Project:Requests for checkusership/Deskana

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Deskana (checkuser)

Deskana (talk · contribs)

I realise that this will likely not pass as I am not really actively editing here, but I am willing to propose myself for CheckUser access if community wishes it. I looked at this page when someone asked me to do a CheckUser for them on Simple (not realising I wasn't one). I'd like to address why I think I am suitable for this role on this Wikipedia specifically. Firstly, I am a bureaucrat and an administrator on enwiki, and more importantly in this context, a CheckUser on enwiki, having been elected by the arbitration committee. This means that I am qualified technically to serve here, and am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. CheckUser on this wiki is identical in every way to enwiki. Seconly, I am very accessible on IRC, via e-mail and on my enwiki user talk page, meaning that despite the fact I don't edit much here, I am easily contactable meaning I can effectively help people. Thirdly, I currently do have spare time on my hands to help with CheckUser here. I would also like to address the concern that people may have that I am not experienced enough with Simple to hold this position. Well, since I am not an administrator, it is totally impossible for me to block anyone out of line with Simple's policies and practices. Note that I do not propose I am given administrator rights as well, so as a CheckUser I would only consult with the administrators. Thank you for the consideration. --Deskana 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I think it would be helpful to have CheckUsers who can be easily contacted, and I feel that Deskana is already qualified and can be trusted with the position here, even if he isn't nearly as active at Simple as the other candidates. --Kyoko 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - obviously qualified :-) --Boricuæddie 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
3. I know Deskana. I have worked with him. He has the skill needed to do the job. It looks like two checkusers have already passed. So maybe Deskana does not need to be elected. But if the community wants another checkuser, Deskana could do it. Choosing not to be an administrator on purpose is interesting. It removes certain kinds of possible conflicts of interest. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - per Kyoko and Lar. I know Deskana from enwiki; he has an excellent track record, is trustworthy and is regularly available - Alison ^❤ 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support echoing Kyoko and Boricuaeddie. WODUP 05:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I assume this is to do with you feeling powerless when you visit other wikis. I know you and your trustworthy enough to have this status--Phoenix 15 09:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Well I Know he is least likely candidate for this wiki because he doesn't edit here much, but since Dan is an English Wikipedia checkuser, he will bring with himself experience and the Know-hows of checkuser policies and would make a great checkuser..--Cometstyles 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - per above. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm sure you're very well qualified but M7 is here more than you and I don't think he should be given CheckUser status. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Browne34, plus you have less than 1000 edits to qualify as a sysop or even as a checkuser. While you do have proof for your experienceas a checkuser, I'd prefer someone who is also familiar with simplewiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
3. "rarely active" says it all. Gwib^-(talk)- 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4. oppose Sorry Dan, not sure what you're thinking here :S, but I'd rather users who were more involved with this project to be checkuser. Majorly (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose If you were more active on simple.wiki I would reconsider. Also, votes of users with a small number of edits will not be counted in the RfCU. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

   Also, I'm not going to make any accusations or such, but it is a bit odd that a bunch of the en.wiki regulars created Simple Wikipedia accounts in the past few days only to vote in these RfAs. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well with checkusers, it's different to RFAs. However, you are right - the users in question have provided no rationale other than "he is great elsewhere", so what if he is? Checkusership shouldn't be given out because you have it already on another wiki. Majorly (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Per BrownE34. - Huji ^reply 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Majorly.--Werdan7^{T @} 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
8. --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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.