Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Tygrrr 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Tygrrr (checkuser)

Candidate declined nomination.

I would like to nominate Tygrrr for checkuser status because he has been very active lately, and he has been a major force to reckon with in the administrator department. Razor flame 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: This is not my first nomination for CU tools. I was nominated by Eptalon back in September 2007 and then withdrew shortly thereafter (more info about it can be found here). While I am confident that I would do a fine job and have learned much more about IPs, proxies, etc. over the past 5+ months, I don't think that I am interested in having this added responsibility right now. This was not an easy decision for me. I am thankful for Razorflame's nomination and happy to see there would be some support for me as a CheckUser, but feel I should decline because I am quite happy with my current level of responsibility here. · Ty grrr... 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nominator. Razor flame 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - Huji ^reply 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cethegus (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support an active and trustworthy user --Bärl iner 13:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

I am not saying that Tygrrr would be a bad checkuser or that I would not like to see her in that position; All I am trying to say is that being a CheckUser is a relatively major hassle (identity and age proof towards the foundation) for a relatively minor benefit (seeing IP addresses and user agents/Operating systems of users). Besides, do we really need another checkuser, given the current level of requests?--Eptalon (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought the number of our CUs was just enough, when we had M7. As he has agreed to be demoted from CU permissions, I think we may be short in the number of CUs. My idea is, even if only one of our CUs is actively handling all reuqests, we still need one or two other CUs, which review the activities of the other one. CU is a sensitive issue, and it is good to have enough trusted people assigned to this task; not less, not more. - Huji ^reply 16:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think 3 CUs is a good number, and that if M7 would like to step down, we should find another replacement. · Ty grrr... 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.