Current requests for checkusership
- None at this time
|
Current requests for oversightership
- Fr33kman (talk · contribs · count)
End date: 18:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I am an experienced admin, checkuser, former OSer and steward. I'd like to request oversightership to help out and to be able to act on problems rather than having to ask for help from an OSer or a steward.
Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination. -- fr33kman 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Thanks for volunteering. It looks like you've had this permission a few times before, and then went inactive (which is fine). Could you give me a little overview as to when it is suitable (or give some examples) of when an item should be oversighted rather than revdel'ed? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To some extent revdel will do a lot of times but there are times where suppression is needed. Revdel is good at hiding crude or offensive edits and suppression if best used in cases where personal information is being posted and needs hiding even from the admins fr33kman 05:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what circumstances do you think that an OS block is needed, and what would be required for such a block to be lifted? QuicoleJR (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Experienced editor and active CU. Our community can rely on them in times of need. DIVINE 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Support. I fully understand and appreciate the concerns of Ferien posted below. However, reading Djsasso's comments at the RFCU I'm not terribly concerned. It doesn't read as blatant. Perhaps he may have some comment that clarifies, however I understand that may be very difficult to provide. Regardless, there are very few people I personally trust more on Wiki than Fr33kman, so based on years of past history, I will support. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I'd like to assume as much good faith as possible, but oversighted diffs were posted to RfCU by you back in December 2023. I don't know why they were oversighted and the answers to the concern at the time were that it was basically a bad choice of wording (link). Having admins who post oversightable material then become oversighters isn't the best of looks for our wiki though, regardless of reasoning. Additionally, I don't see much of a need for oversighters at the moment and it was only in November you got CU again. Those three factors combined tip me into the oppose section, I'm afraid. --Ferien (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ombuds committee cleared me of that incident. Additionally OS is about suppressing info, nothing to do with CU fr33kman 00:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote was indeed nothing to do with CU, it was about you posting oversightable material onwiki, which is definitely relevant here. --Ferien (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall that. Can you email details? fr33kman 14:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is above, showing the history of RfCU where this occurred. I don't know the exact details because I'm not an oversighter. --Ferien (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we could get an oversighter to review the post and if they say I did something wrong I'll accept that but the Ombuds commission found no wrongdoing. fr33kman 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If my assumption that the oversight was due to oversightable material was wrong, I will strike it, but my oppose vote will certainly be remaining. Going from requesting admin to becoming checkuser and oversighter within 8 months is extremely unusual. I can't think of any other user that has gained checkuser and oversighter that quickly. I'm not going to go so far as to call it hat collecting, but you really need to slow down. We do not have any need for oversighters at this moment in time, we voted in a new one just a year ago. I also have major concerns with the way you have been using your admin rights: you accused a user you incorrectly blocked of personally attacking you when they didn't, it was only a month ago I had to ask for you to stop undermining other admin actions without explanation (which you're still doing), a few days ago you gave flood out for a user adding references and you are currently treating RfD as a vote which is behaviour administrators actively try to stamp out, yet here you are doing it anyway, ignoring what is written on the top of the RfD page. To be frank, this is below what I would expect from any administrator, let alone a checkuser wanting to be an oversighter already. I didn't initially want to bring the major concerns with the admin toolset here, especially as someone who nominated you for adminship the second time around, but now I consider it it's probably best addressed than not. --Ferien (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose While this user is experienced, don't get me wrong, I feel like the user may not be ready to be given the oversight tools again. Plus as Ferien said, we haven't exactly needed any more oversighters recently.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I could go either way, and will try to remember to come back to this. I think that Fr33kman is a good admin and I respect him. I also don't personally give any weight to comments along the lines of "we don't need more X" at RFPs. However, I do take Ferien's concerns seriously, and it makes me hesitant to support. I will come back and think about this more in a few days. Ping me if anything substantial is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With "we don't need more X" comments, it kinda depends which right you are looking at and how you look at it. With something like admin or rollbacker, there are very few downsides to having plenty of people so long as they are trusted/competent enough for it. But with oversight and checkuser, sensitive information is involved (which is why you have to be identified to the WMF and 18+ to do it) that is you could argue is better having in fewer hands than more. Not saying that's the case for this situation as Fr33kman is already a checkuser, just in general. --Ferien (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Without knowing the suppressed content, I can't say how inappropriate it was. I can think of some cases where it could be a normal situation but later privacy concerns were brought in. I suggest Fr33kman to withdraw this for now, and try again a while later if they feel the project would still benefit from them having the tools. Currently, there is no pressing need for a new suppressor, and steward backlog are looking pretty clearly so we can turn to them if help is needed. Thanks,--BRP ever 15:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm investigating a bit more, I don't think the "we don't need more" arguments are particularly beneficial. We should give tools out to those who can wield them correctly. However, I'd like to see a real grasp of the perm before I support. The answer to my question wasn't fantastic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to know what you find. If Fre33kman2 was cleared of wrongdoing, then that should be that. I don't want to support a Wiki culture in which people even asking about someone else's actions insta-kills them from positions of trust. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note) Fr33kman is the username. We have 2 in the page title because this is their 2nd oversight request. MathXplore (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I wasn't intending to look into any previous issues with the tools, just rather whether or not I would trust the user with this advanced perm. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
