Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/The Rambling Man

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.
Successful right will be requested on meta in one minute. Barras talk 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man[change source]

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Earliest end date: 19:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm running a self-nom for oversightship because, just today it became clear we could use extra hands. I experienced a situation (not for the first time) where oversight privileges would be both useful to me and essential to a trusted member of our community, and yet was left powerless to do anything about it. I am aware that other oversighters are doing a good job (e.g. Barras who took care of the problematic situation today) and I'm also aware that there are other nominees even currently running, but as a member of the community who has already confirmed his identity with the Foundation, I believe that I'll be able to make a net positive impact in the field of oversighting, given the chance. It's no big deal to me, but I never like to sit and watch the recent changes list being full of personal details of our contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Per nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. fr33kman 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As we really need more helping hands per the "inactivity" of some of my fellows. There is enough to do...but I think we should limit the number of people having this kind of sensitive access and may consider to remove the inactive oversighters. Just my thought, of course. Barras talk 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the admin inactivity policy. Do you want to make a harsher (couldn't think of a better word) policy for oversighters? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh, I don't see need in having people with access to sensitive data (doesn't matter if os or cu) when they are not really active and don't really use it. I don't know if this is just me, but I would voluntary resign a right I don't need. Means, if I notice that I don't get any crat action to do in some months because I'm never around, I would resign this right. Same goes for the other tools I hold. No real need and use means for me I shouldn't have it. Anyway, os/cu will be removed after one year of inactivity per foundation policy... I think this isn't the best place to discuss this. Barras talk 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Already trusted. Majorly talk 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, please. Lauryn☆ 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per nom. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Of course.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Certainly. Classical Esther 03:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pile on support. —§ stay (sic)! 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Megan|talkchanges 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nifky^ 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. In light of recent events we need as many trusted users with oversight as we can get. Kansan (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, and against DJSasso oppose. --Diego (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. RP459 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. We can never really have "too many".  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Trustworthy. NW (Talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Can be trusted with the tools. Yottie =talk= 16:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support if for no other reason than to cancel out at least one baseless oppose, though I'm sure the difference between valid consensus and pure vote counting is clear Soup Dish (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
  24. Support I can not think of any examples where TRM's judgment was ever in question. The candidate has assuaged my concerns vis a vis off wiki communication in that he is willing to accept and process valid requests off wiki. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - OS requests can be time-critical; being an oversighter myself, I look forward to there being another pair of helping hands. I fully trust this user's judgments. --Eptalon (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. We have enough oversight already. More are not needed. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. Although this user appears to be very suitable for having oversight, I agree that it is unnecessary for there to be more oversighters since there are already several oversighters and oversight isn't extremely urgent either. O.320939697.O 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, could you explain how oversight is "not urgent"? Lauryn☆ 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean that if an edit that requires oversight is made, it isn't mandatory for it to be oversighted within 10 minutes. O.320939697.O 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The best is when the edit is oversighted within the minute it is done, especially when it contains personal information such as phone numbers, addresses and so on. It shouldn't take longer than 10 to 15 minutes until the edit is removed. Barras talk 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Barras. I suppose it's something you do not fully appreciate unless you have the oversight tool or have your personal information posted all over the place. It's not a fun thing. Lauryn☆ 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. —§ stay (sic)! 12:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Idem. --Diego (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for the same reason I opposed freakman. Don't see a need for more. We already have too many. Not a reflection on the candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose - I don't trust this user.--  † CR90  22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you trust him, ChristianRocker? Classical Esther♣ 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd be interested in why you don't trust me as well. Could you cite examples of my "untrustworthiness" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking my vote cause people can't leave my vote as is, and I'd really not explain this publicly.--  † CR90  22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have asked CR90 to explain why he doesn't trust me, completely transparently. I have nothing, repeat, nothing to hide from all users of any Wikimedia project. To state that I am untrustworthy, in my mind, needs an explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I unstruck my vote as I have now explained my reasons for not trusting TRM elsewhere.--  † CR90  06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know it really would be nice if you could enumerate your reasons for your "vote", but I honestly cannot say that I am surprised. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it with people getting hammered for oppose votes this week? Leave him alone Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 06:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Err... with all respect, when someone does a vote without rationale or reason in this type of discussion, the community would like to know that reason. I believe this is not too out of line. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it doesn't take too much to find out where "elsewhere" is.--  † CR90  06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda is getting out of line. You should see how much wasted text there is going on between me and C-Buddy's votes on recent RfPs Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is getting hammered for anything, I would simply appreciate a reason why Christianrocker90 does not trust TRM without having to go hunting all over the Wiki for it. Lauryn (u • t • c) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so, I'm not "hammering" anyone, I just want to know why I am not a trusted editor. I'm sure you'd feel the same if someone said something similar about your PBP89. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. If a person says that another is not trusted, then there exists a "right" to have proof (with examples) offered. fr33kman 08:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I'm now sick of the drama my vote has caused. I've casted my opinion and the reasons behind it, so I'm moving on.--  † CR90  08:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming you don't trust someone and then providing no evidence as to why is hardly what I'd consider a Christian attitude. How disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's please leave religion out of it and simply focus on the facts. I agree examples should, but are not required to, be offered. fr33kman 09:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose From time to time, these tools may require the usage of an alternate communications medium, such as email, or IRC. Not *everything* can be public or transparent, It is the users reluctance to utilize off wiki communication that causes me pause. TRM is an excellent editor and admin. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't think of me as badgering you here, but I have only stated here that it is impossible for me to use IRC for the majority of the time (it s blocked at my workplace) and I have offered the suggestion (in the comments section) "For what it's worth, I can (and do) pick up my Wikipedia emails every few minutes from 7am to 11pm GMT." so I would have thought that deals with your concern here? I am 100% aware of the importance of off-wiki communication for sensitive issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no badgering. You are the candidate, that gives you an inherent right to question my opposes. Most especially if I've been dense enough to miss where you state that you are able and willing to use email. Give me a moment to consider. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

we have hust 6 oversight here, do you think the we need more oversight? --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: To be honest I would love to support you, you are a trusted individual across multiple wikis and I "trust" you with the sensitive material. I'm just not sure that you would be very active given that you are, by a moderate margin, the least active of the CUs. Do you expect to use OS "relatively" frequently (obviously it is based on need in the end) or are you generally just asking for the occasions when it comes up? I must admit I have a tendency to be harsher on the "inactivity" side of things then most people in WMF so I should probably say this is all with a grain of salt but. James (T C) 11:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for kind words. Yes, I will be the first to admit that I have been a little inactive, particularly recently, but having said that, I have been back here more frequently as of late and will continue to do so. This really is no big deal, if the community don't think that me being able to oversight offensive and personal comments would be of practical use then that's fine. I am an advocate of one good use of the tools is good reason to have them but others don't agree. I guess we'll agree to differ on that one! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Even thought that I've already voted and won't change the support or strike (doesn't matter what you say), would you use IRC to handle requests quickly? Well, I'm most of the day available on IRC even if not editing, just have the IRC program open in the background if someone needs me for something urgent. Most oversight requests are done by having a look at the RCs or on IRC as this is the easiest way. So, I think it would be good if you would use IRC (there is no need to take part in any conversation if you don't like it or to talk to other. Just that non-oversights can reach you very easy. Would be great if you would think about joining IRC. If not, it doesn't matter (at least not for me as I can do oversights myself ;) ) The problem I can imagine is that you wouldn't really get something to do with the tool... Barras talk 11:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barras, will respond shortly, my lunch has just arrived!! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just quickly, I lurk on Simple from 8 to 5 GMT without necessarily editing. During the week this is when I'm at work and there IRC is blocked entirely as part of our IT policy, so it's impossible for me to use it there. Most other times I'm popping in and out, but at work I'll usually have a recent changes tab open. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to remind Barras that OS requests should not happen on IRC unless they have already been emailed to the OS list. Its is not cool to handle requests through IRC that have not been through the email first. In fact its a very bad thing that it has been happening. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email is just one method; IRC is another. Neither is better than the other. Stewards tend to prefer to be contacted via IRC. What matters here is that the vandalism is hidden, not how it is hidden. You, used to be, a massive user of IRC yourself. It's the reason channels such as #cvn-sw and #cvn-simplewiki exist; because they lead to a RAPID response. Accountability take place when others can view the logs, not whether than can or cannot view IRC or via email lists (many of which actually still have people who are no longer approved for OS or CU, and so are security violations by themselves). fr33kman 08:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only a user of IRC to make sure things that aren't supposed to happen on IRC don't happen. I am not a supporter of IRC for use of such things. I was essentially bullied by people into using IRC because we aren't active if we aren't on there supposedly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry you were bullied. Those that did that don't understand WMF at all. IRC is a tool, nothing more, it is not different than a (occasionally) more responsive email list. In fact both a list and IRC are not official WMF channels. But, of course OS requests can not take place onwiki, so maybe email, or IRC are the ways forward. :) fr33kman 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I can (and do) pick up my Wikipedia emails every few minutes from 7am to 11pm GMT. I would have thought this would have been sufficient. And while the main argument (at the moment) against me is that we have sufficient active OS'ers, well how is it that I've seen some pretty offensive material sit on recent changes for a while a couple of times in the past week alone? All I'm suggesting is that an extra pair of eyes should only make the situation better. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Well, it is no matter on which way the request for an oversight is done. If an oversight is on IRC and also available, so it can be requested there. If not, the requester should send a mail to the list. I normally prefer IRC as this is most likely the faster way to get something done, but I wouldn't mind using the mail function and the list more often. Especially for the simplewiki, the problem is the relative slow RC. There are times when only a few changes are made and things keep on the RCs for a long time if no oversight sees it. I didn't wanted to make drama with my question to TRM above. Oversight is normally something really urgent and so it doesn't matter for me if I get the request on IRC or via mail. However, the community rarely uses us, this means the mailinglist is not really used and IRC requests happens only occasionally which are the reasons why things keep on the RCs for a long time or never get removed by oversights. Maybe we just need to remember all that we have local oversights and that it's important to inform them if there is something that should be removed. We [the current oversight team] can't watch the RCs 24/7, but I'm normally around the during the time mentioned on WP:OS as well as the others are. Most if not all of the time is someone around... We just need to get a hint. Barras talk 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said Barras, no big deal! For so many people claiming to be watching RC and IRC etc, I've seen my fair share of edits that needed OS, even as recently as the last two weeks. Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is still anything that should be removed, so please feel free to mail the list or any oversight privately. Barras talk 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Discussion on the extension moved to talk. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Break[change source]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversightship/The_Rambling_Man&oldid=8875441"