Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Romaine

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as unsuccessful. --Lymantria (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romaine[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 13:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
I present to you Romaine, registered on Wikimedia for almost 12 years, he has been present on this project from the start as an administrator. Multilingual, he is also sysop and bureaucrat on a multitude of projects.

Romaine is one of the essential links of Wikidata, totaling 2M + editions, deleting pages among others.

If I write about this contributor, it is because he has the capacity to take on the role of CU. Pending his own opinion on this application, do not hesitate…

Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Strong support QED —Eihel (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Epìdosis 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Regretful oppose While I really appreciate your contribution to Wikidata, looking through your admin activity, notably your blocks, I cannot see anything relevant to CU, like dealing with LTAs, socks, or spambots. That being said, and while I am sure you wouldn't abuse it, I fail to see how been CU would help you or the project. However I would be more than happy to support you after you have some direct involvement in these areas, and I hope you will keep up the good work, regardless of the outcome. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose First of all, nominating someone else to be CU is a bit bizarre. I'm not really convinced that the candidate has the relevant experience to handle CU - unlike OS this requires technical knowledge and policy knowledge and I see neither. CU isn't an additional hat that is the next level beyond admin. --Rschen7754 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Romaine is known for integrity, tech-savvy and attention to detail: perfect for a CheckUser position. Thank you for standing as a candidate! Nemo 15:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Neutral; no concerns about the candidate, but I do not see the need for local checkusers —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose I have great respect for Romaine. But I do not think he has enough relevant experience for CheckUser, with less than a dozen blocks at all on this project, let alone the anti-sockpuppetry work that is prerequisite for this role.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose While it's allowed to nominate someone else, I don't think this should be the case for a CheckUser position, and I'm therefore not convinced of the candidate's motivation here. — Envlh (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support I trust all three of you. --Wolverène (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sorry, I believe relevant experiences is a requirement for CheckUser in deciding whether you should check this person or not, and I am not really convinced that you have that experiences. — regards, Revi 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Per Kostas. --Esteban16 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Very experienced, but just not in the relevant areas for CU. ミラP 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support per Nemo. --Dick Bos (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose per Kostas. --Minorax (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support per with enough checks from the rest of CU team, I think they can learn on the job. Well trusted here and elsewhere.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support trusted user: I think of Romaine each time I look at a picture of Atomium .. Active contributor of Wikidata. I don't think the function doesn't require blocking users, maybe it's better if not. --- Jura 16:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Weak support That block log indicates that user is not particularly not active in the area where these tools can help. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Weak support. Bencemac (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Neutral don't doubt the trusted nature, and has sysop rights (lots!), I am just not understanding why. I have not seen them particularly active in this defence area.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Someone: See the hidden comment at the "RfP scheduled to end ..." and modify as needed. — regards, Revi 12:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why do you think you should be a checkuser on this wiki? I want to hear from you about your motivation as for "why I should become a CheckUser", not someone else's. — regards, Revi 13:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intention is as always offering a helping hand where help is needed. If someone is thinking about me instead of the many other users to help as Checkuser in dealing with issues on this project, I am happy to do so. As said, I am willing to do the tasks, but I do not like to make it here like a political voting in what I need to say "vote for me, vote for me, because...". The tendency I have noticed the past years on Wikidata is that there is too much a wish for candidates in various roles that are 300% perfect with a magic golden aura around them, etc.
    • The Checkuser tool is an extremely powerful and sensitive tool and should be used with extreme care and responsibility. For that reason on for example the Dutch Wikipedia it has been decided that the function of Checkuser cannot be combined with the role of admin. Each community is of course unique, but it brings (general) risks on Wikidata if the community decides to give Checkuser rights to those admins on Wikidata that are dealing with many blocks/sockpuppets. So dealing with many blocks/sockpuppets is a pro for one community, while is a con in another community.
    • To my opinion, the only way to get really the experience for using the Checkuser tool, is by using the Checkuser tool itself, not by whatever other admin actions. In that way I can say I am inexperienced regarding using the Checkuser tool, together with the large majority of users active on Wikidata.
    • In the past eight years there have been multiple cases in what I and others have been the victim of multiple sockpuppets that worked cross-wiki. (I write in past tense, but some have ISPs that standard provide dynamic IP addresses as that is common, so they can easily retry to disturb.) As a Checkuser always needs to work independent and neutral, when Wikidata gets Checkusers, we must ensure the number of them is large enough to ensure they can always work independent and uninvolved. Over the years I have followed a bit the many sockpuppets we had in the Dutch Wikipedia, so to future Checkusers: feel free to ask privately regarding cases on the Dutch community. Romaine (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/CheckUser/Romaine&oldid=1166862801"