Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Bryan
Bryan for checkuser
Thanks for all your support. I have been promoted to CheckUser by the Stewards. I hope I can help the community with these tools. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the exceptions of the likes of the Ferrol case the work is not overwhelming however with that case & other complex ones it is useful to be able to have another CU review results rather than take hasty action (Larry & I work like that). This posting resulted in quite a number of blocks (it was two cases in a sense) so not all CU works comes from actual requests. About 50% of our "listed" Checkusers are inactive in the sense that they have not used the rights for around six months and so it seems fair to say that the main currently active ones are Larry & myself. Both Larry & I have other areas which take up our time both here and elsewhere (though I must stress we have no intention of being inactive!).
There are a number of very hard working reliable admins on Commons and Bryan is certainly one of them. He deals with most aspects of Commons and in a considered way. He interacts well with other users (essential in my mind). He would add greatly to the meager stock of languages that Larry & I have. It is my belief that he is well trusted and very competent and I'd appreciate the community's support for this nomination. --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. As per the m:CheckUser policy, I am of legal age and willing to provide identification to the Wikimedia Foundation. I currently have access to the OTRS system and I fully understand the seriousness and sensibility of the CheckUser tool. In previous cases I have cooperated somewhat with the existing checkusers and I believe I have sufficient knowledge of the technical details of the tool to handle it. I will promise to try my best to not disappear in the well known black hole ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
Support as nominator of course --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I don't know wth he wants the additional hassle for. Incontestibly trustworthy. Cary Bass demandez 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support!!!! What Cary said. But yes, will make a fine CU. Promise us not to neglect your bots! ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naturally. --MichaelMaggs 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Polarlys 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! --Digon3 talk 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the Foundation requirements. No worries about trust. Works well with the community. Glad the nom accepted this important task. FloNight♥♥♥ 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bryan is trustworthy and Commons could use another checkuser given Lar and Herby's responsibilities elsewhere. WjBscribe 06:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all good --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure thing. :-) --Iamunknown 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adambro 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FloNight ~ Riana ⁂ 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't think of any problems here. Valentinian (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finn Rindahl 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bryan is a great user since I first knew him from Requests and votes. That was before he became an administrator, and ever since he became one, he has been influential in lots of Commons discussions and processes. Giving him checkuser rights will only further make Bryan a better user. Cheers, (→O - RLY?) 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This question has not directly to do with my other problems so - why not. But please don't go like the other CUs after a short period. Marcus Cyron 09:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good guy to get the tool. Majorly (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, per all of the above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No-brainer here... Bryan is one of our most active and upstanding users, and absolutely trustworthy. --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support PatríciaR msg 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Duh![reply]
Support. I have no objections. --ALE! ¿…? 10:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian NurtschTM 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason at all for me not to be lucky number twenty-five. Jahiegel 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, except that I can't count; I see that I'm really number twenty-four. Oh well... Jahiegel 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the core projects could use more quality checkusers. Bryan's got the support of people whose opinions I trust. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy, count me in. --Tarawneh 15:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to oppose, a responsible user. --Benhello! 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless I already have supported. / Fred J 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions & Comments
Which Checkusers are inactive? Marcus Cyron 12:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alphax, Ausir, Arnomane in adminstrative & checkuser related business and Yann partly. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they must lost the CU-Buttons. CU is not like other Jobs. They can see Dates, which the other shouldn't see - and this with a good cause. This should be the main question, not to look for the next. Marcus Cyron 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Marcus Cyron :) I understand your point. It is a question to be asked in another venue, I think. What we are trying to decide here is if Bryan has Right Stuff to do the job as the current most active CUs think adding another person would be beneficial to the project. Okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to add to that that I think that for checkusers a strict inactivity limit should be enforced. In case that this request succeeds and I will have a long period of inactivity in the future, I will request my checkuser status to be revoked. The CheckUsership is a tool, not a status, and one should only have if one needs it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Marcus Cyron :) I understand your point. It is a question to be asked in another venue, I think. What we are trying to decide here is if Bryan has Right Stuff to do the job as the current most active CUs think adding another person would be beneficial to the project. Okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they must lost the CU-Buttons. CU is not like other Jobs. They can see Dates, which the other shouldn't see - and this with a good cause. This should be the main question, not to look for the next. Marcus Cyron 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reset
I'm going to take a look at this aspect - I think the admin policy should be reviewed with regard to activity of CUs specifically. I'll post elsewhere on it when I've thought (they are inactive though as Bryan says) --Herby talk thyme 08:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is worth trying to formulate some guidelines on as well. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be worth thrashing out an idea at Commons talk:Requests for checkuser for a checkuser activity guideline. WjBscribe 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a request on Meta for the rights for Bryan - my thanks to all for supporting this nomination --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]