Wikinews:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Cirt

(checkuser)
I would like to nominate Cirt as an additional checkuser. He's been an active editor/admin at this project for about two years now, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. (He's already identified himself to the WMF, so that isn't an issue.) I think it's appropriate for him to have these rights, since he's a member of the ArbCom. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * Do you accept the nomination? Tempodivalse [talk]  15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination. I accept. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember to use # to format votes, not *. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have four users with checkuser. Why do you feel we need a fifth? Can you provide an example of where it would have been helpful to have had a fifth user with checkuser? --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional active checkusers will help to ensure that someone will always be around to attend to an urgent issue, and significantly decrease time for requests in general. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As you are a member of ArbCom, would you have asked for the tools now or seen the need to ask for them were you not nominated? --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to self-nominate for consideration of admin or other increased rights on this or any other wiki project. I am honored by the nomination from . Cirt (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so concerned with who nominates, but was more interested in your sense of the need for such tools (which you answered in my first question). You are trusted and will get my vote, but these are serious privacy-related tools and so I feel a couple of probing questions are warranted. --Jcart1534 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jcart1534, thank you for your trust in me, it is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cirt - I have nothing against you personally, you are a fantastic contributor to the project. However, as has been demonstrated previously, I do not believe in giving tools for the sake of tools. We have 4 checkusers on this project, two of which I would consider active, and the other two are around sporadically enough to be of use to us should we ever need 4 checkusers. I see no point in having another checkuser. I will not oppose the vote - CU is difficult to get as it is and I don't wish to hinder you. -- Sken   my talk 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Skenmy, I thank you very much for your kind words about my contributions to this project. One thing to keep in mind is that the project must have a minimum of two checkusers to even have the local privilege at all. Four individuals is a small group of people. If any one of the four has to go inactive for personal reasons, then it may be hard to cover the gap. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have highlighted this discussion on the checkuser-l mailing list. This list is for cross-wiki private communication between checkusers. Realistically, Wikinews cannot muster the required votes to get someone checkuser. There have been previous cases where checkusers from other projects have voted in such cases. Any non-regular who is voting because of this should please identify which project they are a regular contributor to/checkuser on, and where they know Cirt from. I know he's also active on en.wp, possibly elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you assure us that you'll abuse your power? -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I will strive to do my best to use the tools in the same manner in which I have used the admin tools in the past: to help the project. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ShakataGaNai's sense of humour slip past you? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth both a chuckle and a serious reply. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awwww, thats no fun. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, perhaps instead I should have responded with another question: What are we going to do today, Brain? Cirt (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you made use of Nmap in the past, or do you have other familiarity with IP protocols that might help in identifying open proxies and DHCP ranges of persistent vandals and abusers? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made use of Nmap. Other methods include examination of the IP: static/dynamic, well known problem ranges, hosting companies and other unusual IP ranges, and IP specific records such as blacklists, well known proxy lists, and search engines. In the past I have not made determinations on port scanning on my own, but have rather consulted with more experienced administrators and checkusers and we have come to an assessment together. In the future I will continue to seek out the knowledge and experience of those that have been doing this longer than I, when a case is not obvious, as I feel input from other experienced administrators and checkusers is always a plus when performing such actions. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are currently an admin on wikinews, commons, wikipedia, wikisource, wikiquote, as well as having otrs access. How long before you take over the world? :P Bawolff ☺☻ 07:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Approximately Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Last use of checkuser: August 16, 2009 (I've been busy, and checkuser mailing list has been quiet)  May 9, 2009  June 4, 2008  January 1, 2008 --Brian McNeil / talk 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) as nominator. Tempodivalse  [talk]  15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) per nom. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) per nom. 22 votes to go! Computerjoe 's talk  17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Don't know much about you, but from what I have heard, you can be trusted. Drew R. Smith (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --SVTCobra 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)  fr33k  man t 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Of course. Definitely trusted.  hmwith  τ   14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) per nom. Durova (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) I mean, he's a good guy.... but can we trust him? He nom'd me for crat, obviously he's off his rocker. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you got crat, so that would make the rest of us off our rockers too :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've observed candidate from en-Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) From en.wiki. YellowMonkey (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Known & trusted from Commons (which is where I tend to be!) -- Herby  talk thyme 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I have had very little (if any) interaction with this user on Wikinews, but I have seen them doing fantastic work on the English Wikipedia, and see no reason for them to not receive my full support. Den dodge  T\C(en.wp) 12:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) -I don't really need to vote seeing as there is unconditional support. but per others i do. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *Comment WMF policy requires 25 support votes for CU as a minimum. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) IMatthew (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Very trustworthy, and having an extra pair of eyes is never a bad thing. I don't think projects need tons of CUs (except maybe enwiki), but having only two active (and two in reserve) is a little bit limited. EVula // talk // 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) While I have no personal objections to the user being given CU, I don't feel that there is any significant need (per ). Furthermore, I do not feel that  would abuse the tools in anyway (and his track record as an admin here is pristine to my knowledge), however, the number of CU users is already high enough. That said, if one or more the existing CU withdrew they CU status, I would see the need for the Cirt to get the tools as he is a frequent contributor/admin. Calebrw (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you fully trust Cirt not to abuse CU, what harm do you see in him being given the extra bits? There's no reason to have a set limit of checkusers - the more we have, the shorter the response time will be when a check is needed to be done (and it's not like CU is a useless tool, from what I understand checks are performed almost every day). Besides, two of our checkusers (BrianNZ and Cspurrier) are completely inactive, so for all practical purposes we have only two, which I think is a bit on the low side for a project this size. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta ask, what is with this communities love of "We don't need em, vote against em" policy? We're all friends here (Ok, most of us are friends... Ok... some of us are friends).  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have put, but I felt that better suited my vote. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tempo: While BrianNZ and Cspurrier are indeed fairly inactive at this time based on the number of contributions, I have no reason to believe they haven't been using the CU on a daily basis (I'm simply unable to tell (so if there is in fact one, please let me know)). At this time, the only way in which I would change my vote, is if one or both of the two users currently given CU status, but apparently inactive were to be dis-allowed the status. I could also be swayed I suppose, by any relevant testimony by BrianMC or Skenmy were to give on this subject. Calebrw (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As Brianmc's comment above says, we have in effect only two users who have used the privs in the past year. If one of them becomes inactive, then the other will receive less oversight for his actions - and it might be difficult to cover the gap. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We need more than two active CUs imo, and Cirt strikes me as a good choice. I would go so far as to say that one more CU as well as Cirt would be useful on this project.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Unlike some, I believe that even if we don't neccesarily need them right now-it does absolutely no harm to have a trusted user given privileges.  I'm sure there will be some time when they are needed-if the others are unavailable etc.  2 active Check Users is really not enough anyway, so good luck.  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd tended towards Skenmy's position on this until I saw the checkuser log. I'm perfectly happy for Cirt to have the tool - as long as he leaves it to the rest of us to beat the crap out of the investigate and take action on Scientologists if they come back. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) One more support to 25. Good luck, Cirt. (I know Cirt from Commons and en.wp) --Kanonkas (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) The above points and votes have made me reconsider my earlier position. Cirt, I am proud to vote you #25 - welcome to the CU team on enwikinews :) --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif">  Sken   my talk 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Request Submitted: --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif">  Sken   my talk 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Effectively this ends the voting. But as CU is an important election, we should keep it running for at least 24 more hours to make it the full 7 days. I'm not sure if CU is supposed to be 7 or 14 days, but seeing is how it is amazing we managed to get 26 votes for anything.... IMHO 7 is sufficient. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)