Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

This has been open for several months without the votes required. Whilst the high requirements imposed from above require us to leave these open than normal votes, months in plural is excessive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

— Oversight and CheckUser
We need more oversighters and checkusers. I've been long, valued and trusted member of this community. I know there a concern about having too much power in one user... but with such a small community that Wikinews it's bound to happen unfortunately. However, I am active and I feel like stepping up my role here on Wikinews. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Notice : This RFP is now for OVERSIGHT PERMISSION ONLY . CheckUser has been dropped by me. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats

 * Previous requests: RfA · RfrA · RfB

Questions and comments

 * Could we have these in separate requests? — μchip08 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These two privs are dramatically different. Per above, I would request they be separated completely. Oversight is predominantly good judgement; CU is highly technical. For example, do you know the difference between a /24 and a /16 Patrick? How many IPs would each check? What's the corresponding subnet masks? How do you establish which range you should check for ISP foo? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner, usually I would, just been an unusually busy week at work due schedule changes by stakeholders and my organization. Per your concerns Brian, I am going to drop the CheckUser request and just turn this into a request for Oversight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) for OS.  Good call on the choice of which one to do, TUFKAAP. BarkingFish (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Like a Rolling Stone! アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) of oversight — μchip08 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , trusted user, I've had some concerns about his actions before but nothing serious enough to merit an oppose. I don't agree with the "too many flags" argument. The rights list is obviously going to get long, current bureaucrats are the only people that are seriously considered for CU/OS anyway. We currently have many people with very long access lists, I don't see any complaints about them... Tempodivalse [talk]  20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * due to a) These not being broken into separate requests and, b) No attempt to answer my questions regarding technical ability to interpret CU results and investigate beyond simple httpd log access. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Q&C above. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) --Sahim (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) fully with Oversight access. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Trustworthy.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Why not?  — fetch · comms   05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Well-suited.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , don't see any reason not to. the wub "?!"  22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Jcart1534 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I trust him.  Mattisse (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) – I don't see why not. —MC10 (T•C•L)  04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) - I thought I already had...  DEN  DODGE  George Watson  14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Computerjoe 's talk  10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no objections, so why not? — Mike  moral  ♪♫  00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The following vote applies to the original combined request for oversight and checkuser; this voter has since voted "weak support" for oversight once checkuser was removed from the request.
 * Oppose. "TUFKAAP ‎(bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator)" is already fairly long &mdash; "TUFKAAP ‎(bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator, check user, oversighter)" just seems too long. Coupled with the fact that you seem to have made/considered an awful lot of reconfirmation requests recently make me believe that you, perhaps, are not the best candidate for the jobs although if you had ipbe and flood as well, it would be bordering on the awesome side of things — μchip08 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Iain is also a b'crat, reviewer and admin yet you voted support on his OS request? Any particular reason the switch in opinion? Does it have to do with my two reconfirmation requests? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That, combined with the fact that I hadn't noticed. — μchip08 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Gryllida 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any specific reason, or just oppose in general? :) Just wondering if there's something I'm not aware of as I'm not exactly "active" much here anymore.  — fetch · comms  02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) *My personal impression of the decisions made by the candidate during the last few years isn't 100% positive, so I'm in a doubt on whether this nomination is appropriate at this moment. Gryllida 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)