Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/ShakataGaNai

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions‎ | Oversight
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Oversight requests - take two edit

  • Comment The below two requests were archived by SGN as failed. However, I'm going to be bold and return them here since there is AFAIK no time limit for these things to remain open, and really, it's rather unrealistic to think that we're going to be able to muster 25+ votes in only a few days. No need to rush into things, IMHO ... Tempodivalse [talk] 19:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that much either way, but I would point out that new votes have stopped coming in (not counting C628 since that happened after the intial archive, the last vote to come in for either of these two candidates was a week ago) its been 2 weeks since both were intially open (well skenmys was 2 weeks minus 1 day, but almost) which is the recommended time. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on Skenmy's, I forgot his was open later. Here's what I said about this on my talk page "If you guys want to, leave them open for another 2 weeks... honestly I don't think that'll make any difference. I canvas'd the mailing list (twice), tweeted about it, set site notices (twice) and generally harassed people." If we get 10 more votes for Skenmy (heck, leave it open for 2 more weeks)... I'll eat my hat. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) (Oversight) edit

We have no oversighters and seem to have a need for them. Our recent .... scuffle... has gotten into the areas of private info. People requests stewards come in to do the oversighting, which is fine, but we should be able to do this in house. On top of that, when stewards come in, no one actually knows whats going on (Obviously it is private and that is why it was oversighted... but it is very strange to see oversights in places like WN:RFP out of the blue). So I run for said oversight. Yes I'm over 18, no I dont mind being ID'd to the foundation. I'm not sure if oversight requires 2 people on wiki like CU does (or maybe it's the other way arround). Anyways, someone say something if we do. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

  • Comment I don't think we need oversighters. Right now it's not like we're inundated with oversightable material (like en.wikipedia) and the stewards could handle it easily and in a timely manner. Whereas, if we had local OS, then the stewards would be reluctant to do it, and we'd have to wait for local OS to show up, which would take longer as there are fewer of them and not always online. So i'd probably not support getting local oversighters. (Does that make sense?) Tempodivalse [talk] 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be ideal to have more than one oversighter, in different time zones. --Diego Grez return fire 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But we still wouldn't have as many oversighters as there are stewards, and they wouldn't be nearly as active per capita. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. I think the stewards would still be likely to do it, especially if you say "hey, look, our 2 are offline right this moment". It is time sensitive after all. I figure more accessible OS means faster OS. At least with local OS's, we'd be able to know what was OS'd (not to share, but at least to answer the "Why was this completely random edit OS'd? Well because someone forgot to login.") --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tempo. You know how we talked about the different ways of seeing the world, and how many times, even if you "mean well", you're insulting? This is one of those times. "No offense, but fuck you asshole" is still offensive, even if you prepend "No offense". By saying "we have users who are better suited to this position" basically you're saying "Ok, this idea has merit, but I'm specifically not going to vote for you". That is insulting. You and I don't see eye to eye, we never have... I don't expect you to vote for me, I'm not going to vote for you. That does not mean I'm going to show up at every vote you have saying "{{abstain}} No offense, This use simply isn't what Wikinews wants". I don't want to cause any more drama than the wiki already has... but in the future, consider simply shutting up and going somewhere else. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • -shrug- Perhaps I should have, but this sort of vote doesn't allow for neutrals/abstentions and I don't want to oppose, so this seemed like the next best venue to explain my not voting. I know we're not exactly on the best terms with each other, and given our differing viewpoints on how things should be run, probably rarely will; bluntly, I think it's better we had someone for this position that could keep calmer in heated situations than yourself, since OS is so very difficult to undo. I get upset easily myself, so it's hardly for me to judge, but nonetheless I'm not 100% comfortable supporting. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider your language and tone appropriate, SGN? I certainly do not. --Skenmy talk 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can oppose tempo. The vote for CU and OS is 25 support, 70% pass rate. So you can vote against it just like any other vote. Please, if you think I suck, feel free to vote against me (you'll note Skenmy has). I'm not upset at you, but we had many a fights between you and I, mostly started from the fact that your "trying to be nice" was anything but. I'm not the only one that is insulted by these things. I'm hoping that if I illustrate these situations... you'll understand them better and we won't have as much trouble in the future. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skenmy, I'm sorry you felt slighted by my use of demonstration language. I was trying to make a point in the most clear terms possible. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know how the tools work (have them elsewhere). I've been around for long enough to know what should and shouldn't be orbital striked. I'm easy to get a hold of (Always in IRC). Most importantly, while I approach problems head on and have not made friends (See above), I am capable highly capable of discretion in terms of keeping peoples private info and requests safe. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support edit

  1. Support I trust this guy, he won't abuse the tools, I'm sure (not really sure, but well). --Diego Grez return fire 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, trustworthy editor and a project the size of Wikinews requires at least two local oversighters. Tempodivalse's concerns are unconvincing. Blurpeace 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —fetch·comms 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Wikinews had oversighters in the past; I was one of them. That had to be handed back over a technicality, such being the change to voting requirements over on meta. Shaka is one of the few people I really would trust with such a tool. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support — Gopher65talk 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support to get the numbers up. — μ 13:01, June 7 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I do see where the opposes have come from. However, particularly recently but from time to time throughout my years here, SGN has actually proven himself to be highly trustworthy and know what he's doing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I can trust him not to abuse the tools --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, trusted. Tjc6 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Loves huge tools Killing Vector (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I trust ShakataGaNai with this job. Cary Bass (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Jacques Divol (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Turtlestack (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support well known from commons: good user ABF (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support What could possibly go wrong? Shoone (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Hells yes Irunongames•play 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support (Changed from abstain) Was unsure, now decided. Enjoy!    Tris   10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. Oppose without wanting to be dramatic, I don't trust SGN with the tools he already has, let alone Oversight. --Skenmy talk 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Skenmy Benny the mascot (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1. Abstain in the strongest possible measure. - Amgine | t 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (ps: <poke SGN>)[reply]
    LOL. You love to not vote, and you just love to be a PITA. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Unsure.    Tris   18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight/ShakataGaNai&oldid=4582873"