Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Mardetanha

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Upon reflection, I think Commons needs CUs more than an oversighter, so I am going to instead ask that the community entrust me with those tools. Thanks to those who already supported my request here, but I have decided to ask for a different set of tools here --Mardetanha talk 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mardetanha

NOTE: This request will run for at least 2 weeks, the earliest closing time is 16:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Links for Mardetanha: Mardetanha (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I have the humble honour to nominate Mardetanha for the oversight permission. Mardetanha has plenty of experience, including cross-wiki experience, knows plenty of languages, has clue and is really trustworthy (which I'm not saying lightly at all). He is an OTRS member, steward, oversighter and an admin on several other projects with high activity levels. He is usually being asked to apply for these permissions, due to his excellent record, and high activity levels. If he couldn't work efficiently, as an oversighter, Mardetanha would've humbly declined this RFO, so he said. He is a honest, and humble person. We could do more with those. Very easily contacted, and responds in a timely matter, with clued replies and has a sensible approach needed for this permission. We don't necessarily need more oversighters, but having more clued-up editors such as Mardetanha with this permission would be helpful. Currently we only have three oversighters, and promoting another oversighter would let the current oversighters get less work and Mardetanha being able to take care of the current workload, which would be a good thing. Mardetanha takes a lot of care with incidents regarding the privacy policy, and understands how to proceed with such requests. As a steward, he has access to sensitive permissions, such as oversight and checkuser. He has past experience with such tools. Mardetanha can be trusted to use this tool in accordance with the privacy policy and with common sense. As I said above, we could do with more oversighters. Not too many, but not too few. He has my strongest support, and that isn't being given lightly. I only give strong support to a few users. I ask you to support a perfectly good candidate for the oversight permission. Thank you for the consideration, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the community trusts me as a OS i would be happy to serve the role --Mardetanha talk 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Strong support as nom. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support - Is already trusted with such access, so this seems obvious. Tiptoety talk 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good heavens  yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support OK for me. Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support - Fellow steward, and while we do not have trouble keeping up with the volume of requests, he would extend the hours of coverage a bit since his sleep cycle is shifted farther east than Rama's and Raymond's. However, he lives somewhere where the government is not widely considered "free", and Commons is used globally. Mardetanha agreed not to run certain types of (CU) requests on wikis that might subject him to issues with his security apparatus... Oversight is a bit less sensitive but I would still expect Mardetanha to use his discretion. (and I know he will, I mention this mostly to alleviate potential concern). ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Strong support - Great editor, great steward, and even better, great global positioning. NuclearWarfare (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Strong support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. As with all RfOV here at Commons this needs to run a minimum of 2 weeks, get 25 supports, and at least an 80% margin of support (the latter two are Foundation requirements) and the successful candidate needs to be identified to the Foundation. As a Steward, Mardetanha already has identified. Note also that our practice among the current oversighters is that whenever we receive a request via mail, our emailed reply CC's all of us oversighters. I would anticipate this practice continuing, at least as long as I had any input into the matter. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it 70 to 80%? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While the guideline at Meta has fluctuated (it was 80% then someone edited in 70 to 80 at one point and it survived, IIRC), it is 80% here by common practice so I misspoke when I said it was a foundation requirement. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure . I am happy with this practice --Mardetanha talk 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Mardetanha&oldid=28298576"