Meta:Requests for adminship/Ks-M9
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
Ending 30 December 2016 20:39 (UTC)
- Ks-M9 (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.
Hello all. I'd like to nominate Ks-M9 for adminiship. He's an active user in the Meta-Wiki maintenance, and can usually be found on recent changes and new pages as well as patrolling vandalized translations and doing SWMT work. For those unfamiliar with him, Ks-M9 speaks Spanish and is fluent in Galician, Italian and English (cf. his user page babel boxes). Due to his activities, I feel that giving him access to the tools would help him and Meta by adding another active user to the admin group. He's also active at hours some of us ain't, which betters the time coverage. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 20:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I accept this nomination. This is the first time that I'm nominated for administrator of a project. Also I would like to help in deletion of spam pages, vandalism or non-valid translations on Meta, block users or IPs who insist on trolling or vandalism, or help in editprotected requests. I also have global work in reverts using the channel #cvn-sw of IRC and I have the global rollback flag. If I have made a mistake, please let me know and I will see how I can improve. I would never abuse of this privilege and promise to make good use of this. Thanks for your consideration. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 20:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
- Support as nominator. —MarcoAurelio 20:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Support He is a compromissed user globally with the Wikimedia and that devotes great part of his time to rollback vandalism in several wikis. There is no doubt that the permissions will allow you to work more efficiently. Good Luck. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- Oppose, I am a bit surprised by this nomination, since the general purport in past similar RFAs was "cvn work alone is not sufficient for metawiki adminship, otherwise it would be a GS wiki". Looking at [1], I see zero edits in the relevant meta namespace besides cvn and translations, which is too little in my opinion. --Vogone (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't find it surprising that an user who is active in maintenance runs or accepts being nominated for adminship. There are not many featured articles to write here y'know. —MarcoAurelio 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind cvn-only admins. Seems like a valid use for the bit, and the user is competent enough to use it well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- In case this indeed turns out to be majority opinion, perhaps we should indeed consider making meta a GS wiki? It would save us endless discussions in these RFAs. --Vogone (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, not in this case since Ks-M9 is not a GS (yet). Doesn't affect the issue, though. :-P --Vogone (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've always advocated for that, so no objections here :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a page where a proposal can be put in? lol MechQuester (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've always advocated for that, so no objections here :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, not in this case since Ks-M9 is not a GS (yet). Doesn't affect the issue, though. :-P --Vogone (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- In case this indeed turns out to be majority opinion, perhaps we should indeed consider making meta a GS wiki? It would save us endless discussions in these RFAs. --Vogone (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a fan of meta being used as a stepping stone for future stewardship (or GS) and also what Vogone said, all global spam/vandalism fighters from time to time end up on meta, reverting or tagging vandalism, doesn't mean they deserve adminship here. Actual meta people should be admins here and as per Vogone, his "actual" edits to meta is not really convincing and mainly trivial or what we call on enwiki "gnomy"... finally, the account is only 15 months old with over 116k edits across wikimedia and in my experience, this does not bode well...--Stemoc 22:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. Accusing Ks-M9 of careerism here is quite unfortunate, specially whithout evidence supporting that. Nobody deserves adminship nor any user group. If you think user groups are prizes to be awarded, I'd say with due respect, that you're quite mistaken. —MarcoAurelio 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Quite the contrary Marco, I'm one of the (very) few people against people collecting 'hats' and I see this as one of those situations. I have opposed in the past for people I deem to be doing just that or using meta as a stepping stone for a GS or stewardship (in most cases, both and even if the candidate denies they are doing that) and then completely ignoring the project and again I would never support an account which is just over a year old with 116k edits in any case, no one should. That's a red flag for me...--Stemoc 20:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Principally, I have no interest in the GS or Steward role. I accept your statement above. I was never an administrator of a project. This is not a hat collecting, but is a nomination that I've accepted voluntarily, I am conscient of what I do and I will know how to use this right well. I think you are very mistaken with what you are saying. Do not take it badly, anyone can have more than 116k edits on Wikimedia, and that's totally irrelevant in my opinion to be an administrator of a project. This is a voluntary nomination, not an attempt to "collect hats" that is very incorrect as you say it yourself. Bye. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 21:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- The issue is not about you being 'conscient', the issue is that OVER 85% of your edits to the wiki is 'translations' to the 'translation' pages as well are related pages on the mainspace and exactly 43 edits to Meta space, thats 43 out of 10000 edits to meta and of that 43, 39 were again, translations to the metaspace. You made over 340 edits to this page alone and as you can see, this is what i tag as "gnomy". I'm not sure what you bring to the table because I see nothing. We like to promote "vandal fighters" to admins on enwiki but here our policy is different and it should remain that way. We prefer 'real' Meta people who are involved in every aspect of meta and not just here to randomly from time to time remove/delete/block vandals..I feel the standards to being an admin on meta should be high (it has been high) and should remain that way for years to come, and if people want to change that, then do what Vogone said, turn the wiki into a GS wiki and remove the unnecessary admin rights from everyone here.--Stemoc 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone has their way of contributing. I tend to make much reports to the Stewards since there are vandals that are global and I have see a little bit of vandalism in Meta in the middle of the year. The most frequent cases of target vandalism are vandalism on the part of Wikinger (for example) or vandalism in translations. Many times when I have reverted vandalism in Meta I tried to write a report on WM:RFH, but the administrators had already arrived while reporting, like this case, so leaving a report while they intervened, does not make sense. Anyway, I think you're still mistaken with what you say. This is my last reply to your comments. Cordially, --Ks-M9 [disc.] 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- Again, meta is not wikipedia, most editors who are admins here have been selected as such for their work on meta, which is sort of a control panel for Wikimedia, not really for their vandalism or translation work (we have translation admin rights for the latter), though most that were selected for their vandalism work went on to become stewards and don't really partake in meta-works anyways. I'm not mistaken and I also noticed you do not like talking much as this is the 2nd time you tried to make this comment your "last" reply to me. I'm sorry but admins are suppose to be helpful, not rude. You are suppose to defend yourself from accusations but instead you are trying to ignore them. RfA's on any wiki is not easy, even i barely passed here which actually took my interest away from the wiki but in the end I chose to fulfil the trust of those that voted for me and stuck around. I don't think you will get far with that attitude..lol and yeah, you probably should never have an RfA on enwiki...haha--Stemoc 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your behaviour is not very nice for an administrator, so calling Ks-M9's style being rude is totally wrong. Please assume good faith here. "We have translation admin rights for the latter", huh? Are you saying that only translation admins should translate pages? Makes no sense. And the last "haha". Really, were you an administrator on Meta? Very helpful. Stryn (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: I think your comment is quite unfair, you should first see the candidate's career before saying things that do not correspond, Ks-M9 he has obtained most of his rights thanks to his work and not soliciting them (where is the hat collecting here?), The work he has done in most projects with his rollbacks and marked for speedy deletion pages, added to the constant reports of global vandals and sockpuppets in SRG, show that he is a user suitable to own the administrative tools. It is a pity his way of thinking that does not contribute to the development and growth of Meta-Wiki. Have a great day. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stryn:, 9000 of his 10,000 of edits to this project were translating pages, and I'm being generous with the 9000 figure, its much closer to 10k. Majority of his non-translation work has been to the SR/G which is around 280 edits so if anything, he should be requesting Translation admin rights for his work here, not the actual sysop rights which is generally for people who are involved in meta related discussion and as i pointed out, his actual contribution to "Meta" (which does not include translations) is about 10 edits and thats including the 8 edits he made to this RfA. You probably have no idea how RfA on enwiki works, a person who refuses to answer questions or give proof of their work or provide valid reasons as to why s/he wants to be an admin will not only be laughed off but they will feel the wrath of the community which in most cases have been very ruthless, different standards here, and Ks-M9 is being rude here, uptil now, all he has given is "generic" answers which every candidate to an RfA gives, he has not given actual answers or has proven why he needs to the rights on this project. Its quite sad that most of our experienced editors/admins are now gone and now we have new people coming to this project who have no idea about how meta works or its policies and it would be silly to hand them sysop rights just cause you have seen them on the recent changes pages once or twice and
- @AlvaroMolina: you are on the same boat as him, Your account may be 2 years old, but you 'actually' only started editing this February so I doubt you understand what the requirements of this project are either. I'm not being unfair, I went through his contributions, his edits and his work across wikimedia to find out if he is a suitable candidate. I do that for every candidate that requests sysops/GR/GS or stewardship here and there are too many red flags for me. I like how you pointed out his reports of vandals to the SRG but what you did not notice when linking those that they were all reported this month. I know his edits to that page go back exactly a year and again, the work done on other projects don't matter, its his work related to meta here which does and as pointed out above, less than a 1000 edits (being generous) with a majority of those 1000 edits being to the user and user talk pages. Sorry, but i won't change my own set of standards for being and admin on this project just because a user has been active here without actually showing any signs of knowing ANY of the polices o taking part in any Meta related stuff at all.--Stemoc 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: I believe that the best way to determine the knowledge of the policies of a candidate for administration or any other right is by asking questions, from which one can form a more accurate and precise opinion about the actual knowledge on policies and how I would use the tools, but we do look at how many editions, how old, or when you started editing. We are bad. But hey, it's his thought and respect that. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Again, he has been active on this project for just over a year and has never shown signs of getting involved in the "meta" side of things here, you don't become an admin and then start taking part in the real discussion on meta, its the other way around.... all the current admins/stews who opposed here all were very active in the meta sections of the project (still are) before they stepped up so why would they want an admin who has no idea about our policies?. Let me put it this way, Would you promote an employee who has been working in your company for a year to a much higher position even though he has no idea how to do that job or what the job entails?.--Stemoc 23:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first thing I would do in this situation would be to interview the person and ask him about various aspects related to the position he wants to aspire to. For now I will refrain from continuing to respond, since I do not want to turn this candidacy into a forum on the ways that each one has to evaluate a candidate. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Again, he has been active on this project for just over a year and has never shown signs of getting involved in the "meta" side of things here, you don't become an admin and then start taking part in the real discussion on meta, its the other way around.... all the current admins/stews who opposed here all were very active in the meta sections of the project (still are) before they stepped up so why would they want an admin who has no idea about our policies?. Let me put it this way, Would you promote an employee who has been working in your company for a year to a much higher position even though he has no idea how to do that job or what the job entails?.--Stemoc 23:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: I believe that the best way to determine the knowledge of the policies of a candidate for administration or any other right is by asking questions, from which one can form a more accurate and precise opinion about the actual knowledge on policies and how I would use the tools, but we do look at how many editions, how old, or when you started editing. We are bad. But hey, it's his thought and respect that. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: I think your comment is quite unfair, you should first see the candidate's career before saying things that do not correspond, Ks-M9 he has obtained most of his rights thanks to his work and not soliciting them (where is the hat collecting here?), The work he has done in most projects with his rollbacks and marked for speedy deletion pages, added to the constant reports of global vandals and sockpuppets in SRG, show that he is a user suitable to own the administrative tools. It is a pity his way of thinking that does not contribute to the development and growth of Meta-Wiki. Have a great day. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your behaviour is not very nice for an administrator, so calling Ks-M9's style being rude is totally wrong. Please assume good faith here. "We have translation admin rights for the latter", huh? Are you saying that only translation admins should translate pages? Makes no sense. And the last "haha". Really, were you an administrator on Meta? Very helpful. Stryn (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Again, meta is not wikipedia, most editors who are admins here have been selected as such for their work on meta, which is sort of a control panel for Wikimedia, not really for their vandalism or translation work (we have translation admin rights for the latter), though most that were selected for their vandalism work went on to become stewards and don't really partake in meta-works anyways. I'm not mistaken and I also noticed you do not like talking much as this is the 2nd time you tried to make this comment your "last" reply to me. I'm sorry but admins are suppose to be helpful, not rude. You are suppose to defend yourself from accusations but instead you are trying to ignore them. RfA's on any wiki is not easy, even i barely passed here which actually took my interest away from the wiki but in the end I chose to fulfil the trust of those that voted for me and stuck around. I don't think you will get far with that attitude..lol and yeah, you probably should never have an RfA on enwiki...haha--Stemoc 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone has their way of contributing. I tend to make much reports to the Stewards since there are vandals that are global and I have see a little bit of vandalism in Meta in the middle of the year. The most frequent cases of target vandalism are vandalism on the part of Wikinger (for example) or vandalism in translations. Many times when I have reverted vandalism in Meta I tried to write a report on WM:RFH, but the administrators had already arrived while reporting, like this case, so leaving a report while they intervened, does not make sense. Anyway, I think you're still mistaken with what you say. This is my last reply to your comments. Cordially, --Ks-M9 [disc.] 22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- The issue is not about you being 'conscient', the issue is that OVER 85% of your edits to the wiki is 'translations' to the 'translation' pages as well are related pages on the mainspace and exactly 43 edits to Meta space, thats 43 out of 10000 edits to meta and of that 43, 39 were again, translations to the metaspace. You made over 340 edits to this page alone and as you can see, this is what i tag as "gnomy". I'm not sure what you bring to the table because I see nothing. We like to promote "vandal fighters" to admins on enwiki but here our policy is different and it should remain that way. We prefer 'real' Meta people who are involved in every aspect of meta and not just here to randomly from time to time remove/delete/block vandals..I feel the standards to being an admin on meta should be high (it has been high) and should remain that way for years to come, and if people want to change that, then do what Vogone said, turn the wiki into a GS wiki and remove the unnecessary admin rights from everyone here.--Stemoc 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Principally, I have no interest in the GS or Steward role. I accept your statement above. I was never an administrator of a project. This is not a hat collecting, but is a nomination that I've accepted voluntarily, I am conscient of what I do and I will know how to use this right well. I think you are very mistaken with what you are saying. Do not take it badly, anyone can have more than 116k edits on Wikimedia, and that's totally irrelevant in my opinion to be an administrator of a project. This is a voluntary nomination, not an attempt to "collect hats" that is very incorrect as you say it yourself. Bye. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 21:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- Quite the contrary Marco, I'm one of the (very) few people against people collecting 'hats' and I see this as one of those situations. I have opposed in the past for people I deem to be doing just that or using meta as a stepping stone for a GS or stewardship (in most cases, both and even if the candidate denies they are doing that) and then completely ignoring the project and again I would never support an account which is just over a year old with 116k edits in any case, no one should. That's a red flag for me...--Stemoc 20:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. Accusing Ks-M9 of careerism here is quite unfortunate, specially whithout evidence supporting that. Nobody deserves adminship nor any user group. If you think user groups are prizes to be awarded, I'd say with due respect, that you're quite mistaken. —MarcoAurelio 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I have no reasons to oppose him and I he become an admin I hope He will do his best--Shriheeran (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral for now, but leaning to support. Admittadly KS-m9 would make a great admin, given he has the humility. However, I don't exactly see the high demand for additional since the work load does not require alot of extra admins. 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk)
- There are vandalism here that needs handling at hours that most of us ain't avalaible, and I've recently seen Ks-M9 endlessly reverting a vandal because no admin was around to actually block it. I'd also dispute that the lack of need. Meta-Wiki is probably one of the wikis with the most hidden backlogs anywhere. An example: reviewing the whole list of files in need of review here so the copyvios can go and the okay ones can be transfered to commons or kept here. Actually I think I'm the only one doing that in my spare time. To be sincere, the list of administrators might look quite populated, but only few of them actually make use of the tools and just keep them because we've got a weak inactivity policy; because if anything Meta has to offer are backlogs and unfinished job. All of us have areas of expertise and if Ks-M9 feels confortable and can give a hand with new pages and recent changes I'd welcome it. —MarcoAurelio 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest "endlessly reverting a vandal because no admin was around to actually block it" sounds like a reason to oppose, as the correct approach to such a case is of course to stop reverting and re-reverting until someone appears to block, in order not to produce many useless revisions. --MF-W 14:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- He was writting the report to RFH before I appeared and managed to block the vandal [2]. —MarcoAurelio 14:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- If there is continuous vandalism going on, the correct procedure is to go to IRC and report it either in the #wikimedia or #wikimedia-stewards channel. It is the best and the fastest way to control an ongoing attack since there is always an admin and/or steward active in those channels.--Stemoc 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- He was writting the report to RFH before I appeared and managed to block the vandal [2]. —MarcoAurelio 14:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest "endlessly reverting a vandal because no admin was around to actually block it" sounds like a reason to oppose, as the correct approach to such a case is of course to stop reverting and re-reverting until someone appears to block, in order not to produce many useless revisions. --MF-W 14:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are vandalism here that needs handling at hours that most of us ain't avalaible, and I've recently seen Ks-M9 endlessly reverting a vandal because no admin was around to actually block it. I'd also dispute that the lack of need. Meta-Wiki is probably one of the wikis with the most hidden backlogs anywhere. An example: reviewing the whole list of files in need of review here so the copyvios can go and the okay ones can be transfered to commons or kept here. Actually I think I'm the only one doing that in my spare time. To be sincere, the list of administrators might look quite populated, but only few of them actually make use of the tools and just keep them because we've got a weak inactivity policy; because if anything Meta has to offer are backlogs and unfinished job. All of us have areas of expertise and if Ks-M9 feels confortable and can give a hand with new pages and recent changes I'd welcome it. —MarcoAurelio 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Ajraddatz. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 11:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vogone. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose With non-existing participation in "Meta:" discussions, I don't want to buy the pig in a poke. --MF-W 13:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
NeutralIt's been a long time since I'm commenting anything on CVN related works other than Marathi Wikipedia that seems to be concerning to me. I know Ks-M9 from SWMT jobs, but I never saw him saying anything on Freenode, never see him saying anything regarding anything on meta policy, etc. What I know is he's just a prolific vandal cleaner that's all. But just vandal cleaner itself is not enough to become an Administrator on a wiki that handle communities discussion, meta is a hub for almost every Wikimedia project. I don't know his viewpoint on many matters, I cannot make decision for semi-questionable admin candidates.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- These edits on mrwiki are outside of CVN work, in my opinion, because the user uploaded copyvios con Commons and is currently locked. In mid of September I started working on CVN areas. Although I've been editing a lot of time on Meta, including tagging for quick deletion of non-valid translations or off-topic pages, reverting vandals like Wikinger (but my username was hidden by Stemoc along with other revisions while I was reversing it) and I accepted voluntarily this nomination because I thought I could help with this right, but I see that sometimes some people do not trust users who show willingness to continue helping. Anyway, if I am elected I would not make a bad use of this right (sysop), and I know well the policies and guidelines of Meta. Thanks. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 14:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- Support Nice answer, though you could do become active on community discussion right now if you wanted to.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I promise and I am conscient of what I do. Regards. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 16:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- These edits on mrwiki are outside of CVN work, in my opinion, because the user uploaded copyvios con Commons and is currently locked. In mid of September I started working on CVN areas. Although I've been editing a lot of time on Meta, including tagging for quick deletion of non-valid translations or off-topic pages, reverting vandals like Wikinger (but my username was hidden by Stemoc along with other revisions while I was reversing it) and I accepted voluntarily this nomination because I thought I could help with this right, but I see that sometimes some people do not trust users who show willingness to continue helping. Anyway, if I am elected I would not make a bad use of this right (sysop), and I know well the policies and guidelines of Meta. Thanks. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 14:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
- Support No trouble trusting this user with administrator right , is active and no doubt would use it.--Grind24 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Stryn (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- On balance a mild Oppose per Vogone --Herby talk thyme 09:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support—JuniorX2 ChatHello! 12:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per MF-W --DCB (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)- Oppose Why at all? – KPFC 💬 00:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I noticed the withdraw but nomtinated by MarcoAurelio combined with Ks-M9's track record is good enough for me. (feel free to strike my support if you find that I am to late to the party.) Natuur12 (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Due to a substantial lack of consensus, I've decided to withdraw this nomination. There is no consensus to grant this right. As I said before, I have voluntarily accepted this nomination because I believed that I could continue to help Meta with a new permission. There are people who, unfortunately, do not know how to trust those users who volunteer for this right. Here too I have received false accusations like hat collecting, that is NOT the case, but a job that people voluntarily accept. Additionally according to you I have insufficient edits in the namespace "Meta", now I ask about that, this is one of the requirements to be a regular administrator? I see no evidence of this "requisite". I would prefer people to agree with those who trust volunteers, and NOT people who need edits in such a namespace. I have good intentions to help in Meta, but you do not show the trust in the volunteers. I would prefer to continue my work on Wikimedia as a normal user. Any question can be addressed to my talk page. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
- Further discussion moved to Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Ks-M9. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.