votes based on lack of content creation or, conversely, lack of "need" for the tools are both divisive. James500 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats have openly said that they discredit all !votes in regards to lack of content creation. It is still an editor's right to express this opinion, even if it was misguided in this particular RFA. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vodello, would you please name bureaucrats who disregard !votes mentioning content creation? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To quote WJBScribe, 'there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator.'" -- $Σ talk contribs$ 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how does that imply that WJBScribe "disregard[s] !votes mentioning content creation?" Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe's comments seem similar to WP's discussion of another perennially debated criterion, non-adult status, which concluses so: "Editors are free to use age [sic.] as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, with further comments from WJBScribe. 72% support, but the content creation !votes mattered so little that he considered promotion not to even be a borderline call. The weight of content creation !votes is practically zero. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wifione was later passed under similar circumstances. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vodello, you are perfectly right to remember the first close, and to be concerned about the lack of content contributions of the candidate. (However the editor had worked on Simple WP, etc.) I am glad that some others commented on the poor treatment you received. I am sorry about the mistake by the closing bureaucrat, who called personal judgment "consensus". Let us hope that resulting problems have been few and (as I would expect) that resulting benefits have been many .... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vodello, if you want to form a WikiProject ~~Encyclopedia~~ Articles, whose members were devoted collaboratively to writing articles, instead of chasing their flea-ridden tails, let me know. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let me know too. But given the flood of disheartened and flea-bitten content editors who have recently given up on Wikipedia, I doubt enough remain to form such a project. It would be much cleaner if it were just official policy that Wikipedia no longer supports content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The situation you describe in Q3. It IS a request for medical advice and arguing the toss (instead of accepting it and letting the matter drop) looks self-serving. Your tone and manner used - you say that "Given the chance again I would probably express my opinion with less strong of wording..." and then describe it as "...a good model of how I operate under stress...when conflict arises, I initiate discussion and accept consensus, even if it's not a consensus that I agree with." That's a good model indeed but it's not what you did. You reverted ~~twice~~ before "initiating discussion" by kicking off with an attitude that does not demonstrate the necessary temperament expected from an admin. If you'd described this incident along the lines of "I was wrong, I then threw a tantrum", that would throw a different light on things but trying to show this incident as an example of your good judgment makes for the double whammy. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clear up what might be a misconception. The 3rd question at RfA isn't a request to give an "example of good judgment". It's asking to give an example of what an editor does in a stressful situation. Usually such an example doesn't show an editor at their best. At my RfA, I had been a volunteer at the Mediation Cabal for some time, and had helped out at a number of noticeboards, so I probably could have given any number of examples of diplomacy on my part, but what I ended up doing was giving an example of one of the times I came close to losing my cool. I showed how I chose to just withdraw from the discussion and let other people handle it. In this case, Ks0stm showed how he chose to withdraw from an edit war and take it to a discussion page. I don't see this as a tantrum, people (admins no less) say much harsher things than "I very heavily contest" or "I strongly disagree" (we can agree to disagree on whether or not that shows bad temperament). Now, I'll also say that I think Ks0stm was wrong, I would have interpreted that refdesk request as soliciting medical advice. But again, Q3 isn't asking for an example of an editor's best conduct, it's essentially asking for the opposite. -- Atama頭 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your personal example/lesson. It isn't necessary in my case, however, because I know that Q3 isn't about giving an example of good judgment. I know its a place where one airs where one erred and accepted the lesson learned. However, its where the candidate chose to illustrate and propagate his belief in his good judgment (being purely "not reverting but initiating discussion" regardless of how one actually then behaves - for that, see the diff you referenced but chose not to quote beyond the first line). So any misconception there would be originating from him, right? Maybe a few more of your experiences should be sent his way. However, it doesn't matter whether he used it in an answer to a Q3 or wrote a song about it, I don't want that self-serving interpretation of policy, the "I'm-too-good-to-be-corrected" ego and evident lack of self-awareness let loose in an admin. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that it's not stellar behavior on the part of Ks0stm and it's very far from the worst rationale for an oppose. I just wanted to make sure that Q3 wasn't being misinterpreted, especially as others have cited your oppose in their opposition votes. No worries. :) -- Atama頭 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are now assured of my understanding and application of the purpose of Q3. I'll concede you mean well but telling me my !vote is "very far from the worst rationale for an oppose" is about as condescendingly pissy a judgment upon an editor's RfA reasoning as it is possible to get along with a little smiley to follow. Especially so because I actually checked out this candidate's diffs and contributions - yes, how quaint! And please to be reassured: no-one - at this time - has "cited (my) oppose in their opposition vote." They came to their own conclusions and explained these in their own terms. No worries. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per answer to Q3 and Epipelagic. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a Strong Oppose in view of the laughable supports above. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why making personal attacks against someone else's opinion is necessary or appropriate. Trusilver 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. So perhaps you ought to raise that issue with the editor concerned.[6] Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Oppose For ~~two~~ one reason (1) Intellectual and social maturity. (a) His answer to Q3 is very troublesome—All voters should read the diffs. I accept his statement that he accepts consensus when it goes against him. HeHis initial answer acknowledged that "consensus" was against him but seemed to ignore that his posting violated WP policy. Already, he should have apologized for posting a medical question, re-inserting it with a revert, and then discussing it so casually here: Those diffs and his response here raise troublesome questions about precision in writing and about social maturity, particularly his ability to foresee others' concerns and then persuasively address them. He addressed this concern better in the "Comments" section, so I reduce this to a weak oppose. 19:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC) (b) Being grounded in January 2011 and having that parental punishment prevent him from editing Wikipedia, except during school-time Explanation on my talk page shows character. (2) Inexperienced in extended discussions: I fail to see any evidence that he has successfully had an extended discussion of any content issue, or any extended discussion of Wikipedia policy or any efforts at mediation (or bomb-throwing) between contending editors. Thus, he seems to be a wild-card. On the other hand, I mention two strengths: (3) on many other edits, he seems stable and serious during ANI discussions. (4) He has greatly improved one article, which was technically challenging. (ω) In summary, if he sticks to obvious administrative clean-up, he could do fine, but I would worry about him doing any mediation, etc. He should continue to develop over the next years: If he writes a few articles in the next 6 months, then I should be happy to support him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the situation described in Q3, which occurred very recently; less than 6 weeks ago. In my opinion, posing the question at all shows maturity issues and a lack of understanding of the Reference Desk's purpose. The reverting and complaining also indicates a possible competence issue; an administrator needs to be able to perform basic tasks like determining whether or not a question is a request for medical advice. I mean, you were literally asking whether — based on your described symptoms — you had a bone bruise, a cracked bone, or a broken bone. Regardless of how long ago it happened (which you don't initially specify, you only say "At one time a while ago" which could mean last week), on what universe is that not a request for a diagnosis and/or medical advice? To have an admin applying this level of logic to real Wikipedia issues scares me. —SW— ^squeal 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading my oppose, I think I came off a bit abrupt. I'd just like to echo some of the other opposers in saying that I believe the candidate could succeed in a future RfA (maybe 4-6 months down the road) if he concentrates on remaining level-headed in discussions, being consistently active to give us a good set of edits to look at, showing us his dispute resolution skills by responding to a few requests at WP:3O, and generally showing restraint and maturity in everything he does. His work here is good, there are just a few red flags which need to be resolved for adminship. —SW— ^confess 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly a good editor on most levels, and might well be a good admin in the future, but right now I have too many concerns to ignore. The edits linked in Q3 are troublesome, basically per Snottywong (although I'm impressed that the issue was brought up voluntarily). I'm also disappointed by the creation of two unsourced articles less than a month ago - verifiability is a fundamental policy that administrators should be able to understand and implement correctly. Given that we have fairly few recent edits to judge (only 430 since May), I would have liked to see much more consistency. Keep doing the good bits, don't repeat the mistakes and source those articles and I expect to support in six or seven months - although this looks likely to pass anyway, in which case I hope you prove me wrong. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to the oppose below about the unsourced articles. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now; I would be happy to reevaluate some (significant amount of) time down the road. Although only one incident, the answer to Q3 was concerning enough to prompt me to look at the rest. My biggest problem with the answer to Q3 is that it is offered as an example of how the nominee responds to conflict, and as such, is not a good one. Had the nominee simply said "I got into confict and I was quite wrong-- something that I accept today", I suspect he might be passing RFA easily; to be able to admit when you are so clearly and blatantly wrong is a sign of maturity and competence. The incident was recent. That the nominee doesn't recognize how wrong he was, and offers this as an example of how to handle conflict, is a concern for me; I had a big issue, leading to an RFC once, with an immature admin who wouldn't simply acknowledge that his use of tools was wrong, which could have easily solved the whole thing without wasting many other editors' time. Two other problems with his response there: "I've been around long enough that people should know by now I would be smarter than to ask for medical advice on Wikipedia)...it could have been answered with a simple link or explanation to the differences in symptoms between two conditions." 1) A possible tendency towards arrogance which may make it hard to recognize when one is wrong ("I would be smarter"???), and 2) "it could have been answered with a simple link" shows a willingness to disrespect other editor's time-- if it could have been answered with a simple link, then do it yourself. Looking at the rest of the picture, I simply do not see enough content contributions from this editor to assure me that maturity, knowledge, and competence are present. The recent uncited articles are another big concern, showing both a lack of respect for other editors' time (someone else will have to clean those up, and that should have been done by now by the nominee) and a lack of respect for core Wikipedia policies. All in all, too many concerns that are too recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, why were reviewer rights granted to someone who is creating uncited articles? The reviewer rights means that the uncited articles were missed until now, and he may have created others. Bad bad unbundling of tools and baubles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those articles do have sources, I just didn't put inline sources in them. Each of them has an external link to the station information I used for the article. I could more than likely switch that over to inline sources this afternoon. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I'm puzzled why SandyGeorgia thinks that reviewer rights would cause the creation of "uncited articles" (or any other sort of problematic articles) to be missed. Am I missing something here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she is just confusing the Reviewer right (which Ks0stm has) with the Autoreview/Autopatrolled right (which he does not.) 28bytes (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - I do not consider youth to be a valid reason to reject someone as an administrator. We have had several exceedingly competent admins that are in their middle teens. However, youth combined with repeated instances where this editor has been unable/unwilling to admit fault in situations where they quite obviously are, suggest a level of immaturity which I find incompatible with being an administrator. I have been reading over this user's past contributions for the last hour, and I am fully aware that this problematic issue has reared it's head in an extremely small percentage of their posts, but I think considering the circumstances, and the short time that has passed since said incidents, I would be more comfortable suggesting that this editor try again after six months. This is not a race, the encyclopedia isn't going anywhere in the next six months, but his skills surrounding administrative function and (more importantly) his knowledge of policy most certainly will improve. I wish the candidate the best of luck, and should he pass this RFA, I certainly hope he takes the criticism to heart as he settles into adminship. Trusilver 15:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per some excellent points made by the nominating editor[7], I'm moving to support. As JulianColton pointed out, there is a difference between a lapse of judgment, and a lack of judgment. Q3 raised significant issues with me and, to be honest, it wasn't the only edits that caused me to be concerned. But I am assuming good faith here, I see an editor who is well meaning and brings a lot of good qualities to the table. Everyone makes mistakes, the only question then is what do we learn from them? Trusilver 07:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm sorry, but your answer to Q3 is a dealbreaker for me too: I agree with Snottywong that it shows maturity issues. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Sorry, but I've checking the links to the answer to question three. I'd expect an experienced user to be less stressed in the given situation at the Reference Desk, and would also expect you to understand the Reference Desk "policy" - I think that it is a request for medical advice, contrary to the Wikipedia's medical disclaimer. However, I am not concerned about your age/maturity, as I am a student myself. However, I'm praising K-104 (Kansas highway), regardless of the minimal size and number of sources, I can see you did your best. Sorry to oppose, HurricaneFan 25 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too low count in article space. Also, the user doesn't have enough article-building experience. Alex^{discussion ★} 18:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifies as article-building experience? He has several ITNs and two GAs to his credit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To meet my expectations, there need to be at least several higher-class GA or one featured, and also falls on Q3. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I had been wondering if you just hadn't noticed his works. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. Despite my misgivings about this editor's maturity, he HAS created and improved several articles, not to mention having more than 2k edits to articles. Seriously? What is the threshold where enough is enough? 3k? 4k? Sixty-two FA's? I mean really. Adminship is not an award for hard work, it is a set of tools to help administer the encyclopedia in a manner that rarely has anything to do with article-building. Given the choice between promoting a excellent vandal-whacker with zero article experience or a wonderful article writer with no admin function experience, who is really the intelligent person to promote? I would say both of them, but if it came down to either-or, I would want the vandal whacker and I would say so without hesitation. If we don't have an article writer, then maybe an article takes a few months longer to get written, but it will still be done. If the anti-vandalism fighters and the other behind the scenes maintenance people vanished, the encyclopedia would cease to function as such with the space of two weeks. Trusilver 19:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admins = vandal-whackers argument is a really strange one, as most vandal whacking is quietly done by regular editors, day in and day out; all administrators are required to do is to deliver the coup de grâce when the vandalism is brought to their attention. On the other hand administrators can do a great deal of damage by barging into content disputes with their block hammers. Wikipedia without administrators would have to find a more democratic way to police itself; Wikipedia without content creators would cease to exist except as an ossified and failed experiment. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malleus. Without article writers Wikipedia wouldn't even exist, and there wouldn't even be any vandalism to revert. On the other hand, without vandal reverters and admins to block the vandals, Wikipedia would rapidly degenerate into a cesspool of libel and garbage, and the article writers would be forced to revert their articles all the time rather than being able to write. Without copyeditors and general "gnomes", many articles would be clunky messes of text jumbled together and full of spelling errors. We need everybody, and, in my opinion, they should all be administrators. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about a new rule that anyone who's contributed substantially to more that 30 FAs should be automatically promoted ... nah, that would never work. We're a social experiment, not an encyclopedia, but it's an experiment that's failing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't approve of an autopromote system, but I can't see how somebody with 30 FAs could possibly fail unless they used sockpuppets, were repeat edit warriors, or said "fuck" at any point in the past 6 months. Clearly anybody who mentions a naughty word will abuse the tools. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor had difficulty in gaining promotion any other way, and if this was a widely known means of promotion, I would anticipate a difficult time for the editor on FA's 29 and 30. Advise lots of conoms who have lots of friends. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost certainly right. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change from neutral to oppose - I like a lot of what I see and there is some great content editing in there; however, Q3 did concern me. The tone used, both in the edit summaries and the final initiated discussion, was too aggressive for an admin IMO. I appreciate you saying that you would ideally respond in a calmer manner in the future; however, decisions are made in the heat of the moment. If this was 6-12 months ago, it would be less of a problem; however, the incident occurred less than 2 months ago, which leads me to oppose. Given time and evidence of improved handling of these situations, I would support the nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 19:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snottywong, and this was barely over a month ago. Mato (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit summaries in question 3 too aggressive not admin like behavior. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, q3 doesn't trouble me too much. Storm Prediction Center, the candidate's main content contribution does. Most of the article is sourced to the subject's website and has obviously not been kept up to date since the green dooby-wacker was (in my view, wrongly) given. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are numerous indications of a lack of understanding of issues related to administration. The problems with the answer to question 3 have already received a good deal of attention, and rightly so: the candidate here showed a fundamental inability to see that a particular policy applied, even after it had been pointed out, in addition to other issues, such as an excessively aggressive tone towards other editors. The answer to question 7 is also very unsatisfactory: "Sigma School" was unambiguous vandalism, and any administrator who can't see that is not going to be a reliable administrator. Then there is question 11, which dealt with a straightforward case, and an admin who is afraid to get involved there is far too timid to be able to work effectively in that role. Then we have the editor creating numerous completely unsourced articles, some of them of dubious notability: how can an editor who does not follow Wikipedia standards him/herself be relied on to administer them in connection with other editors? I could give more examples of problems from the editor's history, but I think those are enough to illustrate that there are numerous reasons for concern. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I specifically stated in my answer about the Sigma School "assuming it is not a hoax (G3)"...I did that so that I could provide a more insightful answer about how you cannot speedy under A7 articles about educational institutions. In it's present state yes, I would indeed say it qualifies for G3...thus why I said assuming it did not. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that is that the "article" was obviously vandalism, and to even consider "assuming" that it wasn't was unrealistic. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I gave in that page was enough to make it fall under G3, as JamesBWatson stated above. "It teaches skin cells and two birds". Obviously vandalism. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like something's getting lost here...what I'm trying to say is if I came across that article patrolling new pages I would speedy it as obvious vandalism (G3) and A7 would not apply because it is a (supposed) educational institution, whereas if the article was more along the lines "Sigma School is a school located in X person's house. There are 30 students at the school and two pet birds." (the "assuming it is not a hoax" part) it would not qualify as G3 and A7 would not still apply because it is an educational institution. The reason that I made sure to work in the A7 part in my answer was because of the part where at the top of the "article" it says "(pretend there's a db-a7 here)". Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Q3 response; also per Epipelagic before Storm Prediction Center caused him/her to strike. Writegeist (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have concerns over the responses to Q1 "relatively uncontroversial WP:ITN and WP:AfD discussions" and Q6 "I might pop my head in for "uncontroversial" threads". Admins, at times, have to work in difficult and potentially controversial situations. A reluctance to become involved with matters that could be controversial lead me to wonder whether the nominee will be able to make the hard decisions that are sometimes required. This also reinforces my thought that I am unconvinced that the nominee actually needs the admin tool; he has not exemplfied any instances where his work has been inhibited by the lack of tools. The Q3 situation is worrying and linked to my first point. A Reference Desk referral should be about as least pressurised as things get yet it became an issue. How would the nominee deal with some of the far more difficult situations that he would be faced with as an admin? TerriersFan (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In contrast to many others here, I have no problem with the Q3 question. It is an oddity of Wikipedia that it is not permissible to discuss some aspects of life, particularly where discussion could be construed as medical advice. I think you know that now and I appreciate your bringing this up, because it showing mistakes is a way of showing what you learned. I am concerned about your lack of experience. I see here that you have already done a lot of administrator-style work with usernames, ITN, and ANI. I appreciate that. The work you have done in articles is also great. The reason I am opposing is that you lack both striking, long-term contributions and general experience. You have made about 7000 edits total. About 60% of them are to talk pages. Your contributions to Wikipedia articles are typically short, so have not accounted for a lot of content. While I think you can handle the admin tools and probably understand them, being an admin is more than competence about the tools; it also refers to an attitude which enables you to discuss what it is like to edit Wikipedia and promote the development of articles to excellence. I totally trust you to do everything right when things are going right; if things ever go wrong, or if you have to do something over your head, I would also trust you to find an admin who did know what to do. But for me to support you, I would want to see you either prove that you can thoroughly develop a few articles or spend more time doing minor development to a large number of articles. You are not here yet; please try again later after you have more experience trying new things and I will vote for you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor communication skills, both in terms of understanding others (Q3) and making himself understood (Q7). Desire to work in uncontroversial areas is not comforting - even if I trusted the candidate to recognize what areas actually aren't controversial (a bit of a leap of faith considering Q3), I still don't see any pressing need for admin intervention in uncontroversial matters. It's the heated matters and areas where the real shortage lies, and I feel that - even if he did a 180 and became willing to get involved - the candidate is just a bit too sheltered to provide any real help in such matters. Badger Drink (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My gut rection on first seeing this was that we don't need another teenage admin nominated with a gushing reference from another teenager. I was willing to see if my initial prejudice was incorrect in this case, but it has in fact been confirmed by what other commenters have found. The nominee appears to be yet another of the long list of admin candidates who is trying to tick the right boxes to get "promoted" to admin status, but hasn't actually demonstrated any clue as to what writing an encyclopedia, or administrating those who are writing it, is actually about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "rection" appears to be false. I'm sure you're aware a large portion of our editors are college students. And FWIW, don't comment on my motives. I've nominated something like a dozen successful admin candidates in the past. Juliancolton (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read "breezy" for "gushing", then, Julian. You didn't mention the limitations of this candidate, the way some previous nominators have candidly discussed limitations of their nominees, before anointing them with olive oil, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a factual error in my statement (apart from the typo, to which I confess) then I will happily withdraw, but otherwise it is a perfectly valid comment. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, and has, like it or not, come to be the "go to" source of information for hundreds of millions of people. It should no more be administered by teenagers than any government or multi-national corporation should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try to change your opinion, but I'd be interested to know how you think my age would be an impediment to my being a good administrator. Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read past the first sentence of my statement you will see that I did not give an oppose vote based on my gut reaction, but on the issues raised by others above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose I see a user who is ready to take the next step, but I'm afraid this next step is not adminship at this time. This user seems to want to take the easier more basic requests and I get that to a point, they are not the only one, but admins have to 1) Be clear in their actions and be able to back them up, but 2) also be able to deal with the very hard cases, and not just back out (esp. in dealing with ANI). That being said, the CSD questions similar (but not all the way) to what JamesBWatson said are unsuitable for me to trust with the delete button. I also see a broad focus which concerns me with anyone requesting the tools as the last successful administrative report to a basic noticeboard was the 11th of May. Don't get me wrong I see a good user, but I'm not ready to support for the tools yet. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just the other day... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - I like a lot of what I see and there is some great content editing in there; however, Q3 did concern me. The tone used, both in the edit summaries and the final initiated discussion, was too aggressive for an admin IMO. I appreciate you saying that you would ideally respond in a calmer manner in the future; however, decisions are made in the heat of the moment. The incident does not lead me to completely oppose the nomination, but I would need further convincing to support the nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 16:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to oppose - see my post in oppose section for reasoning. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 19:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I've decided to switch to neutral based on the issues brought up in the "Oppose" section. I understand that it was one incident and that everybody makes mistakes, but the fact that this incident was recent (a fact that I originally missed) concerns me. I do see a lot of potential in you, though, so if this RfA doesn't work out for you, come back in a year and I'll be willing to support you. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 22:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Do not oppose for 1 little incident, but its true that your answer to Q3 is worrisome. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralat present, at least. (moving to Support.) I haven't got my head round the medical incident, but I wonder if anyone posting here hasn't made an error at some time. (Possibly the Messiah or the Mahdi or The Next Incarnation has at last arrived and is editing Wikipedia...) And again, there was once a newly elected School Board who had to cut their budget. As one of the members pointed out loudly, "Schools are for teaching. Teachers can't be cut. But what about all the hangers on - secretarial staff, technicians, assistants, janitors, catering staff, and the Principal? None of them teach." So they were cut. And no-one took out the rubbish; by the time the teachers had set up a demonstration in the lab, the bell rang for end of lesson (at least, it did until it broke down); rats loved the kids bringing their own food in and no-one clearing it up; no-one kept track of the absentees, and no-one came to deal with the alarm ringing in the night. (No-one missed the Principal - except for there being a lack of someone to blame for things...) At the next election, another School Board was elected. And the ancillary staff were re-hired.... Just a little parable. Peridon (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this were a request for omnipotence, I would have to oppose. My76Strat (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Q3 is a serious concern and prevents me from supporting. However, I can't oppose because of the candidate's honesty about it. The honest could've derived from the candidate knowing it would eventually come up in this RFA, but I think it's more likely that the candidate feels remorse and has learned thier lesson. I can't support only because I feel that time is needed for that lesson to sink in and stick.--v/r - T P 01:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ moved to Support. I share other people's concerns over whether the reference desk question in Q3, and the followup events, demonstrate adequate maturity. The tone of the edit summary on the candidate's revert is harsher than I feel comfortable with — you need to remember that in a print medium like this, subtle nuances tend to be lost, and you need to write accordingly. I don't see this as a big enough issue to make me oppose, but I'll have to think some more before deciding whether to move to support or remain neutral. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - For now I am torn. The answer to question 3 is just a tad bit concerning. Also, you intend to work with CSD, but have either made very few CSD tags, or made hundreds without notifying the page creator.[8] This concerned me, as you would be working in a field you had relatively little experience in. I asked questions which were tied together. I am not completely satisfied with your answers. In general, they were good. You have an excellent understanding of A7. I found two of your answers to be relatively insufficient. With the information given, the Sigma School tag would fit either under db-hoax or db-reason. The pants article would fit under db-vandalism. Db-reason can be used for IARing when instantly removing a page that does not fall under CSD criteria (Tappy Jack Shack in this case) would improve the encyclopedia. I do not feel strong enough feelings to oppose. I am too concerned to support, so for now, I remain here. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 08:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really questioning the accuracy of that tool. My last 500 edit summaries containing the string "hurricane" apparently go back to March 2009. Anybody who knows me knows that can't be right... Juliancolton (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That tool is definitely missing some edits. Ks0stm notified the authors of Buffalo Marimba and Handsome Sander but they're not showing up in the search results. Hut 8.5 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. My last 500 CSD tagging summaries go back to August 29, which is almost perfectly in line with my CSD log as of this date. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can say for sure that that tool doesn't work...it shows zero speedy deletion nominations on my alternate account, Ks1stm. Compare this to that account's contributions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Snottywong (talk · contribs) about the tool. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 01:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that toolserver policies do not allow the tool to display deleted edits, therefore deleted edits are excluded from the search results. Does that explain the discrepancies? —SW— ^express 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the search is currently case sensitive until I figure out how to make it non-case-sensitive. For example, see this. —SW— ^express 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That case thing seems to make it work just fine...thanks. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you search on "peedy" it catches both cases. GB fan please review my editing 02:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Searches using this tool are no longer case sensitive. —SW— ^chatter 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[9] is also a concern. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 02:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) ~~What should I have done if not tag it with G11? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Sigma explained in IRC, I reread the policy, and I will remember that in the future. My mistake. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to oppose #15 (JamesBWatson's) about the Sigma School, please. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The answer to question 11 which I asked is right what I expected it to be, the admin will notify another admin. And I expected it to be such, because I know that the admin will just be around in WP:AIV, but will not be involved with content mediation. I will not vote support or oppose, because the requirements for an admin are too low for now. What I would expect is that the bar for an admin be raised and each admin be able to do a minimal research on content and contributions of editors in order to be able to mediate, as soon as he sees an issue arise. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I definitely wouldn't mind mediating in a content dispute, I just wouldn't want to get involved in one with my admin tools given that this can get quite controversial sometimes. This is why I would turn it over to another admin in the situation you described. I remember trying to dabble in WP:3O quite a long while ago [10][11] (and what do you know, that one even had a little NPOV part and was on a topic that later became pretty big), but it wasn't something I got in the regular habit of doing. Basically, I don't mind mediating in a content dispute, I just wouldn't want to use my admin tools in them. I'm not sure if this addresses your concern, but I hope it explains the reasoning for my answer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Ks0stm has generally good edits. However the answer to question 3 is worrying. I am less concerned by the action itself, but more by Ks0stm's reflective comment. Ks0stm doesn't acknowledge that his actions were inappropriate, and implies that future similar situations will result in fairly similar edits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the fence --Guerillero | My Talk 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral, teetering towards Oppose~~ I would love to support here, as you have had some very unfair opposes, however having reviewed your contributions I am afraid I land here. It's not for any one strong reason, but a pattern that gives me the impression that the reason you'd like to be an admin is more about the status and I'm not confident that you'd have the temperment to handle any backlash. Combined with the fact that your edits appear to be dropping off (implying to me that you're starting to give up on wikipedia and looking for adminship to solve that problem). Worm^TT · (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worm,
I'd just like to give you my word that I've been quietly nudging Ks0stm to put his name in the rink for quite a while, as I've long felt he had the potential to be a fine admin. However, his answer was always that he didn't believe he had the experience or the time to apply, which shows he does have the maturity to understand the +sysop flag isn't an award of some type. This is just my impression in working with him for quite some time. Also, his editing pattern seems natural to me. I imagine college work is packing up for him, in addition to real-life work related to the recent active severe weather seasons this year. Juliancolton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'd be willing to accept that and even switch to support - I've not interacted with Ks0stm and was going more with gut feeling, I don't have a specific oppose. The only problem I have is that if you've been nudging him for quite a while, why did he think it would be a self nomination? Worm^TT · (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton is correct in his assessment of the situation. The reason that my edits drop off during the summer is that I'm busier in the summer...I have more events going on, I'm out of town more, and I get to spend more time with my friends. The reason that my edits have been thus far lower during the school year this year and last school year during my senior year of high school is I've had more schoolwork that takes more time (several of my classes I need to pass with a C or better this semester to be on track to graduate in four years, necessitating somewhat more effort to schoolwork than was required in high school). At this point I have absolutely no plans to give up on Wikipedia, and in fact as soon as I get more settled in here at OU I was planning on starting work on some articles related to the university, such as the university's main article and National Weather Center, which should lead to a resurgence in activity if anything. Also, the reason that Juliancolton ended up nominating me was I asked him if he would do an assessment of me to see how likely I might be to succeed, but not actually to nominate me. He actually had to talk me into being nominated now...I was actually thinking sometime around the Christmas holiday when I would have more time to devote to the RfA. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my concerns dealt with. Squish the guestbook though, gives off a WP:MYSPACEy feel, especially in your sig. Moving to support. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reinstate support)I was edit conflicted trying to respond to Σ by Ks0stm's response. I am sorry but Murphy himself couldn't have made your reply and its timing any more appropriate to the things I was thinking. Unfortunately, where I was intent to reply and remain in support, the ec and seeing the context has moved me to neutral. My76Strat (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Pros and cons balance out at the moment...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2011 (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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights