Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Djsasso 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Successful. -Barras (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso

Djsasso (talk · contribs)

End date: indefinite date.

Due to the fact that steward tasks often take up a lot of my onwiki time. I am therefore offering to step down as a checkuser on simplewiki in order for Djsasso to take up the role instead. This is only a swap and if this request fails then I'll remain a CU. This is because it takes a large amount of experience, restrain and proven adherence to the privacy policy and I feel Djsasso has these in abundance. He also lives in North America and would make a good back up to Brian. Djsasso has been a member of the Simple English Wikipedia for almost 7 years and an admin since January 2009. He's an oversighter here as well as a bureaucrat. In addition he is an administrator on the English Wikipedia which he has held since Jan 2008. An all-round good Wikimedian and one that's worthy of your attention and your vote. fr33k man 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Yup, I accept. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Would you normally check an RFA candidate from a hunch?

In a normal situation no because if they are running for RFA chances are they are a trusted member of the community and CU is not for fishing trips. There would need to be a specific reason to check them. Disruptive RFAs by brand new users might be a different story but each situation has to be weighed on its own merits. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the CIDR?

CIDR is an acronym for Classless Inter-Domain Routing. Basically without getting too technical its how IPs are handed out and how IP packets are routed. In the wiki environment a CU/Admin would use it to determine range blocks. How this is done is that CIDR blocks are a group of IP addresses so by determining what CIDR block you are dealing with is how you figure out your range. Its use to a CU is that it is one of the different pieces of data they can use to determine if edits from a couple of IPs are likely to be the same person because ISPs with dynamic IPS are usually within the same block. I have described it before as sort of an upside down pyramid. If only the first portion of the IP matches then there are lots and lots of similar IPs and thus lots of people that could be affected. But as each octet of the address matches the more specific you get because there are less and less IPs that match. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is rDNS?

It is Reverse Domain Name Service or Reverse DNS. It just takes an IP address and works its way back to tell you what the domain name is that belongs to the IP. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the same IP for two editors (and that alone) enough for conclusion?

Another case where every situation is different. If only the two IPs matched then a very weak conclusion would/could be drawn and thus the action taken would probably reflect the weakness of the conclusion because the IPs could possibly be dynamic for example and it could end up a different user each time or an editor could have used a public computer at some point that another editor used. However, a case where only the IPs matched would be pretty rare since there is usually other evidence such as editing behavior that had caused the request for a check in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon@talk:~$ 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom fr33k man 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent choice --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gob lin 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
Support. Racepacket (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! --Bsa dow ski1 01:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Oppose. Once again I waited for some CUs to vote, as it is their team, and I'm not going to vote yes to somebody who they don't think they can trust and work with (CUs will work together to get more than one opinion in some cases.) Once again, I will support. But, I will oppose Fr33kman giving back his tools (Unless he really really really wants to). I Think he is a very good addition to the CU team. It can't hurt to have both very highly trusted users on the team to help out when they can.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm not as active here as I'd like to be following changes in my actual real life (yes, I have one of those) so another checkuser is no bad thing. And Djsasso fits the bill perfectly for me. I see no merit (or relevance) in the oppose below and would hope the community move to help defend this Wikipedia from stupidity and vandalism by supporting this request. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user--Mej ^(talk) 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure if I'd like to see Fr33kman give up his local checkuser rights, but since he wants to, I'm all for it. Djsasso is a Bureaucrat for a reason I suppose... Yep, trusted user. I can see no problems with him being given the tools. Will be a valuable and indispensable addition to the CheckUsers. Orashmatash (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that TRM has indicated not having a lot of time, and others have asked directly me not to resign, I won't. But what we need here are active CUs and a global time coverage. Djsasso fits the bill perfectly. He knows his stuff and is a great admin. PBP's oppose seems to me to be personal due to a less than "stellar" interaction history with the candidate. fr33k man 01:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I seem to recall delineating a lot of other reasons below. FYI, around the time Fr33k said this, he also crossed the NPA line by telling me to "get a life" Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know what they say about "if the shoe fits..." PeterSymonds (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vetted. Jon@talk:~$ 04:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, I think we need more CUs. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it some thoughts and think I will support Dj. He is trustworthy and I'm sure he will not abuse the right. Looking at the answers above, I'm quite certain that he knows the business. I'm quite busy and don't have much time for Wikipedia currently (spending whole days in lab), just as some of our other CUs, so I think another CU wouldn't hurt here. -Barras (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will be a good addition to the CU team, locally and cross-wiki. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chenzw Talk 11:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? --Beefball ^Talk 14:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 15:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems. Normandy ^(talk) 10:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust Dj enough not to break the rules, however I agree with Gordonrox24, I wish fr33kman would keep his tools. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good (see also my question below). Trijnstel (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 03:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. Grunny (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, when did "of course", "yep" "definitely" and "why not" become valid reasons when a one paragraph-long reason is questioned? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was actually planning on opposing this due to what I perceive as a lack of positive communication with other editors, but after reading the oppose below, I really don't think that anything I could say would be taken seriously right by that. Aside from that concern, Djsasso is a good user, and I have no doubt that they'd use checkuser well. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yottie ^=talk= 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Go ahead to do so Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe that makes 25. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Opppose: I don't think DJ getting to checkuser is in the best interests of this community. The policies he seems to advocate do not appear to me to be in the best interests of growing this Wikipedia's viewing or editing audience. He has appeared unwilling to enforce prior editing restrictions. He is not vigilant enough, and I think a checkuser needs to be vigilant. Furthermore, my interactions with him have been less than stellar. He seems to berate me at almost every possible opportunity, and refuses to acknowledge the many meaningful contributions I've made to this Wikipedia. When compared with the way he treats other editors, his actions seem hypocritical, and sometimes even borderline NPA. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. I disagree however on a number of things you mention. I agree a checkuser needs to be vigilant, but a checkuser should definitely not jump to immediate harsh conclusions which is what you advocate we do in a number of cases. Such actions are detrimental to the community, we here to build an encyclopedia and by extension a community. Immediately blocking editors from editing through either specific blocks or protection prior to attempting any of the other dispute resolution processes hurts both the encyclopedia by preventing positive edits and the community by chasing away potential or current editors. In my opinion a checkuser needs to be able to use critical thinking to judge a situation before jumping to action. You are welcome to your opinion as I have always said, I just disagree with it. As for being unwilling to enforce editing restrictions, you will find I am the first person on the scene to issue a block in such cases so I think you are way off base there. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I take your premises as correct (which I don't), ou still haven't really alleyed my concerns about the reading community (who in my mind is hindered due to the slow/non-existent pace of preventing and reverting vandalism), or that you will improve your interpersonal relations Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to agree to disagree. Most of our vandalism is caught immediately. I don't think the reading community is affected much at all by vandalism at simple. The odds of a reader happening to be on the 1 article in an hour that has a vandal edit for the minute or so at most our vandal edits sit is infinitesimally small. As for interpersonal relations, I don't expect your opinion to change nor do I ask it too. Yes you may not like how direct I am, but you always know what I am thinking, I don't sugar coat things and play games. Frankly people should be more direct on this wiki about problems they have and maybe some of them would get fixed sooner instead of pretending to be nice to each other while bitching about them in private or on IRC. Take it however you will, none of it really impacts my abilities to use the tools which are similar to stuff I work with every day in my job. From a technical standpoint I am extremely qualified for the position. From a privacy standpoint I have been an OS for quite awhile now so you can see I am unlikely to breech policy. Anything else is personal judgment which I can't do anything about. I think my history speaks for itself in always putting the wiki before anything. (that doesn't mean you have to agree with what I think is best however) -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He just doesn't like you much I'd say Dj. The "policies [you] advocate" have nothing to do with the work of a checkuser. As for your not stroking his ego, it makes one wonder why he edits, ideals or to get someone to pet him? As for vandalism, very little gets past RC. fr33k man 01:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the concerns here really either. All of them had nothing to do with this position, and more opposed because PBP does not like DJ on a personal level. Not really a fair vote I think. When did this wiki turn into popularity contest, huh? Jon@talk:~$ 04:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave several reasons why I opposed. Most of the support votes are one sentence or less; some are just a signature. And you're questioning the validity of the one that's a whole paragraph? And when wasn't this wiki a popularity contest? Seems to have been that way as long as I've been here. And Fr33k, was that pot shot really necessary? I almost never get any credit around here. Take when I wrote History of the United States, one of the best referenced and longest articles on the entire Wiki. You, TRM, and Gotanda go around like it's a D-Class article! So I wanna get petted, dammit! Deal with it! My vote is still valid; I gave more than enough reasoning to justify my vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a pot-shot and yes it was necessary. I spend time on WMF projects because I believe in the mission. I very rarely get thanks; not that I give two shiny nickels. As for my not thinking your article on the history of the US was good where did I say that? Provide a diff where I trashed it or you'll need to withdraw your remarks. fr33k man 05:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, excuse me? What has your attempts to promote a sub-standard article and receipt of copious review comments from me got to do with this nomination? What relevance does it have at all? If PBP can't handle constructive criticism and work collaboratively, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is right environment for him. In any case, this discussion is in no way related to this request for checkusership. Please focus on the matter in hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per TRM. HofUS? Irrelevant. Was going to add more, but why feed someone who prefers petting? Gotanda (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure how this relates to Checkusership... --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 03:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and did I mention that DJ continues to take NPA-esque pot shots at me? Since he's done it more than four times, I had to give him an NPA-4 warning. Do we really want somewho who attacks other editors as a bureaucrat, let alone a checkuser? Oh, and how come everybody questions my oppose vote, and nobody questions any of the support votes? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because support is default. You agree with the nom so your reason is already spelt out. When you oppose you disagree and should provide a reason. Again I'll go back to a question which you haven't yet answered: how does this relate to giving him the check user ability? Normandy ^(talk) 02:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as default. Default is not voting. And how can you say I don't have reason? I gave you three or four of them; some of them concerning dealing with IPs and vandalism, which is what a CU has to do. Also, I feel he has mismanaged his current flags, which leads me to believe he doesn't deserve additional ones. Still think I don't have a reason? This is the third time I've delineated my reasons in this section alone Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide diffs. Thanks. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 03:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Isn't my word good enough for you? There's one, for example, where he accuses me of fighting with every admin, and having an "epic fight" with Jon that never happened. Again, why the heck am I getting the third degree, when one-word supports get a hall pass? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to me how you believe that is a personal attack? --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"Why is it a personal attack"? a) It's not factually accurate; he said I got in a "epic fight" with Jon when I didn't get in an epic fight with Jon; b) Things I've said that are less vehement than that have been construed as attacks by DJ, Fr33k, or other editors; and c) I could keep them coming with times DJ has brought up how he thinks I'm a lousy editor, and that he has brought it up when it wasn't even germain, but I have better things to do than dig up diffs Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions

It's been my experience that vandalism edits (included deleted ones) accounts for 20-30% of all IP edits. You have claimed in the past it only accounts for 5 or 10%. Do you still believe that? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see where I claimed that because I don't recall ever claiming that. I do think we have a very small amount of vandalism based on our number of edits/articles compared to en. Vandalism while it does happen here is very rarely a major concern (in terms of number of vandal edits). For example I just went back 500 edits which takes me back almost a full 24 hours and there was a total of 25 vandalism edits give or take a few I might have missed, (and there were no deleted ones in that time period). 1 vandalism edit an hour is hardly a vandalism problem that is out of control. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you run all edits or just IP edits? And did you run just live edits or live and deleted edits? Either way could skew your numbers Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I counted every single edit by anyone and looked at the deletion log which had nothing deleted for vandalism reasons in that time frame. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PBP, can you publish your research that show 20-30% are IP edits please. Clearly this is useful information from which we could gather many metrics. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most vandalism is handled by undo or an edit marked rvv. Very few vandalism edits are actually deleted. So it sounds as though the study may need refinement. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask questions here. If not, feel free to correct me. Anyway: I saw your previous RfC from October 2010. What has changed since then? For example: did you gain more experience in admintasks? (You're not prohibited to answer of course, though I would like it if you do). Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't know that much has changed on my side of things since then. I've been an admin/crat here for a long time so I don't know that I would say I gained more experience other than that which just comes with time. The big difference I think between then and now is more on the wiki side of things, during that RfCU there was another candidate up around the same time so I think it was more a case of people picking whom they wanted to have CU more which is completely ok by me and why I didn't get the required minimum 25 supports. I think this time we also might need one more as from what I am told most of our CUs don't actually use their tools very much if ever so when I was asked again to help out I thought I could bring my skills to the table and help out the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for answering. I hope you'll be elected as a checkuser here. Good luck! Trijnstel (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have removed comments and discussions from indef blocked editor Jonas D. Rand who has been evading his block by using an anon IP address. Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a checkuser request been done to confirm that? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Only (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2011 (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.