Wikinews:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Skenmy

Skenmy (Paul Williams)
I would like to nominate Skenmy as an additional checkuser. He is one of the newly elected ArbCom members, I believe already identified to the Foundation, and as I said when voting to support his ArbCom membership, mature beyond his years. I have every reason to believe that he has the best interests of the project at heart, as well as the technical knowledge to interpret CU results and take appropriate action. I trust him to keep up to date with the checkuser mailing list and block open proxies as they are discovered, as well as share findings from locally prompted checkusers with the list as an aid to keeping cross-wiki vandalism under control. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Skenmy, do you accept this nomination? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept this nomination --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * As an aside I would like to thank the various stewards and CUs from other projects who have rallied round and endorsed myself and BrianNZ. If you want to be utterly cynical about it, they simply don't want to see the required work land in their in-tray.
 * Moving on from that, I would again urge these people (Stewards, non-en.wn CheckUsers) to support Skenmy's candidacy. I feel that the wide community support given in the below votes clearly demonstrates that this candidate has the community's endorsement and trust. I would hate to see him lose out on a technicality. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) as nom, and assuming user accepts. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) per nom. -- Herby  talk thyme 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) per nom Anonymous101talk 10:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) per nom. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Majorly (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) A great trusted contributor who I'm sure can assist the project further using checkuser. Adambro (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Long time user, and trusted. Strength of nom. rootology (T ) 15:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) As per Rootology. Naerii (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Yep - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I guessssssssss so. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) - passes the CU age requirement criteria just barely and apart from that his experience on this wiki is excellent.. :) ..-- Cometstyles 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) - Congratulations, Skenmy.  I didn't have franchise for your other election but I've probably written enough Wikinews articles to support you here.  Best regards, Durova (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Having three CUs is probably a good idea, just in case one of them gets run over by a rogue bracket. GreenReaper (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I am not excessively active on Wikinews but I do edit occcassionally and read a fair bit. Feel free to not count this vote if it goes against any local policies for activity. . giggy (O) 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Trusted locally, and has two other local checkusers to work with on the hairy cases. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Again, another person who I do not doubt is trustworthy and a good person to use the tools wisely. Mike Halterman (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Can be trusted with the extra tools. --Kanonkas (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Skenmy is clearly a capable admin, and I trust Brian's statement that he can handle the technical side of checkuser tools as well as the procedural side. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 21)  Sorry to get in so late on this.  I have been mostly away from my computer for the weekend, and when I have been present, it's been involved in some other checkuser vote drama.  Skenmy has my full support (and since he ran for board, he's identified).  Cary Bass (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain Although I support this user as a Check User, I'm not sure if the MWF policy requires age of legal majority in the nation of residence. If legal majority is required, I'm not sure if the user would then qualify. (Am interested in changing my abstention to support following clarification by MWF legal team.) -  Amgine | t 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) striking as per original abstention, will vote support) -  Amgine | t 02:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul is over 18, age of majority in the UK. Admittedly, not by much, but he is. If memory serves, he is also on OTRS and the criteria are basically the same. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of one other checkuser on another project in the UK who is the same age as Skenmy (e.g., over 18). I believe, as the Foundation, we've addressed this matter. Cary Bass (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Jacques Divol (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Having my only minor concern cleared up, full support and confidence in this user. -  Amgine | t 02:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) . --Jcart1534 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) per my vote for Brianmc.  He may be less experienced than the others, but I do not see that as fatal.--Poetlister (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I have had various experiences with this user before and believe them to be a trustworthy member who would use the tools well. TheFearow (userpage) 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)