Forum:Choosing new CheckUsers

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Choosing new CheckUsers
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 January 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

Alright, the thread for reassigning checkusers has been closed as successful. Now it is time to decide which users will have access to the checkuser tool. I think that the best way to do this is to have individual sections for each nominated user and handle it RfA style, with a discussion for each one. Wikia Staff will be closing this one, and will pick the top four candidates.

Please keep this forum on-topic. This is not a proposal about not having checkusers at all, nor is it a debate-your-cause sort of thing. Like RfAs, this is for the community to decide whether or not a user is suitable for access to the tool, not to argue with every opposer. Finally, don't nominate me, because I doubt that I will be very active after the Christmas break is over. ajr 17:16, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Format for nominating:

{{SUBST:Forum:Choosing_new_CheckUsers/Template|Username of nominated user|Nomination blurb. ~~~~}}

Vote Chart[edit source]

A chart tracking the votes can be found here.

Dude..RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY..... Andrew talk 16:09, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
He's new here, and deserves a break for that reason. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:20, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations[edit source]

Karlis (Contribs - Log actions)[edit source]

Already have it, active, use it often enough, what else is there to say? Karlis (talk) (contribs) 17:26, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I was actually going to nominate you for it. Karlis uses this tool the most out of the current checkusers, and I see no reason to remove it in this case. ajr 17:31, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - D: dammit, Karlis ninja'd me. Mature, active, has the community's trust, good at being neutral. - [Pharos] 17:34, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - very active.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

17:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --LiquidTalk 17:57, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good choice. Per Karlis basically...he said everything that needed to be said. HaloTalk 18:01, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:07, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The pretty blue sig is proof of how much we trust Karlis. Real Crazy 18:11, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

RS:AEAE. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 20:27, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
...but not. What Real is saying is that because he passed an RfB he is more likely to be trusted than someone who has not. AEAE is about weight in discussions and has zero relevance to this. ʞooɔ 20:58, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, not much else to say. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Already does a great job. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ----クールネシトーク 21:55, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Halo. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, not much else to say. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - active, trustworty andd uses it well currently. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:03, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per all. Andrew talk 19:45, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - duh JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:10, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Matt (t) 08:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Gaz Lloyd (Contributions - Log actions)[edit source]

The current checkusers are from Massachusetts (Azaz), Washington State (Karlis), Singapore (Caleb), and I think Andrew is also American. To spread the time zones out somewhat, I think a European checkuser is needed. Gareth is very active both on the wiki and in-game, and I think he is a good pick. --LiquidTalk 17:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 17:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Another that I was going to nominate. Per nom. ajr 17:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Completely trustworthy user who would make excellent use of these additional tools. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 17:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No reason not to.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

18:00, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I trust Gareth, he won't abuse it. Good guy. HaloTalk 18:01, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 18:02, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:07, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Gaz is "Never gonna let you down". Real Crazy 18:11, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Real. bad_fetustalk 19:48, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Definitely trustworthy. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ----クールネシトーク 21:55, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:18, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above, good to keep the checkusers spread over timezones. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We need a European. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Gaz is very trustworthy and it's good to have someone with CU available for as much as possible - spreading out the time zones CU users are in does this. Dragon 2h sword old.pngCallofduty4 Talk 09:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:11, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A European checkuser would be good and i can't think of anyone better. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:49, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - European = Yes --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Real. Matt (t) 08:52, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Calebchiam (Contributions - Log actions)[edit source]

We need a checkuser from the Eastern hemisphere. I can't think of anyone besides Caleb who would be suitable for the task. Caleb is here for a good chunk of the day, looking at his contributions, and he already has it (whee for making our lives easier). --LiquidTalk 18:04, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:04, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support per below.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

18:05, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:07, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have no doubt that he would do a great job with it, but by his own admission he will only be active for 1-2 hours per day. The entire point of this was to assign it to active users so it can be used to it's maximum potencial. ajr 18:09, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

That is active enough for checkuser. HaloTalk 18:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
No, not for checkuser. As I've said many, many times - when checkuser is needed, it is needed right away. Giving it to someone who will rarely be on when it is needed is a bad idea. ajr 20:06, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
We will never have 24/7 coverage. I don't care which 4 people you choose. Hell with ~30 very active administrators we don't even have 24/7 coverage. I don't think 1-2 hours/daily constitutes "rarely". HaloTalk 23:22, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd clarify that although I will only be able to edit 1-2 hours per day, that doesn't mean I'm only reachable for that timeframe. I still have computer access for at least 4 hours a day (that only happens twice in a week), and for the other days, I'll have 8 hours+ of computer access. I'm only a message away, so in other words, I'm quite reachable on most occasions. C.ChiamTalk 03:15, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. HaloTalk 18:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Infinite loop much? 20:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Already does a great job, I don't think there's a need to remove it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I understand the idea here, but I'm not sure Caleb is active enough to make full use of the tool. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ----クールネシトーク 21:55, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Two hours a day sounds sufficient, especially because he is covering a predominantly non-English speaking time-zone (which therefore has fewer wikians online, as this is the English wiki). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A checkuser in the Eastern Hemisphere is essential. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per my support of karlis. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Per ajrabbitz. The more active, the better.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chessmaster (talk) on 12:33, December 25, 2010 (UTC).

Support - I think Caleb is one of the most trustworthy editors of the wiki. The fact he won't be on very often is not a problem, as checkuser is not something only for people who are very active, but for people we trust. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:09, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yea. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We need checkuser somewhere other than the western hemisphere. Caleb's pretty much the only one active on the eastern.(At least what I've seen) Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 10:58, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - His time zone is certainly useful and based on experience on RuneScape and in the wiki he is both active and easily reached (has handled a number of requests for sysop attention, eg blocks, from me in CC pretty much immediately).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henneyj (talk) on 7 January 2011 at 07:56.

Liquidhelium (Contribs - Log actions)[edit source]


Active, mature, would use the extra tools wisely, what more can I say?

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

18:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC) Support as nominator.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

18:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Declined - Sorry, I'm not that active, and I won't be next year. I'd rather let someone with greater future potential have it. --LiquidTalk 18:11, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Iiii I I I (Contributions - Log actions)[edit source]

I can't say enough about this guy. He seems like he never sleeps, he has WONDERFUL commitment (logging so many edits each day for so long; the only break he took for the past year was a two week vacation in July/August). He's also from the East Coast of the US, which is nice to replace Azaz. --LiquidTalk 18:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support but if he gets Checkuser he really should archive his talk so people like me with crap internet connetions don't have to wait 5 minutes for his page to load so we can make a request.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

18:16, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - iiiiiiiiii ajr 18:16, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Unless he really does find Palpatine hot. Real Crazy 18:27, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Excellent antivandalist, will use it well. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. HaloTalk 18:54, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Perfect choice. 19:45, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Are IP's allowed to vote? 19:46, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, yes. RS:AEAE. Second, that was me, I forgot to login. bad_fetustalk 19:47, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
There are situations where Ips cannot vote, mainly when discussion is about a user (RFAs, UOTM), as these are more likely to have sockpuppets. One could argue that the same applies here, as this is quite similar to an RFA. However, without consensus to prevent Ip voting here, RS:AEAE is sufficient to protect their ability to vote. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Always on. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:56, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But no games please. ʞooɔ 20:08, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ----クールネシトーク 21:55, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and you are all way too trusting He has ALREADY violated a trust of tools! What is wrong with you people? He misused blocking as a game so you reward him with more tools? I swear the 12 year olds are taking over the wiki.--Degenret01 07:23, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Has a history of messing with tools, and we don't need that many American checkusers. Steler has a valid point on the time zones. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Pending/Oppose? - Brain's comment is key. You have used blocking as a game in the past, though you shouldn't continue to be held accountable for that if you've shown considerable regret. As for Brain's second point, the American part, we have to keep in mind what part of America he is from. There's a four hour difference between here (East Coast, where Iiiiiiii is) and Washington State, where both Cook and Karlis live (the other American candidates). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Stelercus! You're American. If a foreigner had made this mistake I'd let it slide. But you of all people should know the US time zones. I'll recap them quickly... Eastern Standard Time at UTC-5, Central Standard Time at -6, MST at -7, and Pacific Standard Time at -8. That means there's a three, not four, hour difference between Pennsylvania, in Eastern Standard Time, and Washington, in Pacific Standard Time. --LiquidTalk 15:59, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but that comment is completely irrelevant to this thread (making it spam). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:13, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per steler JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:14, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Steler did not support. A "support per Steler" doesn't make sense here. --Degenret01 09:42, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
He did not support. But i do support, per the reasons steler gave. so i support because that blocking for fun was quite long ago, and that the time zones are quite different still. I could also have said that, but "per steler" normally means the same. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:57, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
If you are voting "per" somebody else, it is as if you are copying their comment exactly. You can't support per a negative vote. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:13, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
ok then i Support - Per Steler's reasoning JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 06:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - We only need 4 checkusers and I think he is just outside the top 4 candidates in my opinion. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:49, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

A question for everyone - Is there actually a reason we only have 4 checkuser(er)s, and are we restricted to that many? I'm not advocating having a bunch, but I'm not sure why we seem to think we can only have 4. ʞooɔ 06:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
No, we've never been restricted to four, I've always kept the number at that due to the increased risk associated with spreading the tool around willy nilly and since that was the initial number Wikia was happy to have us at. I doubt there will be an issue with a few more, though I'm not necessarily in favour of it.-- 00:38, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We already have enough. Looking at Degen's comment, I guess I cannot trust you. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

How is the above link relevant to this discussion in any way possible, please don't post irrelevant comments. Unless you don't trust him because he rickrolled you, because that would be an atrocious reason to oppose. 222 talk 00:03, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Soldier 1033 (Contribs - Log actions)[edit source]

I already have it, and I am active and will be making an effort to make that more visibly obvious than before in the future. Andrew talk 23:35, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Other users will be able to make better use of it. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:39, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - People still fail to realise that not editing != not active. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:41, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose fairly inactive compared to other candidates.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

23:50, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - People still fail to realise that not being active in countervandalism != a good candidate for checkuser. ajr 23:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how his activity in countervandalism at all relates to his ability to process checkuser requests. Unless it is your opinion that checkusers should only perform the action on vandalism they personally witness, then the only relevant component is how fast you can post "checkuser this guy" on his talk or in any other venue, and get a result from him. Which is fast because although he doesn't edit he checks his talk often. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:54, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser is only ever used in countervandalism. Naturally it makes sense that people who have access to a countervandalism tool are active in countervandalism. ajr 18:52, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Andrew not being active in revering vandalism and blocking people in no way inhibits his ability to process checkuser requests, and likewise, someone who is active in coutnervandalism is no more able to process check user requests than Andrew. His activity as far as editing and countervandalism goes is totally irrelevant. All that matters is how fast the turnaround is, and its very short. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:56, December 25, 2010 (UTC)!
I'm curious..does the fact that I haven't blocked/clicked on the rollback button much in awhile mean I'm not "experienced" or something? I can assure you I still know what I'm doing. I'm not going to argue, but I am a little puzzled here. Andrew talk 03:25, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, it doesn't mean that at all. What it does mean is that you won't ever actually need to use the tool itself - and it makes sense for people who need the tool to be the ones who have access to it. ajr 03:41, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
*scratches head*..but no checkuser may ever 'need' to use it because if someone else is the one dealing with the vandalism, all they have to do is respond to talk page requests quickly. I'm still not understanding your logic here, but we can always agree to disagree.......... Andrew talk 03:48, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Argue and refute as much as you like, but we can see ourselves you have not been active enough, and "making an effort" if you get the tools isn't enough either. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - not active enough. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. Sorry Andrew, but you really aren't active enough. bad_fetustalk 12:33, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Chess. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - When looking at the log above, he looks more inactive than I am, with edits a few times a month, and I wondered why he was asserting activity. Checking all of his contributions, however, I realized that he is active. He edits at least every other day, and, on those days, he edits across a spread of hours, by which I mean he edits, for example, at the hours of 6, 17, 19, and 23. As such, I find it completely believable for him to be online almost continously throughout the day, and it seems to me that being active and trustworthy, which he is, should be enough to qualify him as a trusted someone who can be reached via talkpage to perform a simple task. Since I've heard of edit conflicts on reversions from our zealous antivandalism department, I fail to understand why our trusted and active candidate must involve himself in the whack-a-vandal competition to prove his activity and trustworthiness. Leftiness 15:42, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's active enough for this. --LiquidTalk 16:41, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Psycho. HaloTalk 18:28, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As Lefti said, it would appear he is active. And what happens if he goes inactive? We have 1 CheckUser-enabled account that doesn't use it. If that happens, so what? Just looking at this page, there is plenty of nominees for the tool, so if we lose one, there'll be someone to take Andrew's place. Real Crazy 19:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I do not trust him at all.--Degenret01 05:36, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Like RfAs, this is a great way to get feedback from others and make improvements, but I can't learn anything from "I do not trust him at all." Andrew talk 15:59, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew here; even though I opposed I don't understand the thinking behind this one either. 18:35, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Its because your name is green! Green-namers are bad people. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:54, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I am convinced by Andrews pattern of behavior that he wishes to retain this tool for a status symbol. Yes, of course I realize many people will tell me I am wrong and no way and what not. None the less, this is what I think.--Degenret01 23:12, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well then, I respect your opinion. Andrew talk 23:52, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Were I in Andrews position, even if I didn't care at all about being a check user, I'd still put up a fight if people were going to get rid of it for such an illogical reason. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While activity is important, and we cannot accurately gage how truly active you are, you are an active and able counter vandal. You weren't given the tool based solely on activity, judgement is important as well, and as far as I'm concerned, you still are as able as the day you received the tool.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

00:43, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Let me just say that I know my nomination is probably going to fail, and I'm OK with that; if the community doesn't think I should be a checkuser anymore, so be it. What I do have a problem with, however, is hypocrisy. Caleb has made it clear that his time will be limited and I am being accused of not being active enough, yet some of the same people that supported Caleb opposed me for being inactive. Where's the consistency in that? It feels like a slap in the face from the community, and I seem to be getting the short end of the stick here. I certainly hope that the Wikia staff member(s) that close this discussion pay close attention to the reasons and consistency behind each support and oppose. Andrew talk 06:56, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

The reason Caleb's nomination has more support even though he will have limited time on the wiki is because the Eastern hemisphere need a checkuser, and there aren't any other sysops else active in this part of the world. As a result, we had to support Caleb even though he would not be fully active. 222 talk 07:05, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's a pathetic excuse to justify hypocrisy. "Oh, he's in a different time zone" is not an excuse. Anyways, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here and I really don't think this needs to turn into another debate. I was just stating my opinion. Andrew talk 16:42, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
If admins A and B live in the same timezone (or range of timezones), then only one of them should be a Checkuser under the logic that the number of Checkusers should be minimal and spread over the timezones. If only one of them should be a Checkuser, then the most active of the two should be chosen. At the same time, if admin C is the only active admin in his timezone range, then he should be a Checkuser. Considering that Cook is active during most hours eastern Americans are and that Cook and that Karlis covers the West, all of the Western Hemisphere is covered. I understand why you want to keep your Checkuser rights, but with everything else that's been said, it amounts to you not being active enough for this. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:38, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Stelercus, please read what I said again. I stated that I'm fine with losing checkuser and that I'm not interested in turning this into a debate; I was simply stating my opinion. Andrew talk 01:00, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
I think he has every right to defend our overall comments, especially after you accused us of hypocrisy, essentially saying that we are lying. 222 talk 01:22, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Even though you're fine with losing it, I'm assuming you still want to keep it, based on the fact that I would feel the same in your position. Your opinion is that I am a hypocrite. I am not a hypocrite, so I'm reacting with why that is the case. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 03:05, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but we will leave it at at agreeing to disagree. I did not accuse anyone of lying, though. Andrew talk 06:38, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffwang16 (talk).

Support - I thought he was very inactive until I realized how often he's actually on RuneScape. Sure, he doesn't edit as religiously as he used to, but he's available very often and I think he's capable of handling this (he has for nearly two years.) ʞooɔ 06:20, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I feel that your main motivation for 'deserving' it is that you used to have this tool in the past, however I believe it could be given to users that would have more use for it. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 14:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody can have any more use for checkuser than anybody else. Leftiness 03:08, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
That's the whole point of this thread. It's to decide who would have more use. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 03:12, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
The point is to determine who's qualified to perform a simple task. Truly, I doubt it's possible to determine which 4 of these 6 users will use the tool most effectively because it's so simple and especially because it's used so rarely, and there isn't any practical way to go about deciding. Since Wikia originally provided us with 4 checkusers, and since we only have 6 users with accepted nominations, I wonder why we don't provide all 6 with checkuser rights. Two more checkusers will certainly make it more likely for one to be around immediately when the tool is needed, but 6 is not so large a number as to be extreme, and having 6 checkusers would prevent what is in my opinion a lot of unnecessary discussion and "per" votes... Leftiness 07:07, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Cook Me Plox (Contribs - Log actions)[edit source]

Active throughout all times of the day, very trustworthy to use the tool properly. Degenret01 07:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cook is active at times many editors from his area aren't, would be a good candidate for checkuser. 222 talk 07:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very trustworthy user and always active. No reason really why he wouldn't be a great candidate. Suppa chuppa Talk 08:13, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. 08:23, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Chess (I think), you should sign in so people know it's you. Suppa chuppa Talk 08:28, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Gah, I keep forgetting, since I normally automatically login at home. Not home atm. Anyways, why is it important if it's me or not? bad_fetustalk 08:50, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
yes, because we hold IP comments in higher regard than yours Lol 222 talk 09:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Z0mg RS:AEAE. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:02, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very active and trustworthy user. Dragon 2h sword old.pngCallofduty4 Talk 09:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very active, excellent editor, strongly trusted...the list goes on. Real Crazy 09:10, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Because he's one of the most trustworthy, active members of the wiki. Except for when he spams the RC. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:02, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per all LordDarkPhantom 12:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --Iiii I I I 13:33, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support ajr 15:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unless I get a few reassurances from Cook - I'd rather have our checkusers to be spread out geographically across multiple time zones in order to have as large a breadth as possible. Since Karlis looks like he's going to pass, we already have a checkuser from the PST (from the same state also). Having one from Seattle, WA and another from Spokane, WA is unnecessary when we can get someone on the East Coast to cover the earlier hours.

That being said, I've noticed that Cook is up at very "odd" times. I remember seeing him on at around 5-7 AM EST (which corresponds to 2-4 AM PST) several times. If he can offer me his reassurances that his activity will not significantly drop, then I can support this, given the fact that time zones are probably irrelevant given his long activity time here. --LiquidTalk 16:45, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am often on between around 4 and 7 EST. I can't say for certain that I will be on there every day, but I see no reason why my activity at those hours should drop. ʞooɔ 19:43, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Although obviously I will not be very active between now and the end of my vacation. ʞooɔ 20:28, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support was going to nominate him myself.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

17:51, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yep. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:59, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Degen. Around more than most anyone else, trustworthy, always willing to help. Good choice. HaloTalk 18:29, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - First there is the timezone which is exactly the same as karlis' and then is that i think you are a little too impulsive, and a little too stubborn. If you got an idea, it is impossible to change your mind, which is not something that helps me support this nomination. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:17, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

As was explained by Liquid and myself above, yes, I share a timezone with Karlis, but I am often awake at strange hours, similar to those of Australians. And I am quite...resolute in my opinions, but I know when to back off and I don't see how this could or would affect my judgement. ʞooɔ 09:26, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't affect judgement, but I think that if you are that stubborn sometimes, it is not a good idea (imo) to give you very special tools then. I'd prefer someone else then. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:00, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. If it does not affect my judgement (which is what matters with CheckUser), in what way would it not be a good idea? Forgive me for saying this, but I think your opposition has more to do with personal reasons than anything else. ʞooɔ 18:27, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Hello Joey,
What on Earth does that have to do with Cook's eligibility for CheckUser?
ajr 01:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
What Ajr said. And, Cook is very open to new ideas or changing his own, as I have worked with him multiple times before. I have no idea where you got your stubbornness argument from. 222 talk 02:05, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely no offence, but I think you just described yourself, Joey. I don't think I have seen an example of where Cook's stubbornness (is he stubborn?) has affected his judgement. LordDarkPhantom 11:12, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, cook convinced me in IRC, change to Neutral JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:28, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easily the most active user on the wiki and one of the most trustworthy. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:49, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like my checkusers well done. Andrew talk 05:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't trust him very much. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide why? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:17, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
He teases me (and that's one of the reasons I wasn't active lately, because of HIM (and him only). [Finishes sentence] [Cries because of fear of the teasing I'm gonna see.] --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 03:32, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you're opposing because you don't like him. ajr 03:51, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
He was neutral, actually. However, my comments on your talk page were mainly to tell you to stop edit warring or screwing around. If you're talking about the issues with you blocking me on Chopedia, I was under the impression that that had been resolved. ʞooɔ 09:20, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A little late to the party, however I do believe Cook would never misuse these tools and I have yet to see a situation that would compromise his editing abilities to deny this tool. Ryan PM 16:33, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all. He is very trustworthy. Matt (t) 08:56, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Closing[edit source]

Asking wikia to come in and review this is really outside what they are supposed to do, and it makes us seem incapable of making our own decisions. We should be able to easily find a sysop or crat to review this, pick the four, and have him/her tell wikia what four to give the check user too. If we cannot do this ourselves, we should not even have this tool for anyone.--Degenret01 09:36, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Why four again? I believe there is no consensus to make it only four, and I also haven't seen any adequate reasons to limit it to four. While I'm not the person to determine consensus in these requests, I believe 5 person got enough support to pass. bad_fetustalk 16:15, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Degen (and Chess). As such: Karlis, Gaz Lloyd, CalebChiam, and Cook Me Plox have the most support. Iiii I I I also had significant support (if there is no reason we can't do 5). Unless anyone has a reasonable objection, I believe we should ask Wikia to make the changes in the checkusers to what I mentioned above. HaloTalk 03:24, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request that we tell Wikia staff the five names first, and then knock off Iiii I I I if they insist on limiting us to four. --LiquidTalk 03:35, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
It's also important to look at the opposes instead of just counting the supports, unless we're a democracy now.. I am not even talking about mine because I know it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Andrew talk 06:22, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't just look at supports. The people I listed appear to have the most consensus to me. As far as I'm concerned anyone (not just sysops) may go ahead and say that I'm wrong. Just because I said names doesn't mean we're going with the ones I said, and just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean we are going with theirs either. I was just throwing out something to take action. HaloTalk 03:29, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
Considering that we only had seven nominees, of which only six accepted the nominations, it's not that hard to pull the top four or five. I think that it's pretty clear that what you listed will be acceptable to the community in general. --LiquidTalk 03:43, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Message sent to Sannse with the requested 5.--Degenret01 14:04, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

And done (including the increase to 5 checkusers) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 18:37, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Looks like we're done here. For the ongoing discussion about a policy, please see Forum:CheckUser Policy. ʞooɔ 19:11, January 12, 2011 (UTC)