Wikinews:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Tom Morris


 * Congratluations, Tom Morris. --Pi zero (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

— CheckUser
Following the resignation of Cirt from the roll of CheckUsers, we are now down to three local CheckUsers. I suggested earlier that I would be happy to volunteer to take on this role. In an ideal world, I would never have to actually use the CheckUser tool as these days English Wikinews seems to be both quiet and mostly drama-free.

In terms of my qualification for the role: I am a technically proficient person and understand more than enough about IP addresses, DNS, CIDR notation and so on to operate the CheckUser functionality. I try to be a drama-free editor on the projects I participate in: I've done and said things in the past I've regretted, but I have a strong record for amicable and friendly work both here, on Wikipedia, on Wikimedia Commons and other projects. I have contributed over 100 published articles to Wikinews. I've been an administrator here for nearly two years, and a little over two years on English Wikipedia. I also have OTRS access and I am already identified to the Foundation (diff). —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * We do not, alas, live in an ideal world, as the activity at WN:CU shows. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent candidate, has my full confidence. (GULLIBLE! quick, give'em more moppage...) -  Amgine | t 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Put the word on the Sitenotice and (if I did it right) wikinews-l. --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also, since Tom is UK-based, highlighted the request on the Wikimedia UK list. Suffrage for CheckUser rights is based on similar requirements to those for Steward elections. Note: Tom did not ask me to canvas on his behalf, and as the copy of that email sent to wikinews-l should show, I have not urged people to vote either way, simply that the vote is taking place and additional input is needed to meet vote participation requirements. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved from Votes, as anonymous IPs can't be qualified to vote. (Perhaps somebody forgot to log in.)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --27.33.74.30 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he should get oversight well we're at it - The people with oversight are not very active. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree on Oversight, but that's Tom's decision. If our remaining CUs could highlight the vote on the closed list (as I've done via the WM-UK list) I suspect we'll hit the required 25 votes fairly quickly. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Gryllida (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If oversighters are needed, I'm happy to take an oversigher role too. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to note: I am going on holiday for two weeks on Tuesday. I will have Internet access but I intend to actually have a holiday. I'll hopefully also be taking a wikibreak from both Wikipedia and Wikinews. I therefore won't be here to answer any questions raised. If this closes before I get back, I'd like to pre-emptively thank the community for their support and consideration of this request. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , strong candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Bencherlite (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rschen7754 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , with lulz at Amgine's above remark. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , --Jacques Divol (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) --Cspurrier (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Without hesitation, although it shall be difficult to acquire sufficient votes owing to Rules From Above™.  BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) . Gryllida (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've known Tom for years, ever since he came back from Citizendium. I consider him very trustworthy and technically capable. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) . Very capable of using the tools well, both technically and in terms of trust. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) as an enwp checkuser - alas, I have very little activity on WN! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) as enWN CU. Strong level of support shows trust - no issues with extending my support. --  Sken   my talk 11:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Tom's been around for quite a while now. He'll undoubtedly put the same level of professionalism into CU as he does into everything. &mdash; Gopher65talk 13:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Kanags (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) — Mike  moral  ♪♫  06:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Well known user: adding myself as the community wishes it though I don't know details on his opinions on CU tools. In normal conditions en.news shouldn't need own CU IMHO, but... ok. --Nemo bis (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) --RockerballAustralia c 04:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 9)  -- well known admin. --Nikolas (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10)  -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 11)  Tom would do well in the role. Tyrol5 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 12)  Tom is both trustworthy and a family man.  Of course, some of the world's worst scoundrels were family men, but we can always assume good faith in the case of Tom, because we are a Wikimedia Foundation community, and assuming good faith is what we do. May Tom's cadence in the shoes of a check user be absolutely and completely devoid of scoundrelness (The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.)
 * second blessing
 * --Mareklug (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- no concerns from a fellow en.wp admin. Nick (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Wikiwide (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  &mdash; 레비 Revi  ✉ SUL Info 05:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  Seems good. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)