Wikinews:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Brianmc

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for checkuser rights. Please do not modify it.

Brianmc [edit]

Brianmc (talk · contribs) has effectively been checkuser since his election to the local arbcom. Because we've had to remove the status in order to enforce established checkuser policy requiring arbcoms be supported by 25-30 users, I'm suggesting that his name be put forth as a checkuser again. Cary Bass (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment Before we start considering whether or not Brianmc (or anyone else) should have checkuser rights I think we should really first be discussing whether anyone having local checkuser rights is necessary. How often are these rights used and in what kind of circumstances? Adambro (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    The rights, according to the log, have been used almost daily in the last month; in many cases as cross-wiki checks, sometimes finding vandals. I think that Wikinews is high profile enough to merit at the very least a pair of checkusers. Cary Bass (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    I think how much they are used is not all the story. Are all these checks really necessary? In what kind of circumstances are checks being made? Adambro (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have to question everything? Yes, they are needed. Look up JvT or Grawp as examples of very persistent vandals who work cross-wiki. Checkuser includes access to a private mailing list where this information is shared, allowing such pests to be caught with a proactive approach as opposed to a reactive approach. It is perhaps the case that you see no need for this because I've been diligently doing the job. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be my feeling as well, both Brians are very competent and conscientious CUs. I'm not clear why Adambro is casting such aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
See here for an indication of some of the things needing dealt with. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the discussion yesterday with Cary in IRC these votes are pointless unless at least 25 support votes are garnered. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    ...and these votes are just as pointless if they rely on having to canvass users who aren't active to support them. It is very disappointing that Cary seems to be happy for this to go on. If we're going to let anyone count towards the required numbers then we might as well just put a stop to this nonsense and grant checkuser to anyone who wants it now. I find it quite shocking however that people who aren't active here can have a say about who gets to access confidential information about those who are. Adambro (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I should not be disappointed that you seem to see the support from people not active on this project as "pointless". Yet I am. You have utterly ignored the example of what limited public information is available that I have given above and chosen to fasten onto this comment and then decided to promogulate a view which I firmly believe is detrimental to the project. CheckUser is not a game, it is not a barnstar or brownie point in your favour, it is a job - and, based on experience - I would describe it as a thankless task which remains invisible to the community at large. Where - as I have strived to do - this job is diligently and competently carried out, you will see nothing; cross-wiki vandals who have started elsewhere are blocked before they get to Wikinews, open proxies are identified before they become a problem - and the accounts created through them blocked.
Wikinews is a very small community, mustering the required votes on a purely local basis is an unrealistic goal. It would only serve to further your agenda of denying me this privilege and be seriously detrimental to the project as people would be forced to constantly run to stewards for something that could - and should - be handled locally.
Your personal vendetta against me has become tiresome. It should be painfully obvious to all involved in the project that such is the nature of your comments herein. You disrupted the ArbCom elections by attempting to vote oppose and, despite several requests to do so, refused to reformulate your input as a question or other constructive input that could be responded to. I will make no bones about the fact that I am strong-willed and notably opinionated, and I will make no effort to change that. Get used to the facts, if I believe a troll deserves a taste of their own medicine I will give them it, if a childish teenager merits a series of short blocks until they notice and raise it in IRC - I'll do it, and if some plonker who has swallowed a dictionary marches in and tries to tell us how to do things I'll reserve the right to swear at them. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to address the point about non-regulars "can have a say about who gets to access confidential information about those who are [active on en.WN].".
  1. Firstly, since I became a CU on Wikisource, all of my checkuser access has been on users and IPs that are not related to anybody in the local en.WS community - my checks are on vandals or situations where I expect zero results, because I know the local community well and I'm pretty sure that the check I am performing is unnecessary, but still I run the check in case there is something unusual going on. CUs are not given the right to access confidential information about local users - they must have a need to know before using the tool. If you suspect that checks are being run on local community members inappropriately, talk to the ombudsman.
  2. The second point I want to make is that the local community can write a more restrictive policy on Checkuser access. On Wikisource we have additional checks and balances written by the local community. If there were foreigners coming in to support or reject a local policy, that would be cause for concern.
  3. Finally, the extra support coming from afar is from stewards and checkusers, a cross-wiki group of Wikimedians who are for obvious reasons interested in checkuser nominations, as we are going to have to trust these people in discussions on the private checkuser list. The requirement that there are 25-30 users who support the nomination is to ensure that someone cant easily gain access to the checkuser discussions by holding a local checkuser election on a quiet wiki to obtain a 100% majority of 5 users.
John Vandenberg (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Of the users that have so far voted in support, I am unable to consider the following to be active members of the Wikinews community and as such their votes should be discounted from the required number. Presumably this situation is similar with the other nominations. My next question would be where has the canvassing to get these users involved gone on? Adambro (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    1. Lar - last edit in August 07, total edits 13
    2. DerHexer - last edit in January 08, total edits 6
    3. GreenReaper - last edit in November 07, total edits 189
    4. Alison - last edit July 08, total edits 4
    5. Herbythyme - last edit December 2007, total edits 7
    I can't speak for others, but I founded and managed WikiFur for the last three years. Before that I co-founded and ran the Creatures Wiki. I was a presenter at Wikimania 2006. I've created three news articles here, the first of which was made a featured article, the second winning me an original reporting barnstar. No, I'm not very active here, but I think I've made valuable contributions and have experience of what is necessary to run a large, high-profile wiki. I came into #wikinews to report news in the middle of this discussion, and I felt I should do something to resolve the problem, so I did. GreenReaper (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry much about it. Who Adambro considers to be relevant voters doesn't matter; there are specific guidelines as to who may or may not participate in a poll. What Adambro personally thinks on the matter doesn't really enter into it, and only shows his ongoing unwillingness to work with the community as it is, rather than as he decides it is. - Amgine | t 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    I've not tried to claim that what I've said is anything other than my opinion and I am perfectly entitled to express it despite your opinion. I am currently unaware of any "specific guidelines as to who may or may not participate" in this poll and would therefore invite you to point out what these are. Adambro (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Am I right in assuming you are referring to "All participants are equal. If you are a good faith participant to Wikinews, your opinion counts as much as others." when you say specific guidelines? --John Vandenberg (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Adambro: See the policy Jayvdb mentioned, above. - Amgine | t 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Jayvdb: Actually, it's the line following that one which clearly indicates whose votes might not count in a poll: "For practical reasons, people participating without an account will be excluded from polls..." - Amgine | t 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Edit counts do not tell the whole story. I think I have plenty of standing to comment on this since I have first hand experience working with the candidates. I'm a steward, and active on many wikis. I'm also a CU on several wikis, and have had many chances to interact with both Brians in the course of performing their and my duties. I administer the CU list, processing adds and removals to the subscriber base. I became aware that Wikinews had lost its CUs when I saw Brian removed. That lack of CUsh is quite concerning, as my judgment is that WN really needs competent and active CUs. I can't speak for the other people you single out, except to say that for the most part they too are CUs or stewards who have a good basis for evaluating your candidates since they have worked closely with them via the CU list as well. The community can choose to disregard that input if it likes. But we stewards and fellow CUs are here because we're concerned, we don't think WN should be without CUs and we are trying to help resolve that. I rather think that Newsies should be GLAD we turned up to try to help. Because if these CU requests fail, we'll be here anyway, those of us that are stewards, doing the work that a local CU could have been doing had the community not rallied around, and surely not doing it as well, since we are not quite as in tune with the community as local CUs would be. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Lar is certainly "speaking for me" in the sense that I agree with him. The more vandals are caught on larger wikis the more they move to smaller ones. I have been supporting/promoting the use of local CU on wikis for well over 18 months now. Active CUs on wikibooks substantially reduced vandalism there. Stewards are good but sometimes they have other priorities so local is best. If I do not meet a criteria for voting - fine. However my views are - I think - valid, given my experience. That said I dislike voters turning up from elsewhere on "my" wikis so the community must be happy with this. If they are I am happy to help. --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that Lar, Herby, and GreenReaper have given fair and valid justifications of why they should be entitled to have a say in this election. I really would like to see some indication that this is accepted by the community and there is not going to be wrangling over what votes are or are not valid when the election is closed. The actual reality of the vote closing is that Cary will probably perform it, and will count input from stewards and those with CU on other wikis. With not an oppose vote in sight I really would like to see the Wikinews community come together on this. BrianNZ and I have made the cut if there is no dispute over vote validity, but from private communications I understand there is concern from these non-Wikinewsies about endorsing Skenmy due to the issue of "outside interference" being raised. This might best be described as "once bitten, twice shy"; the outside votes for myself and the other Brian were made before this concern was raised, if there is a general on-project consensus that input from stewards and those with CU elsewhere is valid, then I have every confidence that skenmy will also be granted the privilege (aside, why do we call it a priv.? It's moar work.)
At this point, I believe it is important to give an example of what CheckUser achieves. A few months back an email to the checkuser list highlighted an IP address that was causing disruption on several other projects. This is pretty much routine, and the job of someone with the CU privilege is to make sure they keep up with such issues and follow up on such alerts. On Wikinews, running a CU on the address turned up - just at the edge of data retention - an "on Wheels" account; some to and fro on the CU mailing list led to a consensus to block, across all projects, the IP for six months. Have you seen Willy on Wheels since? This is CheckUser working; questioning why we need people with CheckUser access is like asking why you pay a gardener when there are no weeds in your flower beds. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope that Cary won't close a vote when he's the nominator!--Poetlister (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    No, I already told Brianmc offwiki I wouldn't. Cary Bass (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  1. Support as nom. Cary Bass (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support as well. Brianmc is the shining example of dedication and work in this community and I feel the status quo should not be changed. Mike Halterman (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Absolutely. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support 100%, irrevocably, and totally. Would make an excellent CU, as demonstrated by his complete dedication to the Wikinews projects and consistent presence in #wikinews and #wikinews-en. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. support Regards, DerHexer (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. I don't feel rights previously granted should be taken away without cause, and Wikinews has a high enough profile that it will be beneficial for local users to have them. GreenReaper (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Very strong support. Met him at Wikimania, and I know for sure he's a sane guy (even though he wears a kilt ^_^) One of our most active editors, cares very much about the project so will make a good checkuser. Majorly (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - a very good editor that has been around for a long time :)...--Cometstyles 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - definitely - Alison (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support.--Jcart1534 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - per nom. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Cary thinks he's a good person for the job, how can you say no to that? Oh yea, and seems to be a decent person --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support --Herby talk thyme 07:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Daniel (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support I have full trust in Brian. He is one of our longest standing members and fully deserves to be trusted in this way. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Okay, I'm convinced on two points. Firstly that local checkusers would probably be helpful and that Brianmc can be trusted to use it appropriately. I remain unconvinced however that we should be inviting users who aren't active here to participate in these discussions as I don't consider it to be in the spirit of the checkuser policy. Adambro (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the support, I do appreciate it can be difficult to see what purpose CU serves, but it is important. Those not heavily involved who have voted are from the steward and non- en.wn checkuser community. Their votes are based on private interaction with myself and the other Brian. Consider them a vote of confidence and mark of trust that we will do what is required to serve the community's best interests. I have taken advantage of Cary whitelisting my emails to checkuser-l after I was removed from the list to solicit their input here, and to pass on my personal recommendation that skenmy be granted the privilege. I would, in general, agree that we don't want a lot of outside input on our decision making processes, but I think this is a situation where we need to be more practical. 25 votes is a lot for en.wn, but I'd hope everyone involved with the community shares my wish that such an assertion becomes silly and obsolete. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Long time user, and trusted. Strenght of nom. rootology (T) 15:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Respected by just about everyone. Naerii (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support per others (only four more supports needed) Anonymous101talk 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support well, uh, yeah! I'm a checkuser on en:wp (so know what the job takes) and he's been great at the job already. - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support Has my full trust and confidence. Durova (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support John Vandenberg (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Looks good. --Kanonkas (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support Has my full trust and confidence, and has had for years. - Amgine | t 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support While Brian's personality may be abrasive at times, he has clearly shown his competency with checkuser tools and I see no problem in having them restored. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support I agree with Chris Mann here. Brianmc is the only one of the three users who I've seen enough of (so far) to trust with tools like this, so he's the only one I can actively express support for. Gopher65talk 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Jacques Divol (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support I hope that my vote won't be discounted on the grounds that I have few edits here. I have thousands of edits on WP, WQ and WS and an a bureaucrat on WQ and an admin on WS so I know how vital it is to have checkusers. I see no reason not to entrust this critical tool to this candidate.--Poetlister (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Absolutely, The Mind's Eye (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)----
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 talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/CheckUser/Brianmc&oldid=1074753"