Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Blood Red Sandman

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three months has past. I decleare this closed as a failed OS request. 25 votes have not been reached. 3 Months is a bit long to leave this open. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman

Express your view on this user (comments) Nominated on 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) – At present, we have just three oversighters - and only one, Bawolff, is at all active. I'm regularly available, and it's a rare case when 24 hours would go between oversight required and it being done if I had the tools. I am of the age of majority in the jurisdiction(s) required and willing to identify. I note WN:OVERSIGHT suggests ArbCom approval is needed; is this an unused relic of policy or will that be forced upon me? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Blood Red Sandman: Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting. Unhelpful comments or votes may be removed at any time.

Discussion

• Too late to move this to RFP on-page discussion, since the revision history needs to be conveniently bundled with it. Damn. I'd been dragging my feet about the on-page restoration, thinking the sections not yet fixed were hardly ever used... :-) --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• User would need to be identified to wmf before he could have oversight. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• How long are these usually open for? It's been over two months. —fetch·comms 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Usually these sorts of requests shouldn't drag on for more than two or three weeks at best, if they haven't gotten the 25 necessary votes by then, they probably won't ever. I think this one ought to be closed as not enough support, we've never had them stretch this long. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, I don't even know if there are 25 active users that check this page. Ah well. —fetch·comms 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This request should be closed. How much longer can it be allowed to stay open? It's already been close to three months with not nearly enough support. Usually a lack of enthusiasm like this means "no consensus, not promoted". Tempodivalse [talk] 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking the question literally —"How much longer can it be allowed to stay open?"— and attempting to answer it narrowly: It appears that the rules are the same as for checkuser. That is, per m:Oversight#Access there isn't actually a set time limit on how long this can remain open. --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support You need a pair of oversighters for everything keep everyone happy; the current arrangement of 1+2 doesn't really do it for me. Having no access the the relevant log, I haven't a clue whether there is traffic to warrant an extra oversight permission (if not, perhaps we should go from 1+2 → 0?). If Bawolff thinks that another oversighter is warranted, that's fine by me. — μ 13:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
   • For reference, the majority of the small number of things in the oversight log were done by stewards or wmf staff (Mostly cross wiki stuff. Hiding usernames of the form So-and-so is a racial slur and similar things). Local oversighters have oversighted about 6 things in the last year. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
     • Just for the record. I'm not dead, I just don't edit ATM. I watch, sit on IRC... but not dead. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Obviously. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
3. No concerns with the nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. I think we should have local oversighters (even if not used often, its good to have), and those oversighters should be active. If BRS succeeds in this nom, i think the other oversighters should have their privs removed. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - I think BRS can be trusted with something like this. Δενδοδγε _t\^c 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support - Agree with Dendodge (talk · contribs). ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. Oversight should be easily subject to review by more than one other with the privilege. I trust Iain with this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Trusted, should do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Should be OK. I trust no more corpses or billion year blocks will occur, of course. —fetch·comms 16:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
10. I'm supporting for the same reason why I supported Thenb314's CU nomination in WB. It's essential to have more than one oversight. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. Another active oversighter is needed. Whilst we've had our clashes in the past, I would certainly trust BRS with the right. the wub "?!" 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Per other users. I have no concerns and trust this user. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Support --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
14. moved to Support - We need more oversighters, God only knows we do. I'm getting off the fence. BarkingFish (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    My previous comments

    Abstain The combination of rights like this makes me feel just a little uneasy. Already an admin and a crat, oversight would imo put too much power in one place. I don't feel that comfortable with having one person with so much control. BarkingFish (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

    Comment I have crat, admin, reviewer, and IP block exempt. The point is to have people we trust, and can speedily get hold of, with these rights. By-and-large to actually get Oversight will require input from non-newsies; there's a sort-of minimum support level required for this, or CU. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    You're right, Brian. I'm moving to a support, will take this lot with me. BarkingFish (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

15. Support Fine by me. Bencherlite (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Abstain. Iain is an excellent editor and administrator, but I'm not comfortable with several of his actions. For instance: this punitive inappropriate 1 billion year block, edit warring to retain an image of a hanging corpse on a blocked user's page. I know this was some time ago, and I hate to dig up old wounds like this, but that alone makes me slightly uncomfortable. With highly sensitive tools at stake, I can't support with absolute 100% confidence, with no prejudice and no offence intended to BRS. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   No offence taken. However, whilst I have no objection to the sentiment (whilst noting it would be better placed at a request for de-admin, which I'm openly surprised was never filed) I do object to the claim I was edit warring, mainly because I wasn't. Two edits do not make a war; could you describe them as reverts to an inappropriate revision, please? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Second thought: it's too fine a hair to really be worth splitting. Also, wrong does not equal punitive, but as I've said that before I assume you do not accept that I was truthful and hence a reiteration would be pointless.

   You reverted twice against two different editors in a short time period, and I felt that you would have unhesitantly done so again had brianmc not gotten there first twice thereafter. Even if not literally 3RR, that would appear to me in the spirit of edit warring. (Of course, I'm hardly in a position to blame you, having behaved in a rather poor manner myself. Tu quoque.) I've refactored my mention of "punitive", as well, per your comment; that's not exactly what I had meant. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   "The spirit," and many possible interpretations thereof, is one of the main reasons I viewed it as not an argument with any point to it (the other reason being it was wrong anyway; why argue about which way it was wrong?). I recall counting reverts, so I'd have only been back once. Anyhow, since I'm not actually disputing anything, I'm going to quit waffling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Tempo is at a disadvantage. Xe has been —relative specifically to Wikinews— frozen in time for the past half year, which in this context is a long time. Xyr thinking, including xyr resentments, are throwbacks to the past, while those of us who lived through the intervening time have had the opportunity to move on considerably from there. (Not that that's the only difference, but it's in the mix.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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.