Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and oversight

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The current checkusers at en.wikinews are Chiacomo, Cspurrier and IlyaHaykinson. If I understand Bawolff and Chiacomo correctly, they don't care to be checkusers. -Edbrown05 06:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community cannot sustain the giving of permissions without the taking away of them where they have fallen into disuse. -Edbrown05 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason my name is down for checkuser, is that I feel a active user needs it, (2 of the 3 current users have not edited for a while) and the fact that I am a new arbcom member, so, if we follow the ways of the past, arbcom members can have that permissions. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been very busy IRL, but I check RFCU, rename requests, etc.. daily (almost). I'm always available via email.. :) --Chiacomo (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see that Chiacomo and Ilya responded so promptly to shots fired over their bow. -Edbrown05 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Submission[edit]

When is ArbCom submitting this to Wikimedia?  Thunderhead  ►  00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed Craig the other day about this, if he can do it, or if it needs to go through RfP. Otherwise we need to submit it to RfP, and I have not got time atm to do that :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose[edit]

I oppose this idea. How many checkusers do we need? I see Chiacomo and Craig editing sometimes. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is BrianNZ trying to do this because he wants the extra tools? I see why the user above is opposing. This is unfair to the admins of Wikinews. Why can't admins be granted checkuser also? I see this as a need for power on BrianNZ's part. As a dedicated reader of this website, I feel lied to that the community is taking very Liberal/pov decisions like this. Wikinews is turning more into Wikipedia as more very Liberal admins join this site. I want Wikinews to stay a medium Wiki and not become as big as Wikipedia is.
As much as I like a small wikinews - you can't stop growth, or at the very least I don't think stopping it would be a good idea. I don't see any reason why any admin can't get checkuser. None of them requested it as of yet. I also fail to see how this is a pov decision, or how its a liberal decision. Could you please clarify that part of your comment more? thanks. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikitionary defonition: Liberal means generous in quantity. = Give five other users checkuser.
ahh TITBoAC (There is to big of a cabal!). I thought you meant liberal as political idealogy. While 0 to 6 is a big increase, Its mostly just so we know their will be a user available with oversight when needed. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But wikinews will now have 7 checkusers. We are not a huge Wiki where there is lots of vandalism. Mabie we should grant only one or two people checkuser instead of 7? —FellowWikiNewsie (W) (sign here!) 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7 checkusers? I think you are confusing checkuser and oversight. This will mean we would have 4 checkusers, and 6 oversights. They are different tools, with different purposes Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is oversight anyways? —FellowWikiNewsie (sign here!) 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight is the ability to erase a version from the history so that even admins can't see it. Uses include removal of personal information that people regret putting on the wiki, and selective deletion of copyvios on places like user pages. I think I've seen three or four times it would have been useful, and the simple thing is to give it to the entire arbcom and then you know where to go when it is needed. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what happens if someone in the arbcom, who has oversight, dosn't get re-elected and they are not even a beurocrat? —FellowWikiNewsie 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gets removed, I think...
Also, if BrianNZ gets checkuser permission, then why can't anyone else who isn't a beurocrat get it? —FellowWikiNewsie 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a beurrocrat has nothing to do with it. last time it was just coincidental. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone, who is a trusted admin, request checkuser? —FellowWikiNewsie 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theorectically yes. but you need to still go through vote etc. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. —FellowWikiNewsie 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB, Anyone can have checkuser, however only the arbcom can vote on it (ie you apply to the arbcom for it) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically yes, but if someone declared they wanted to have checkuser, and had loads of support from community, I highly doubt we'd say no. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_oversight&oldid=394519"