Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and oversight

In accordance with Wikimedia Policy, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and authority to request CheckUser permissions for trusted users on English Wikinews.

Oversight comes after the talk on ALERT, where most people agreed all arbcom members should receive it

Requests for CheckUser and oversight permissions are listed below for the Wikimedia Stewards.

Please direct discussion to the talk page.

User:Cspurrier
Since we are now giving oversight to all arbcom members I suppose I should formally apply --Cspurrier 14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Thunderhead - (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brianmc
Moved from Arbitration Committee which was in turn moved from WN:A.

Following my election to the ArbCom, it was suggested by Thunderhead that I request these privileges. A CU case I could look at has just come up - which I obviously won't be doing. However, it does make Thunderhead's point. My timezone differs enough from the other users with this privilege to be useful in the role. So, vote below - I'm asking my fellow Wikinewsies if they'd trust me with these tools, then I can figure out how to request them from Cary (Yes, already identified myself for OTRS). --Brian McNeil / talk 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note this is both privs, checkuser & oversight. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration Committee member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) --Cspurrier 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) IlyaHaykinson 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) –Doldrums(talk) 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Community member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) Support as suggester-person Thunderhead - (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Adambro 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) —Zachary talk 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I trust Brian McNeil with these privileges. --SVTCobra 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chiacomo
Subject to approval by the Arbitration Committee, I request that the oversight and CheckUser permissions held by Chiacomo be removed as this user was not re-elected to the Arbitration Committee as per WN:ARBCOM. Adambro 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration Committee member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) Oppose Checkuser is not granted because of arbcom status (I kept it when I was not reelected), but rather because the arbcom selected to give it to that person. If we would like to remove the status due to inactivity that shold be done as a seperate vote (I am neutral on if it should be removed due to inactivity)--Cspurrier 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No Vote Yet I'll think what my vote will be over the next few days, however I would note that Craig was reviewed in Jan and Also he was a Steward, and was still activeish around here. So, it is slightly different Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose &mdash; I agree with Cspurrier, and don't see Checkuser as tied to the arbcom role. I recommend that someone jot down a checkuser policy that includes expiration upon inactivity, and build consensus for it (I'd totally support such a policy), in which case no vote would even be necessary for specific people. -- IlyaHaykinson 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Community member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) Adambro 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * A user who has "vanished" should have these privs revoked as they may come back to a different community from the one they were elected to represent. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Cspurrier; In which case I ask the Arbitration Committee to review these rights on the basis that the community no longer feel the user in question should serve on the committee and the user has not been active since March of this year. Adambro 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone attempted to contact User:Chiacomo? He has a gmail account [mailto:chiacomo@gmail.com] at which he might respond. Perhaps he is not even interested in keeping these privileges. --SVTCobra 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Done on 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) by User:Cspurrier

CheckUser Request 2 - March 2007
The Arbitration Committee requests that the following users be granted CheckUser permissions:
 * 1) User:Brian New Zealand


 * Arbitration Committee member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (voting as a arbcom member, however I am neutral on myself receiving it)
 * 2) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) checkuser ability for an active member will be useful. &mdash; Doldrums(talk) 07:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) IlyaHaykinson 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)  Striking vote because Messed is no longer a member of ArbCom


 * Community member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1)   Thunderhead  ►  02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) terinjokes | Talk 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Nzgabriel | Talk 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Brian McNeil / talk 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oversight Request 1 - March 2007
The Arbitration Committee requests that the following users be granted oversight permissions:
 * 1) Bawolff
 * 2) Brian New Zealand
 * 3) Chiacomo
 * 4) Doldrums
 * 5) Ilya Haykinson

Comment so what happens if all six members take the same line? nobody granted oversight? if everyone is granted oversight permission disregarding the terms of their statement, then this exercise is meaningless. perhaps a better approach is to see if there is broad support in the community for the idea of all arbcommies having oversight ability. &mdash; Doldrums(talk) 06:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee member signatures confirming this request:
 * 1) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing mine, to ditto bawolff's statement and not support myself Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm going to support everyone but myself. I'm voting neutral on myself as I don't want to seem as if I'm trying to give myself oversight. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I will ditto bawolff's statement and not support myself. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I am in favor of the ArbCom having oversight permissions as an entity (with all current users at any point in time). IlyaHaykinson 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) per Ilya and my comment below. –Doldrums(talk) 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support on everyone but myself; neutral on myself.  ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)#  Striking vote because Messed is no longer a member of ArbCom
 * Well I geuss we'd all get it, as one neutral and 5 supports is enough for concensuss. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Community member signatures confirming this request
 * 1)   Thunderhead  ►  02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) terinjokes | Talk 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Nzgabriel | Talk 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Brian McNeil / talk 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -Edbrown05 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Ilya, the entire ArbCom should have these responsibilities. It greatly simplifies the process and we've already voted that these are some of our most trusted community members. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fellowwikinews opposed on the talk page.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)