Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Bsadowski1

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closed as not promoted. For a successful request for checkusership are 25 votes in support needed. You have 21 votes 13/8. It is closed as not successful due to lack of input. There is no chance that you can pass it. Sorry!

--Barras talk 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bsadowski1

[change source]
Bsadowski1 (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: around 07:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I have only been an admin for almost 1 month, but sometimes there's sockpuppetry going on late at night.

I am willing to be a CheckUser here at Simple Wikipedia because I think I have what it takes. I am over 18, knowledgeable in relationships with IPs and usernames, and I have read Meta-Wiki's CheckUser policy. I also have some experience using the extension. I have done blockings of sockpuppets and I did a couple RfCHU's and one turned out to have a sockfarm. I would be willing also to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. I have also helped out Stewards lock confirmed sockpuppets. I have personally blocked confirmed sockpuppets of sockpuppeteers from English that SULed here. I also have blocked obvious socks that have edited here recently. I have been in contact with multiple CheckUsers here such as fr33kman and eptalon. I am also in contact with CUs at English.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 07:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Barras talk
Their behavioral patterns, behavior on other WMF wikis, and their XFF data (if any). --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct answer. Ok for me. --Barras talk 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. --Pmlineditor ∞ 07:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sounds reasonable. иιƒкч? 07:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fairly new as an admin, but active enough on the RFCU page. Majorly talk 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I think we need more checkusers, and I feel Bsadowski1 and JamesOfUr will both be great for the position.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I also own an iTouch as well. Good luck:P —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I think Bsadowski1 has shown excellent skills that would make him a great checkuser. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per his anwser. Seems to know what he is doing. --Barras talk 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I have worked with him on other wiki (not part of WMF) and think he would make an excellent checkuser here. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While I understand and share some of Julian's concerns, they do not bother me enough to change my default position of support. Best of luck, Brian. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I understand a lot of the concerns in the oppose section, in someways I've thought about them myself but in the end I still think that he would be able to do the job if he was given the opportunity, that he would do so with an understanding of privacy and asking questions if he didn't understand something. I do hope that if he doesn't receive the flag this go around that he trys again in the near future. James (T|C) 21:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Although only an admin for a month, has been quite active. Doesn't look like you have enough supports vs opposes at this time, but hopefully in a month or two. In my opinion, no concerns at this time that a month or two would change. EhJJTALK 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. While I have quite a bit of respect for you and I consider you a wiki-friend, I don't think you have the necessary experience or good judgment required to be a checkuser at the moment. You've only been an admin for about a month, which is a very short time, all things considered. While James hasn't been a sysop for much longer, I think he has the benefit of extensive cross-wiki anti-vandalism work and experience with checkuser actions on the more minor wikis. Checkuser is a powerful tool, even on a smaller project such as a this, that takes excellent maturity and sensitivity to use properly, and I think a few more months as an admin would help you significantly. Don't take this personally, and I'm sure you'll pass regardless. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Julian sums up my position on this. Sorry, not now. Goblin 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
    Also, the withdraw/not withdraw stuff below is another reason why I don't think so at this time. Thanks, Goblin 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
  3. I feel that a checkuser should be someone who has experience in other 'restricted' flags -- notably being an administrator for a while. If you have only recently demonstrated the community's trust in you, it is too soon to be asking for more trust. — μ 19:48, Saturday December 19 2009 (UTC)
  4. Not enough experience in other areas, not enough trust needed for this flag. I question this users' judgement about running an RfCU so soon after becoming an admin. Razorflame 08:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry, not quite yet. Brian has shown a willingness to actively fight vandals, proxies, and sock puppets; all good stuff, but I just don't feel that Brian has the required experience to be a good CU at this time. I do think he will in the near future, just not now. fr33kman talk 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose per Juliancolton. Sorry, Brian.--  † CR90  19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. From a checkuser candidate, I'd expect a longer admin experience. Sorry Brian, but not now. --Mercy (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think you could easily get the flag in the future. The only problem I have is lack of time as an administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

I see how it is, and I might as well withdraw. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that'd be a poor decision. Critique is always useful! Stick with it buddy! :) fr33kman talk 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother if all I'm getting is opposes? --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10 for and 5 against is hardly "all" opposes. I, personally, feel that retraction almost always reflects poorly on the nominee. The true sign of maturity is the ability to keep your chin up when the world seems to be against you. I feel you are VERY close to being a good candidate for CU, just not right now. Soon though. :) fr33kman talk 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it's your decision. If I were to run for RFA and have nothing but opposes, I'd think about withdrawing, but would also think about keeping it going just to see what the future opposes are. Last time I ran for adminship on the English Wikipedia and failed, I withdrew. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 04:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will just wait and not do what I felt like doing. I regret the above statement I made, and I retract it perm. I will deal with the criticism. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 06:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern about Brian's age, does he meet the age requirement?--  † CR90  18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am above 18. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As there is no neutral: Don't really see the point.  GARDEN  22:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see the point of what? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A CU on a Wiki this small. Call me nuts, but that's my opinion, and supporting doesn't feel right, and it's not a big enough problem to oppose.  GARDEN  22:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel there should be a neutral, then I suggest you propose such an option at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions (if you haven't done so yet). —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really care about the lack of a neutral section, frankly; I just wanted to voice my opinion without !voting.  GARDEN  22:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Well, in case you change your mind, my suggestion is right here. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkusership/Bsadowski1&oldid=8876365"