Following the resignation of Cirt from the roll of CheckUsers, we are now down to three local CheckUsers. I suggested earlier that I would be happy to volunteer to take on this role. In an ideal world, I would never have to actually use the CheckUser tool as these days English Wikinews seems to be both quiet and mostly drama-free.
In terms of my qualification for the role: I am a technically proficient person and understand more than enough about IP addresses, DNS, CIDR notation and so on to operate the CheckUser functionality. I try to be a drama-free editor on the projects I participate in: I've done and said things in the past I've regretted, but I have a strong record for amicable and friendly work both here, on Wikipedia, on Wikimedia Commons and other projects. I have contributed over 100 published articles to Wikinews. I've been an administrator here for nearly two years, and a little over two years on English Wikipedia. I also have OTRS access and I am already identified to the Foundation (diff). —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We do not, alas, live in an ideal world, as the activity at WN:CU shows. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Excellent candidate, has my full confidence. (GULLIBLE! quick, give'em more moppage...) - Amgine | t 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Put the word on the Sitenotice and (if I did it right) wikinews-l. --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've also, since Tom is UK-based, highlighted the request on the Wikimedia UK list. Suffrage for CheckUser rights is based on similar requirements to those for Steward elections. Note: Tom did not ask me to canvas on his behalf, and as the copy of that email sent to wikinews-l should show, I have not urged people to vote either way, simply that the vote is taking place and additional input is needed to meet vote participation requirements. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved from Votes, as anonymous IPs can't be qualified to vote. (Perhaps somebody forgot to log in.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps he should get oversight well we're at it - The people with oversight are not very active. Bawolff☺☻ 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with this comment by Bawolff (t · c · b), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree on Oversight, but that's Tom's decision. If our remaining CUs could highlight the vote on the closed list (as I've done via the WM-UK list) I suspect we'll hit the required 25 votes fairly quickly. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If oversighters are needed, I'm happy to take an oversigher role too. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to note: I am going on holiday for two weeks on Tuesday. I will have Internet access but I intend to actually have a holiday. I'll hopefully also be taking a wikibreak from both Wikipedia and Wikinews. I therefore won't be here to answer any questions raised. If this closes before I get back, I'd like to pre-emptively thank the community for their support and consideration of this request. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Well known user: adding myself as the community wishes it though I don't know details on his opinions on CU tools. In normal conditions en.news shouldn't need own CU IMHO, but... ok. --Nemo bis (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Tom would do well in the role. Tyrol5 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Tom is both trustworthy and a family man. Of course, some of the world's worst scoundrels were family men, but we can always assume good faith in the case of Tom, because we are a Wikimedia Foundation community, and assuming good faith is what we do. May Tom's cadence in the shoes of a check user be absolutely and completely devoid of scoundrelness (The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.