Meta:Requests for checkuser/Fr33kman

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

Fr33kman

Fr33kman (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Hi all! I want to nominate myself for checkuser rights here on meta. I've been a steward here some time now and am active in crosswiki vandalism and abuse investigations. I'm a regular editor/admin/crat here for quite some time and also hold checkuser, crat and oversighter rights on the Simple English Wikipedia. This has given me good knowledge of the checkuser tool. As a steward there are times when this right would be useful to have here on meta. I'm also an active admin here on meta and so don't really feel comfortable using the right except in dire emergencies. Thanks! fr33kman 17:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

support Knows what he´s doing, trusted, Steward. Enough for me. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Meno25 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I surely trust you, but imo "we" should pick someone who's really active and I don't think you are the most suitable person atm. Sorry. Trijnstel_talk 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by this, as the candidate is not very active and holds many permissions across projects which demand his attention. I am hence opposing as we need active CUs, present on IRC when needed for quick checks, we already have plenty of CUs that can be relied up for not-immediate responses. I would advise the candidate to be more active in his current roles before asking for more flags. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with trust obviously however when I look at the log and the need for CU checks it looks to me like the current crop of CUs are covering things fairly well so a weak Oppose from me for now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trijnstel. Courcelles 22:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe he was working abroad with no internet access for a good while, but now he's back. Correct me if I'm wrong, fr33kman. Addihockey10 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was in Afghanistan for a few months but am back now and can't be recalled. fr33kman 23:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Addihockey10 above. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the current activity level, I am not sure this would be the most beneficial appointment at the present time. I believe a suitable level of activity should be attained (or reattained) before requesting additional higher permissions; therefore I oppose this for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trijnstel--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Trusted user, at the same time is there a need as there are currently 8 CU and all have been active in the past 6 weeks, though at various rates, and no evident holes. If the community thinks that we need another then sure. billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We'd hate to add another job onto your long list of things to do, per Snowolf. If there is a dire need for another CU, let's give it to one of the very active people. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The majority of objections are due to a lack of activity on wiki in recent months. Whilst I understand that you were in Afghanistan during this time, it is clear the community would like you to return to a higher level of activity before supporting this request. Therefore, I am closing as unsuccessful and advise you to return to a normal level of activity across projects before requesting further permissions. The Helpful One 23:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]