Wiktionary:CheckUsers/Archive

• Acceptance of nomination:

I am hono(u)red to accept this nomination. (©Connel) Kipmaster 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support

1. (82.18.21.208) SemperBlotto 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Enginear 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
4. TheDaveRoss 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. —Stephen 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
6. --Versageek 04:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Jon Harald Søby 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
8. \Mike 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
9. — Vildricianus 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Jonathan Webley 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Rod (A. Smith) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
12. --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
13. --Tosca 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
14. GerardM 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Pill δ 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Dvortygirl 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Gladly!
17. Robert Ullmann 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
18. bd2412 T 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
19. EncycloPetey 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
20. --Thogo (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Oui.
21. --Rory096 06:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Moyogo 12:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Paul G 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Dakdada 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
25. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Alhen 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Jeffqyzt 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments

• Acceptance of nomination:

I am honored to accept this nomination. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support

1. (82.18.21.208) SemperBlotto 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Kipmaster 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Enginear 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
4. TheDaveRoss 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. —Stephen 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
6. --Versageek 04:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Jon Harald Søby 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
8. \Mike 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
9. — Vildricianus 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Jonathan Webley 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Rod (A. Smith) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
12. --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
13. --Tosca 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
14. GerardM 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Pill δ 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Dvortygirl 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Robert Ullmann 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
18. bd2412 T 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Taxman 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
20. EncycloPetey 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
21. --Thogo (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
22. --Rory096 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
23. --Dijan 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Paul G 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Dakdada 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
26. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Alhen 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Jeffqyzt 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments

• Acceptance of nomination: I am honoured to accept this nomination. (Shameless ripoff of Kip/Connel.) Jon Harald Søby 13:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support

1. Kipmaster 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. \Mike 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
3. --Versageek 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Enginear 09:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
6. —Stephen 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
7. — Vildricianus 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Jonathan Webley 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Rod (A. Smith) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
10. --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
11. --Tosca 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
12. GerardM 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Pill δ 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Dvortygirl 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Taxman 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
16. --Thogo (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
17. TheDaveRoss 06:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
18. --Rory096 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
19. --Dijan 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
20. SemperBlotto 07:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
21. EncycloPetey 15:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Moyogo 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Paul G 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Dakdada 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
25. bd2412 T 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
26. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Alhen 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Robert Ullmann 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments

1. Clarification: Jon is of course already a steward and so has access to the CheckUser privileges on all wikis. This appointment, however, would make that he no longer needs to change his status back and forth all the time. — Vildricianus 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination: I hereby nominate User:SemperBlotto as a local English Wiktionary Check User. In light of User:Kipmaster's stepping down and User:TheDaveRoss' absence, the need is somewhat increased. It has taken a significant amount of cajoling to get him to accept this nomination. But the timezone variety can only help. He has the technical understanding needed for the various CU roles, and knows when (and how) to ask for help, if he finds a particularly tricky situation. I have complete confidence that our number one human editor will make good, fair use of the tools provided. --Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vote ends: 16 September 2007
• Vote started: 2 August 2007

• Acceptance:

**OK - This will stop me from pestering Connel at least once a week (I'm wrong in my guesswork at least 50% of the time). I just hope that it doesn't take time away from building the dictionary. (I did enjoy the "beans" link) SemperBlotto 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• After finally reading the relevent policy pages, I have decided that I do not agree with them and, even if I promised to abide by them I might be tempted to ignore them. As there are legal privacy implications I have decided that it is better if I DO NOT accept this offer. Thank you all for your kind support, and sorry to have wasted your time. SemperBlotto 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (Early vote on basis of e-mail acceptance before nomination.) Confirming this vote, post-acceptance. --Connel MacKenzie 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Support EncycloPetey 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (as above)
4. Support Thryduulf 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (not as per Connel, but based on acceptance on this page.) Thryduulf 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Support † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Support ArielGlenn 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Robert Ullmann 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) good idea
9. Support, for sure! bd2412 T 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Support H. (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC) of course.
11. Support --Tohru 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Rod (A. Smith) 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Support —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Medellia 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Dvortygirl 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Leftmostcat 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Versageek 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support As per that I think from what I've seen he'll know how to use it correctly.Neskaya 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Hippietrail 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I still don't really get the importance of Check Users, but if anyone should have the power it's SB. Widsith 08:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Wytukaze 09:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Support \Mike 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) As per Widsith: if anyone should be a CU, SB should...
29. Support —Stephen 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support birdy _{(:> )=|} 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) --birdy _{(:> )=|} 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain DAVilla 08:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I would like a statement from all new checkusers that they will not abuse their power, in particular that they will not use the checkuser facility to persue those with whom they, personally, have disagreements. In other words, I would like to have a division between investigation and prosecution, so to speak, because it has not always been clear on Wiktionary as to what constitutes vandalism versus a content dispute. This goes a little beyond the policy on meta, which must be agreed to at minimum, and which would suffice for me if the distinction between vandalism and a content dispute were somewhere more delineated, to where a checkuser would be more certain that his or her actions fell within the acceptable boundaries, or if on the boundary would be less intimidated to ask. DAVilla 08:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose by voting in support of his nomination, we signal that we expect him not to abuse his newfound godlike powers. It'd be mighty odd to support if we thought that would happen. --Wytukaze 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I think you are greatly mistaken. If I understand your complaint correctly, the above-mentioned meta: policy does already clearly prohibit that class of abuse. (In that regard, I have prevented myself, in several cases, from checking specific users. In such cases, I am unquestionably required to pass it off to another CU. This is true even in some cases where such "personal conflicts" have arisen as a direct result of other CU checks.) If you have more specific questions, you are welcome to question me directly at mailto:[email protected] or Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   Then I am mistaken. Nonetheless, I would like a statement from checkusers that they will abide by the policy. Frankly, I would like to know which policies an admin such as myself are expected to respect as well, beyond that of regular contributors. DAVilla 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I think accepting a nomination for a privilege indicates one's acceptance of the responsibilities of the privilege; otherwise, there'd be no reason not to accept a nomination, and we wouldn't bother asking. (Even so, something explicit might be nice.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominee, despite overwhelming support. DAVilla 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby nominate User:Dmcdevit as a local English Wiktionary Check User, as I'm sick of being the only active CU around that answers e-mail requests. Dmcdevit is the main person I turn to on #wikimedia-checkuser for tricky questions; yes, he has the technical knowledge to handle them, perhaps much better than myself. Tainted by Wikipedia-style diplomacy, he has a better chance of offending fewer people than I do.
• Vote ends: 4/24/2007, 23:59:59Z
• Vote started by: --Connel MacKenzie 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Acceptance:

I accept the nomination. I've been an enwp CheckUser since last June, so I don't think know-how regarding interpretation of results and IP blocks is a problem. And I'm experienced at taking whatever the vandals or trolls want to throw at me. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks Connel. Dmcdevit 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Timw. 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support EncycloPetey 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support DAVilla 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support SemperBlotto 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support —Ruakh_TALK 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Cynewulf 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Dvortygirl 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --Enginear 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Atelaes 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Robert Ullmann 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support H. (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Dodde 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Support \Mike 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Lar 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Tohru 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Keffy 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Picaroon 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Connel MacKenzie 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Support DaveRoss 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC) while I wish I could be more active, Dmcdevit is a great choice.
22. Support Versageek 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Support ArielGlenn 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support SabineCretella 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Support GerardM 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Alhen 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Support --Thogo (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• At 25-0-0, Check User status is approved. We need a Bureaucrat! --EncycloPetey 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have been a contributor since late 2005 but have been registered for about two months and now have over 2,000 edits. Also I have had much experience with Wikipedia and some with Wikispecies. I would like to help as a backup when no one with Check User is available. I plan on being careful about the privacy of users. Tim Q. Wells 05:04, 19 April 2007 UTC

• Withdrawn

• Acceptance of nomination: As I said on Wikibooks when this same idea came up at the start of 2006, if you hand CheckUser privileges to me I plan to be very strict about user privacy. I'm happy to act as a backup for the other editors with CheckUser privileges if you think that one is needed. However, I'm also happy if you decide on the basis of the other discussions here that you have enough editors with CheckUser privileges already. Uncle G 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support

1. --Connel MacKenzie 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Kipmaster 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Enginear 09:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
4. —Stephen 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. \Mike 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Jon Harald Søby 15:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Jonathan Webley 09:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Rod (A. Smith) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. GerardM 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. TheDaveRoss 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
11. --Versageek 06:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
12. SemperBlotto 07:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Paul G 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Obvious nepotism, voting for your uncle like that! ;-) bd2412 T 17:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

14. bd2412 T 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
15. --Thogo (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Dakdada 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
17. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Robert Ullmann 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
19. MGSpiller 22:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Jeffqyzt 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Of course (just in case this gets to 25 before the next ice age). Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
22. ArielGlenn 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments

• As this has not yet reached 25 votes after more than a year, I think it is time to archive. The candidacy should be raised again if desired. - DaveRoss 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Acceptance of nomination:
  • To the extent that this is a discussion as to whether my current "guest" status should be made indefinite, I accept. If the community elect not to support me, I will request my guest status revoked as soon as two native checkusers have been confirmed and promoted. Kelly Martin 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support

1. Since she has already been trusted with the tool so far. Kipmaster 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --Connel MacKenzie 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Enginear 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
4. —Stephen 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. --Versageek 04:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Jon Harald Søby 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. — Vildricianus 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. TheDaveRoss 01:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Rod (A. Smith) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
10. --Tosca 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
11. GerardM 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Dvortygirl 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Taxman 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
14. --Thogo (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
15. --Dijan 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
16. SemperBlotto 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Paul G 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Per Connel's comment below. bd2412 T 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Robert Ullmann 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
20. \Mike 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
21. MGSpiller 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Jeffqyzt 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Nothing personal, but we now have enough native CheckUsers to make her redundant, in my opinion. Thanks for doing it while we didn't though - it's much appreciated. —Celestianpower ^háblame 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
   • I do not understand the objection. With over 40+ admins, we still occasionally fall short of needed coverage. CheckUsers are similar, but slightly less urgent. If I reach 25 votes, and no others do, I will not be granted the checkuser flag (as there would be no one to verify that I do not abuse the privilege, therefore meta: would not grant me the ability.) Kelly Martin has been doing an excellent job of clearing the CheckUser requests we have had so far. Her ability to check the Wikipedia CU logs adds tremendous value and insight on borderline results. --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
     • That's the point, in my mind: "slightly less urgent". We can always wait for a native Wiktionarian CheckUser to do the job (or pester a steward, if it needs to be done quickly). Hence, I don't believe we need a Wikipedian to do this role. Again, I have nothing against Kelly in particular. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
       • That's 'Wikimedian', if you please. Kelly Martin 12:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

         I agree with Connell that "Her ability to check the Wikipedia CU logs adds tremendous value and insight on borderline results." --Enginear 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comments

• As this has not yet reached 25 votes after more than a year, I think it is time to archive. The candidacy should be raised again if desired. - DaveRoss 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)