Meta:Requests for adminship/Ktr101
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
- Ktr101 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
- Ending 7 May 2014 04:11 UTC
I am a bureaucrat on the Outreach project and am very comfortable with deleting and moving pages, protecting pages, and blocking users. I have also worked on various Wikimedia projects for over six and a half years. During this time, I have made over 95,000 edits across all projects, and would like to be able to help out here if possible, including cleaning up and fixing the New England Wikimedians pages, since this functions as our defacto website for now. In terms of other benefits to the project, I am more than comfortable with doing any dirty work, as I have learned a lot working on Outreach over the past year as a bureaucrat, which certainly has been beneficial to the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Not very active here and not much counter-vandalism work here. Adminship is not needed to edit that page. I would support after more counter-vandalism work here and a reasonably high level of activity for a few months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)- support, no big deal, trusted. —DerHexer (Talk) 09:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Trusted member. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)- Oppose. From the nomination statement, I see no reason to support adminship. First of all, the New England Wikimedians's page is not even protected, therefore I don't see why amdinship is needed for that. As for the dirty work, most of us Meta admins are admins on other projects, already used to doing the dirty work, though I'm not fully convinced I understand what you mean by "dirty work". I don't have the impression you're very active here on meta (Of your 93.000 global edits, barely 268 are on meta), and you only have two deleted edits on a usersubpage of yours dating back to 2010. Savhñ 16:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a clarification for you and Jasper, I said pages and was not outright implying that the page was protected. I would like to be able to clean up after myself, and that is why I mentioned the page in my statement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per MF-Warburg below, I don't see how "clean up" either way requires adminship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a clarification for you and Jasper, I said pages and was not outright implying that the page was protected. I would like to be able to clean up after myself, and that is why I mentioned the page in my statement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Little activity on Meta; I don't see a reason for adminship except the unspecified "clean up after myself". There doesn't seem to be much to clean up there. --MF-W 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per MF-W --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- On one hand, Ktr101 is trusted enough to use admin tools, and has experience has a 'crat on Outreach. Adminship is no big deal, but if there's no need for a right I don't see a reason to grant it. I am not satisfied with the rationale given, but might reconsider if good justification is given. I don't see that he is active with Meta-internal discussions either, leading me to oppose (weakly). If this is for a specific task, temporary adminship would be more appropriate. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Per PiRSquared for the most part. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)- Oppose --Goldenburg111 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral, err... I don't want to oppose people who work on GLAM related wikis (because I love them) so neutral for now. (sorry).--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support per above. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral per PiRSquared17 Jim Cartar (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Closed request as not successful. --M/ (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)