Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/The Rambling Man

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rambling Man

[change source]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

End date: 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to present to the community The Rambling Man (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) for the Checkuser flag as well. I have the utmost trust and respect for this user, and I believe that he will use the checkuser tool appropriately and will be the perfect checkuser. This is, of course, provided that he is over 18 (which I don't doubt), and that he identifies to the Foundation. He already is an administrator and bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia, which is much harder to do there than you can ever imagine. I definitely think that this user can be trusted with the tool and not violate the privacy policy or things like that. Thank you, Razorflame 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Goblin : I'd like to co-nominate The Rambling Man for the CheckUser Flag per pretty much all the reasons that Razorflame has made. He is an asset to this project, and clearly has experience on much bigger and harder to manage wikis. Since coming across him through the (V)GA discussions he has been nothing but helpful to me, and I am sure that he will continue this helpfulness to many more users for years to come :) Goblin 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:

Of course. I would be honoured to be placed in a position of trust by the Foundation. I am, as RF points out, slightly over 18..., so that's not a problem, and I will happily identify myself to the Foundation if required. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Strong support as nominator. Razorflame 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongest Possible Support - has the best possible interests for this Wikipedia in his mind, an asset to the project! (I so wanted this to be a beat-the-nom support!) Can I add a co-nom? Goblin 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I think you will not harm the wiki, plus at this point I think this could be one of the best things for the wiki, so I will support. Good luck, TRM. BTW, maybe we should work on getting more admins too.--  † CM16  17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I thought this was the 'cratship vote. I must think about this one.--  † CM16  17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand entirely. Take your time, and by the way, feel free to ask any questions you may have which could help make your decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support :) fr33kman talk 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. –Juliancolton (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - We need a 3rd CU and I can't think of a better one. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Won't abuse tools Kennedy (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support probably be better not to run for both at once, but I'll blame the nominator for that and hold it against them if they ever decide to run for RFA (that's a joke if my dry tone is missed by anyone). Won't abuse the tools, nothing else matters Soup Dish (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Fairfield Deleted? 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support We need more checkusers since we have only three, and this user will make a good one. Techman224Talk 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Hard working user, he would benefit from this (especially when we have a very low amount of people as checkusership right now). Best, Versus22 talk 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He's one of a few actually writing the encyclopedia, so I can't see why he shouldn't be able to help protect it too. I'm fairly busy right now IRL so a third CU is a great idea. Two of us wasn't really enough anyway in my opinion. Majorly talk 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 11:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, user is trustworthy and has clue --Chris 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above. Chenzw  Talk  03:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Support - In case this does not make 25 votes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per others. TheAE talk 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I have no problem with him as a CU. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 21:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support - I've never had any interactions with TRM and I also don't see any history of having submitted any RfCU, so I don't know if you know what is appropriate or not. But, you've been an admin for a long time and I'm sure you'll be able to read the instructions, so why not? EhJJTALK 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Yes please. Minorly (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: very few edits from this account. Majorly talk 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support if we need another CU, then TRM would be a suitable person.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weakly support – I do not believe The Rambling Man would abuse these tools. He has said some things in the past that I found to be quite contradictory acerbic and possibly a bit of a personal attack, which downgrades this support to a weak support. Nevertheless, it seems like he deserves it and trust won't be a big problem (I only have a tiny bit of distrust, but it seems many people here are adamantly in support, so good job! ;)). Cheers, obentomusubi 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SupportNifky? (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: very few edits from this account. Majorly talk 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I think this user would make a great CU. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Per WP:SNOW Snow funn at tall (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How the heck is that SNOW? - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, The Rambling Man doesn't not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing this Request for checkusership. Snow funn at tall (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was mean. :( Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually mean that his chances of promotion are high. Snow funn at tall (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then I beg your pardon humbly. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote indented, account created after vote began. Majorly talk 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How rude. Clearly The Rambling Man has support, and nothing there is you can do to change that. Snow funn at tall (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support I am supporting you because you're a responsible user, but I hold my reservations regarding your double Rfx and suddenly coming back and requesting CU. That being said, you have my support. DefenseSupportParty 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose per his combative, harassing tone at this discussion. I'd hate for him to take this tone while using the checkuser tool. Either way (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response at the RFB. You and Synergy are running a high risk of killing off new article creation until this topic is adequately resolved. I was given exactly one minute from Synergy alerting me to what he was about to do and him systematically deleting the pages I'd created. We need a definition of what "based on en wiki" means. I have worked over there for nearly four years so in theory everything I do here will be "based on en wiki". Regardless of all that, thanks for taking the time to be part of the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't trust you TRM. Not as a crat, and not as a CU. Why you would accept double RfX's at the same time is further proof of bad judgment in my opinion. Too much, too soon. Synergy 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised by your opinion here. I would, however, seek for you to answer my questions on your talk page and work for a solution to this problem. It appears that we need to delete Ronald Reagan from Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A solution to the problem of defining such copy vios is and has been sought after, off this wiki. Needless to say, WP:COPY is what were are using for now. And as such, is a clear QD. You restored deleted material without discussing it, so the way I see it, the problem is yours. Synergy 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't agree, you deleted material that had its speedy disputed which was out of process, a second admin has to do the deleting in cases like this. You cannot copyright a single sentence, therefore nothing he did violated WP:COPY if you weren't so rash and quick in your decisions to delete then someone might have pointed that out to you. You have had issues in the past with deleting too fast... When doing deleting like this you are hurting the project more than helping by scaring off potential new editors. -Djsasso (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Djsasso: No one redeleted the pages, so that is immaterial. A second admin would be needed to restore though, which didn't happen. It was unilateral restoration by TRM, and only after this was done, a conversation began. And for the record, the majority of these pages were way more than one sentence, and evidenced by the example on my talk page. Regardless of my deletions (which was apologized for on ST, since it could have been corrected by the talk page template), his actions were less than positive, and show his true actions in a dispute. For this, I do not trust him. Synergy 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - (like your RFB) there are some reasons: First: Two Rfx's at the same time. Second: Used his admin rights for months not. Third: Come back and only one or two days later this request. Fourth: I'm not pleased at the conversation stil on Synergy's talk page. Fifth: When an admin deleted an article, and you do not agree with that deletion, you'd better ask him first for his reasons rather than restoring first, and asking later. Sorry, I know you are a good user and you do a good work to this wiki, but I can't support you at this moment. Don't take it amiss. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barras (talk • contribs)

Comments

[change source]
  • Okay here's my decision: While I think you would do great with it, I just think you shouldn't have more than one RFx's going at a time. Might be just me and it might be a weak reason but that's how I feel, I would definitely support if it was the only one going. One at a time in short.--  † CM16  18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no problem. The main reason I went for both is that I have more time on my hands now than ever and I've noticed a real increase in CU requests recently. Either way, thanks for your comment. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will state right off that I believe he will do fine in both positions. He is a very top quality editor. I am curious about time commitments however, you are both a Crat and Admin on en. Assuming you also became a 'Crat here do you feel you would have time to also be a checkuser? As has been discussed in the past we need checkusers to be somewhat highly active. Do you forsee your prior commitments possibly affecting your ability to keep up in this position? -Djsasso (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point indeed. en.wiki has currently got more active 'crats than ever before and while I intend to keep that up at en.wiki, my time there is less in demand. I will be tending to focus on list reviews over there. Here, the general requirements for 'crat activity are pretty low. We have only a few RFx's (apart from right now, apologies!) and a relatively small amount of bot/rename requests. Thus my potential 'crat time here shouldn't be too onerous. That means I think I'll still be capable of running CU in parallel. In general, our admins here work ten times harder than our 'crats (no offence!)... Oh, and I don't plan to go travelling round the world again in the near future so my time online will be at an all-time high now and in the near-future. Cheers for the question, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think I can support you at the moment, but I won´t oppose you either. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine. As I've aid above, perhaps if there's anything specific you would like to ask me, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have, both here or at the RFB. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don´t really have anything to ask you. Also, I don´t like the argument ´´being an crat at en´´, it doesn´t mean much to me as I don´t edit there. I wouls have waited at least a month before RFb/checkuser-ing, as I would like to know you more.however, froö what I´ve seen, you are a very good, and dedicated user. Regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - Please note that a minimum of 25 legal votes (both supports and opposes) are needed in order for this request for checkusership to succeed. Chenzw  Talk  09:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm aware of this. Unfortunately it appears this Wikipedia does not have even 25 active editors at this time, let alone 25 editors interested in participating in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it be acceptable to create a Neutral section? I think there may be editors who would vote to get you 25 votes, but don't know you well enough to Support or Oppose. Then, you just need 2 more supports. EhJJTALK 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Just to mention, it is 18 support, out of a total 25 (valid) votes. Put differently: 70% support, with a minimum of 25 valid votes. --Eptalon (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something else: We did away with all neutral sections in votes because they are awkward to count. Those who cannot make up their mind can leave comments (which are not votes), or they can support or oppose the candidate (ideally with a reason). The criteria we have for checkusership are largely dictated by other projects (most notably: meta). We currently have a working setup, so if this request does not pass, don't despair. The current checkusers can handle the requests at hand.--Eptalon (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's 25 supporting votes, per WMF policy. Majorly talk 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon, you're probably right. With so few contributing editors now, there may well be no "need" for another checkuser. But if and when the existing checkusers retire, per the current trend, we will be in a position where we have insufficient resources to even elect a replacement, per WMF's requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks like there is unclarity about how many votes are needed; our Criteria say 25 votes, the WMF policy seems to say 25 support votes. We are currently about 30 users. 25 support votes is an awful lot. --Eptalon (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but we've done it before. Don't worry though, I'm not going anywhere at least. I don't know about Eptalon, but we could always ask M7 back. Majorly talk 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon: Just to clarify (and Majorly can clarify me if I am wrong!), the only way Simple Policy can overrule WMF Policy on checkusers is if Simple leaves the WMF umbrella of Wikis and goes it alone Soup Dish (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Result

[change source]

There are 2728 votes in support, and 3 opposing The Rambling Man to become a CheckUser. As the closing bureaucrat, I have decided to not count the following votes as legal:

  1. Snow funn at tall supporting, as the account was created after the vote started.
  2. Nifky? in support, as the user currently has a total of 8 edits in this Wikipedia
  3. Minorly in support, as the user currently has 17 edits in this Wikipedia

This leaves 25 legal support votes, and 3 legal oppose votes, or a support percentage of 89%. Despite the fact that this is one vote short of the number of votes recommended for Checkuser by the policy, I would like to propose The Rambling Man for promotion to CheckUser. Congratulations. --Eptalon (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing it out Eptalon. I guess you'll have to see what WMF say about not meeting their required number of votes. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you see, I couldn't count. 28 votes, 3 invalid... -> 25 support, 3 oppose. (still 89%) --Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkusership/The_Rambling_Man&oldid=8870978"