Meta:Requests for oversight/Nakon

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

I am requesting access to the Oversight permission on Meta. I am an active administrator and bureaucrat here (9th overall) and I meet the Foundation's requirements for access. As of now, there are zero users with oversight on Meta, aside from stewards. Thanks for your consideration, Nakon 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy.  07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support trustworthy user, and, everytime I've ever needed to get ahold of Nakon on IRC, I've had no problems doing so. SQL^{Query me!} 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support leaning toward neutral, only because I don't believe there's a need for local oversight on Meta. However, lodging a record of my support because I believe that Nakon is trustworthy enough to merit the rights if we do decide there's a need for oversight at some point in the future. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support per cary --Mardetanha ^talk 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support trusted, --Kiensvay 10:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support, agree with Cary that Nakon is trusted, and I think local access is beneficial here. Cirt 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Provisional  Support. Provided that stewards continue to check the oversight logs for cross checking and accountability until a second oversighter can be elected. I trust this user, and it is my personal belief that each local project (and in the sense that for the purposes of oversight and checkuser, I'll consider meta a local on in this context only, meta is actually projects coordination). NonvocalScream 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Oppose Interaction with this user has been more than unsatisfactory I'm afraid. While this was in connection with the Blacklist the indifference to following the wishes of the community were too extreme for me to support an extension of rights to a sensitive area. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do agree that I acted rather poorly with that incident and I apologize for any problems I may have caused. I was used to logging entries one way and didn't understand that the new process did make things easier for the removal requests. I have been following the new format with my recent entries. Nakon 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Unless I am missing something I see no link to your user talk archive? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I cleared it out but forgot to move it to an archive, it's available here Nakon 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.  Oppose - well my only reason for oppose is though Nakon is an active user, he hardly ever interacts with anyone both on wiki and IRC and is very hard to communicate with and he is very unresponsive as well...--Cometstyles 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose per Herby. Communication is severely lacking, and I have concerns regarding unilateral actions given Nakon's atrocious behaviour - when there is a private log as with Oversight, that is a Bad Idea. Frankly, I'm surprised this nomination page exists right now, given the level of trust needed for this.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose per Herby and Cometstyles. --Thogo (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta. WjBscribe 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • The original idea of ours was to allow stewards to continue performing checkuser and oversight on Meta as they have been, but to add our own active local representatives to handle day-to-day issues in addition. Kylu 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     • We would need to get that written into our policy and have a consensus for it. Default is that once there are locals, Stewards would defer to them, except in emergencies... at least that's my interpretation, I'm going to float this past the other stewards. The upside of locals is that they would be able to easily look at the log, of course. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. oppose per Herby, I even wanted to vote for his removal in the admin confirmation because of this and few other things, but lately he seems to do better as admin. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 06:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Oppose --Marbot 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) neither steward nor checkuser[reply]
8.  Oppose Oversighters must be easy to get in touch with. Mww113 00:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{neutral}} - I have to say I'm unpersuaded that there's a need for local oversighters on meta. Given the number of stewards who regularly check in here, I would have thought they would be more than able to handle any need for that particular tool. Has there been any recent discussion I have missed about the need for oversight on meta? Also, are there any statistics available as to how many oversight actions are performed on meta per month? That would be useful in helping me make up my mind... WjBscribe 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some oversighting here as a Steward. My impression (no, I don't at this time have stats, sorry, just my impression) is that the need is still small (say, compared to en:wp) but regrettably on the increase. I'd rather we had elected Oversighters here, I think, which is why I decided to accept the nomination. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Neodrach - while I trust this candidate and they are amazingly hard-working, I believe some of the opposes above have valid points having taken a look. However, not nearly enough concern to oppose at this time - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Per Alison --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed.

No consensus to promote. Majorly ^talk 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]