Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for oversight/Billinghurst

< Meta:Requests for oversight
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Billinghurst edit

I would like to nominate myself for an oversight role here at meta, as we seem to be down to three, and recent calls in IRC for OS have not met with an obvious response. I am aware of the requirements for OS, and have undertaken that component through other duties as a WMF volunteer I am an admin here for about two to three years, a checkuser for two and a steward for about two. I am identified to the WMF, meet the age requirements and have read and understand the old and the forthcoming privacy policy, such that I believe that I tick off those requirements.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. I'm not aware of any incorrect usage of the OS access by billinghurst in his steward role and since he has access to private data here anyway I don't see any reason why we shouldn't let him actively suppress private information here, too. Vogone (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I'd prefer to have less hat stacking going on, simply because when billinghurst goes inactive we'll lose a great steward, CU and OS, but he is very active right now and obviously can be trusted with the bit. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise to try and fade slowly! Though I note and agree with your implicit message that we need to bring on and promote the local admins, as those who have the hat will be our stewards of the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it :). The point of slight concern is that all but two of our local CU/OS are stewards - it was my understanding that meta CU/OS was originally designed to include non-stewards, and we seem to be doing a poor job of that. However, at the same time, stewards tend to be the most active and involved with meta so perhaps that was a forlorn goal. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. We currently don't have an OS around his timezone and he can be usually found on IRC when other meta oversighters are not around. --Glaisher [talk] 17:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, why not? A note in advance for the current oversighters would have been nice. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support No complaints. Theo10011 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support No complaints, especially since he does a lot of work around here. - Snajdowski This user is a member of the SWMT 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support - hard working volunteer with a good track record and who has met the "tick box" requirements already. Green Giant (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support - Trustworthy, responsible and hardworking. Can't think of a better person as an OS here. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Leitoxx 15:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Aude (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support. Érico Wouters msg 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Billinghurst is always ready to help. Savhñ 13:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, please. --M/ (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support, I'm rather busy currently, Courcelles isn't much active, and so we only have DerHexer and myself as active oversighters for that project. I wouldn't mind getting some help. -Barras talk 14:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support. Very active and helpful user, experienced with the tool. LlamaAl (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. –Ejs-80 22:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support, of course. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support, trusted and helpfull. Alex Pereira falaê 18:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support, no question about it. Trijnsteltalk 09:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support, sure. --Stryn (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, obviously. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support. --Lanwi1(Talk) 09:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support This user has been on Meta for long enough to be trusted. I would like some Oversight help from a user like this. --Akifumii (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support --Defender (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than 2 weeks passed since this voting was opened. That is enough for closing it, right?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. WM:RFA doesn't have any rules about the time for OS requests ("Oversight: please read the Oversight policy and add your request below under the oversight section, in the same way as an admin request"; the minimum time for adminship requests, as is mentioned several times on that page, is 7 days). However one would think there should be a maximum time, otherwise the 25 votes requirement can be fulfilled over months, which would be pointless. --MF-W 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment about the policy, not this specific issue. Smaller communities simply take longer to get to numbers, as they have a smaller core, and long term editors come in fits and spurts. Leaving it to local bureaucrats and the local communities to determine their maximum make sense to me in theory and from seeing this in practice, especially as there is typically steward overview of such requests, so setting specific time maximums just imposes more burdens on all but the mega communities, rather on the needs of these communities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request should succeed. More than 25 votes in support (and no opposes) were given in < 3 weeks. I will make a request to the noble group of uninvolved stewards on SRP. --MF-W 16:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rights were given by M7. --MF-W 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_oversight/Billinghurst&oldid=15173700"