Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Netoholic
Since CheckUser permission requires 25 votes, I'd like to throw my name in as an option. I'm quite familiar with CheckUser itself, as well as other tools for dealing with persistent vandals. I don't like how some of our frequent contributors are being harrassed, nor how Simple tends to be a refuge for troublemakers who've been banned from the main English Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Support
[change source]- Support. First, he has seniority over all us newer admins, and second, this is a power that should be used quite sparingly anyway IMO, so I don't think it's as if the admin who is so endowed needs to be here constantly at all times to "check" everybody on an "urgent" basis... He's certainly here often enough to find out if some recent vandal / sock really needs checking, it's not that "urgent" a thing is it?... Blockinblox 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say he has seniority over us, and I'm sure he would agree that he's on the same level as anyone else here. But I've found myself wanting a CheckUser very often recently and I think he maybe just wouldn't have the time. Vandals can destroy our encyclopedia very rapidly with a large number of sockpuppets on a dynamic IP. I'm not against Netoholic on this, I'm just not exactly for him either. Archer7 | talk 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that you've got the wrong idea about what CheckUser role means, how often it should be used, and more importantly, how that information is used. While I may currently not be as active as I used to be. I am perfectly content letting the more active people like Freshstart use the tool. I just firmly do not believe that having only two people with access to this is the best thing. If only Freshstart and Archer7 were given access, and one of them became temporarily involved in other pursuits as I have or perhaps left permanently... I do not want to see the tool (and the logs) accessible by only one remaining person if it can be avoided. Just as Archer7 says above in his nomination... I'm just an email away. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- If on person leaves or becomes inactive the CheckUser status is revoked and given to someone else according to Meta. I wouldn't mind more people having the tool as you make a very good point, but I think stewards would be uneasy about giving confidential user info to more than two on such a small wiki. If they would let us have three I think you would be a great choice. Archer7 | talk 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at meta:CheckUser#Removal of access, automated removal is done after one full year. Wiki's are allowed to vote to remove access or to grant additional accesses. In fact, I note that on that page, the list of CheckUsers shows that more sites have three people with access, than those with only two. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, I'll change my vote. You are definitely someone we can trust, and you've sorted out any issues I have. Archer7 | talk 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at meta:CheckUser#Removal of access, automated removal is done after one full year. Wiki's are allowed to vote to remove access or to grant additional accesses. In fact, I note that on that page, the list of CheckUsers shows that more sites have three people with access, than those with only two. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- If on person leaves or becomes inactive the CheckUser status is revoked and given to someone else according to Meta. I wouldn't mind more people having the tool as you make a very good point, but I think stewards would be uneasy about giving confidential user info to more than two on such a small wiki. If they would let us have three I think you would be a great choice. Archer7 | talk 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that you've got the wrong idea about what CheckUser role means, how often it should be used, and more importantly, how that information is used. While I may currently not be as active as I used to be. I am perfectly content letting the more active people like Freshstart use the tool. I just firmly do not believe that having only two people with access to this is the best thing. If only Freshstart and Archer7 were given access, and one of them became temporarily involved in other pursuits as I have or perhaps left permanently... I do not want to see the tool (and the logs) accessible by only one remaining person if it can be avoided. Just as Archer7 says above in his nomination... I'm just an email away. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say he has seniority over us, and I'm sure he would agree that he's on the same level as anyone else here. But I've found myself wanting a CheckUser very often recently and I think he maybe just wouldn't have the time. Vandals can destroy our encyclopedia very rapidly with a large number of sockpuppets on a dynamic IP. I'm not against Netoholic on this, I'm just not exactly for him either. Archer7 | talk 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
[change source]Oppose
[change source]- Oppose due to recent abuses of power. Archer7 | talk 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Support due to comments above. Neutral Archer7 | talk 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -- I have no doubts about you being very experienced at dealing with vandals and you've certainly proved yourself to be trustworthy, but your recent inactivity on Simple makes me unsure about supporting you. I think that users with the CheckUser permission need to be around here a lot to sort out any urgent problems with persistant vandals.Archer7 | talk 08:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC) - Oppose: I am aware of what i am doing here, but I expect correct behaviour of the admin team towards all users (Including vandals). CheckUser more than anything is about trusting those weho get the privilege to not abuse the power they will have. Without a clearing up of what happenend (see Archer7 blocking below), I do at the moment not think Nethoholic is ready for this. Sorry. -- Eptalon 10:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per Archer7. Someone who abuses the power he already has should not be given more. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- aflm (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose based upon his record on the English-language Wikipedia (for more info, see these Requests for arbitration: Netoholic 2 and Locke Cole). Also: Based on both his inactivity and incivility, maybe it is also time to de-bureaucratize Netoholic on the Simple Wikipedia as well. BlankVerse 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- How many times do we have to tell you oppose? GangstaEB talk contribs 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it may be time to stop the oppose votes for the moment, we are only going to provoke another situation. If anybody wishes to support, that's fine, but any more of this is just going to cause trouble.