Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions | Oversight


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.



This has been open for several months without the votes required. Whilst the high requirements imposed from above require us to leave these open than normal votes, months in plural is excessive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) — Oversight and CheckUser

edit

We need more oversighters and checkusers. I've been long, valued and trusted member of this community. I know there a concern about having too much power in one user... but with such a small community that Wikinews it's bound to happen unfortunately. However, I am active and I feel like stepping up my role here on Wikinews. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: This RFP is now for OVERSIGHT PERMISSION ONLY. CheckUser has been dropped by me. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

edit

Questions and comments

edit
  • Could we have these in separate requests? — μchip08 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two privs are dramatically different. Per above, I would request they be separated completely. Oversight is predominantly good judgement; CU is highly technical. For example, do you know the difference between a /24 and a /16 Patrick? How many IPs would each check? What's the corresponding subnet masks? How do you establish which range you should check for ISP foo? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for not responding sooner, usually I would, just been an unusually busy week at work due schedule changes by stakeholders and my organization. Per your concerns Brian, I am going to drop the CheckUser request and just turn this into a request for Oversight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
Support
edit
  1. Support for OS. Good call on the choice of which one to do, TUFKAAP. BarkingFish (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Like a Rolling Stone! アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support of oversight — μchip08 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, trusted user, I've had some concerns about his actions before but nothing serious enough to merit an oppose. I don't agree with the "too many flags" argument. The rights list is obviously going to get long, current bureaucrats are the only people that are seriously considered for CU/OS anyway. We currently have many people with very long access lists, I don't see any complaints about them... Tempodivalse [talk] 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose due to a) These not being broken into separate requests and, b) No attempt to answer my questions regarding technical ability to interpret CU results and investigate beyond simple httpd log access. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See Q&C above. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Sahim (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support fully with Oversight access. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trustworthy. --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? —fetch·comms 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Well-suited. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, don't see any reason not to. the wub "?!" 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Jcart1534 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I trust him. Mattisse (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – I don't see why not. —MC10 (T•C•L) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I thought I already had... DENDODGE 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Computerjoe's talk 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have no objections, so why not? —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
The following vote applies to the original combined request for oversight and checkuser; this voter has since voted "weak support" for oversight once checkuser was removed from the request.
CommentIain is also a b'crat, reviewer and admin yet you voted support on his OS request? Any particular reason the switch in opinion? Does it have to do with my two reconfirmation requests? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That, combined with the fact that I hadn't noticed. — μchip08 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Gryllida 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any specific reason, or just oppose in general? :) Just wondering if there's something I'm not aware of as I'm not exactly "active" much here anymore. —fetch·comms 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal impression of the decisions made by the candidate during the last few years isn't 100% positive, so I'm in a doubt on whether this nomination is appropriate at this moment. Gryllida 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP&oldid=4559412"