Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Fehufanga

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Fehufanga

[change source]
Fehufanga (talk · contribs · count)
RfCU of Fehufanga
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: Ferien.

Hello, I'm Fehufanga. I've been an admin on Simple for just a bit over two years now, and an oversighter for over a year. I am here to nominate myself for checkusership. Over the years, Simple has been faced with serial sockpuppeteers, from vandals using throwaway accounts to UPE account farms creating promotional articles. I have relied on behavioural patterns to determine cases of sockpuppetry. The checkuser tool will help me with dealing with cases of sockpuppetry that are harder to track. I am knowledgeable in computer networks and am familiar with how IP addresses work. As an oversighter, I deal with personal information that cannot be shown publicly, I know better than to disclose these. I am familiar with and have signed the confidentiality agreement. I also have cross-wiki experience that is sometimes necessary when dealing with sockpuppets on this project. Thank you for your consideration.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)  Request withdrawn: Thank you for your supports and comments everyone, but I am withdrawing this nomination for now. Prolonging this any longer is not a good look for the community. Any bureaucrat can close this. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support. Why not?--BRP ever 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Having another CU & OS admin would be helpful to review blocks made by both CU & OS reasons. I look forward to working with the new CU. MathXplore (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support Experienced editor, already an oversighter, no reason I can think of to oppose. However, I am a bit sceptical of the need for more CUs, hence why I am weak supporting.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We really do need another active CU. There is a lot of work to do. fr33kman 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Back when I was a global sysop before I was a steward, I found having CU here and GS went well together because I came across a fair few smaller wiki vandals that had also hit simplewiki and was able to confirm them as socks using our DB and then block their small wiki socks and/or report them to the stewards. All the best fr33kman 16:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support we apparently need more CUs, and I think that Fehufanga will do great and be helpful. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Peterdownunder (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support Fehufanga, as an oversighter, has already helped me in an excellent way, so I trust him with private information. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I had originally voted "Support", but I now changed it to "Strong support" due to some new events that solidified my decision. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 12:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Changed to Weak support Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Rather have too many than not enough, and Fr33kman has been busy of late. Fehufanga is already an oversighter, so trust is alrady there. I'll take them at their work on their networking knowledge. Ravensfire (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 110% Support - Fehufanga does amazing work here blocking the trolls/vandals and so without a shadow of doubt they'd be an asset to the CU team. Honestly can't think of a more perfect candidate for CU than Fehufanga tbh, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I feel my initial comment addressing the amount of checkusers we have might have been misinterpreted – Fehufanga is no doubt an excellent candidate, I was simply unsure on expanding our number of checkusers and didn't want to alter the existing team. That being said, I don't think this needs to be addressed by any change to the existing inactive admins policy – the two checkusers inactive for the moment have done an exceptional amount of CheckUser work in the fairly recent past and will likely return to activity in the future. Peterdownunder also commented his intention to resign as checkuser. This was all a minor concern I had, not about Fehufanga of course, that I don't think was a big deal. Fehufanga is already experienced and active in cross-wiki and oversight work and would make a great fit into the checkuser team, this is a very obvious support. --Ferien (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jianhui67 T★C 11:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Ternera (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I hope to see you join the team. Operator873 connect 01:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Active administrator, will do very well for a CheckUser. Kurnahusa (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SupportQueen of Hearts (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I don't see a reason not to grant CU. Justarandomamerican (t • c) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good candidate 20th vote. TyphoonAmpil (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support very active administrator. I really don't see a reason to oppose. Already has one of the other advanced privileges, so likely signed pretty much the same documents already.-Eptalon (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I think you are a nice administrator and I think you can become a checkuser, so I voted support. Thetree284 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Bureaucrat note: Thetree284, thank you for voting, but I'm afraid you are not eligible to vote in this request, as it was already running when you created your account. --Ferien (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is already something running? Like, which one? Thetree284 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetree284, per Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship#Who can vote, this request for checkusership that you voted in was already running at the time you created your account. Therefore, as it was running before you created your account, you cannot vote in it. Please feel free to ask if you have any more questions. --Ferien (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not my first edit in Simple English Wikipedia, my first edit in this Wikipedia is in my userpage. thetree284 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thetree284, this isn't about where your first edit is, it's about when it happened and when your account was created. This request started at 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC), whereas your first edit was made at 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC). The request started before that first edit and before your account was created, therefore you are not eligible to vote in this request. --Ferien (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support. I found you super active here. I don’t know how many users with CU rights here, but sometimes it takes quite a long time to get response from checkusers. So I think you're a great candidate for this role. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 17:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tanbiruzzaman See Special:ListUsers/checkuser. 2620:6E:6000:2900:DF1:4743:8CA8:1BE9 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we asked for someone to run for CU. Although we have a lot of CUs for our size as a project most are either inactive, semi,active or busy with global work so we needed another to work the queue. Please note however that most requests are done quite quickly. fr33kman 05:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
Weak oppose per ferien Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cactusisme, if you have changed your vote, please move it to the relevant section. --Ferien2 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • @Fehufanga Aren't you a global sysop? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cactusisme I am, but I feel that that's not too relevant with my chcekusership request.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, just a question. Sorry Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 13:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cactusisme Global sysops don't have anything to do with checkusers (global or local).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the two roles can overlap as I mentioned above. fr33kman 18:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me stress that this is a brilliant editor for the role and I do not intend to oppose this request, especially not based on the candidate. If the checkusers say there is a need then I will believe them and agree there is likely a need, but I do understand the concerns from FusionSub. Should this request pass, a majority of administrators will also be checkusers (8 out of 15). I appreciate we are currently at a low administrator count overall over the past few years, but that is still a really large amount. It'd put as as the wiki with the third most checkusers of all Wikimedia projects, tied with MetaWiki, but they have 68 administrators. Itwiki have over 100 admins for 10 checkusers, and enwiki have 850 for 50 checkusers. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that we would have a disproportionate number of checkusers for our wiki, even accounting for the abuse we get from enwiki. It's not that I don't trust Fehufanga with the CheckUser information of course, but that that sort of information should be in as few people's hands as possible. --Ferien (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that there aren't enough people with the flag, it's that there isn't enough people using the tool. For RFCU it's basically almost just me and Eptalon servicing the requests. The semi-active admins may be editing but they're not using the tool. Bsadowski1 and Vermont are using the tool regularly but those uses are almost always xwiki/lta/SPI uses. I know Eptalon works full time and he's finding hard to keep up as am i. Each request can take minutes to over an hour to complete. Another CU working the queue will help out a lot. fr33kman 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a policy should be written that'd state what criteria would denote an in-active CU and when the tool should be removed as we did with the inactive admins policy. fr33kman 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fr33kman the policy globally is Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than one year will have their CheckUser access removed (m:Checkuser policy). If I remember correctly, local policies can be stricter, such as mandating a reelection every six month or so, I believe this is the case in some wikis. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know the global policy, I propose it be stricter policy locally. I can assure you that because of our closer relationship with enwiki we get more than should be our statical share of the CU actions per month. When I was a steward I noticed that wikis with similar size and language group gets far less investigations monthly. I think asking each user with the check user flag should be active enough to do at least one time using CU is not to much or unfair to ask in the spirit of our RfCU elections. The people taking park in the election expect that the user would actively use them. And not hold off 9 months or whatever doesn't have the time to take a case on RfCU now and again is unfair. I'm proposing that we RfDCU those haven't been an '''active''' CU during that time has not shown a need for the hat. You shouldn't have it. It's not a beauty contest , (joke)(joke). Seriously every CU could proform a set number of CU actions during 6 months .I proposed [[WP:Inactive administrators]] and that has deadmined a few admins. I hate to say it, "use it or lose it". It's not fair two or sometimes three people on average, have to exclusively service RfCU requests. We're volunteers 🙂 fr33kman 00:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above. I would prefer/like to step down as CU as it is a role that has become more technically complex than I am prepared to deal with. I think it is a tool that requires a more active editor than I am able to do in the foreseeable future. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterdownunder you can always request the removal of your own permissions... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Freekman has made me think. Perhaps if something is necessary to become a Checkuser, there should also be something necessary to stay a checkuser. If an admin hasn't used the permission in X amount of time, perhaps it should be deactivated unless that admin makes a request for renewal. If this rule were in place now, would any of the current checkusers get unchecked? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2024 (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/Fehufanga&oldid=9860437"