Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Fr33kman 2

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

Result: Successful. (25/1) Posted to m:SRP. --Ferien (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fr33kman

[change source]
RfCU of Fr33kman
Previous RfCUs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: Ferien2.
fr33kman (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date:


I would like to nominate myself to become a checkuser. During the last few months, I have come back from an 11 year wikibreak I took to focus on work. I am now retired and am very active on Simple English Wikipedia and work against LTA vandals and sockpuppets as an administrator and with the SWMT xwiki. I feel I need the tool to do the job properly. I am an experienced checkuser having been a checkuser on this project from 2009 for over four years and a steward globally for two years. Having spoken to the current CUs it seems as though there are 1 to 2 active checkusers on the project so we could use another active checkuser to provide coverage in the evening and early night-time hours European time and early daytime hours UTC: we get quite a lot of LTA sockpuppetry and xwiki vandalism during these times. I have studied the nature and patterns of the sockpuppet vandals that we have to deal with and I am usually active during these timeslots. Now that I am retired from work I have the time to offer the community. Being a doctor I am used to handling confidential information and feel that I can be trusted to not abuse the tools and the trust the community would place in me. I left both the CU and steward positions for simple inactivity due to work needs but otherwise left both positions on good terms and not under a cloud of any kind. I use 2FA on my account and I further meet the criteria for CU, am over 18 years old and am willing to identify myself to the WMF and sign the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. My previous CU election can be found here. Thank you and feel free to ask me any questions you may have. fr33kman 00:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination fr33kman 00:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[change source]
Ask any questions of the candidate here:

Thank you for volunteering. I have some questions:

  1. What do you think of this Wiki's IPBE process? Should it have its own policy instead of redirecting users to the English Wikipedia? Do you think as a checkuser that you can help with that?
    I think we should manage our own IPBE processes. We should keep it in-house. As a checkuser I can add my voice to the discussion and help lead it is a sensible direction. I think that given the rarity of a request for IPBE the current method of either asking an admin or asking on RfP/AN makes sense. We should write our own policy and post it locaally.
  2. What do you think of the IP masking and temporary accounts being implemented soon? What do you think would be an appropriate requirement for a user to have the ability to see a temporary account's IP address?
    I think it's a good idea. It offers more privacy to the anonymous editors whilst at the same time providing admins the ability to continue blocking and warning and it allows CUs from doing there tasks. I think CUs should have the ability to see past the temporary usernames and that should another group gain basic access to an IP address (not browser stuff etc..) then they need to be elected into the position and have similar restrictions to a CU-type policy. But I don't, at this time, see the need but support it none the less. Thanks!:) fr33kman 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support - Strong Support. Trusted user. Former CU and crat. They will not abuse the tools. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Chenzw  Talk  12:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I see no issue. User has previous experience as checkuser and has done a great job since returning. - MourningRainfall (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. No glaring issues Pure Evil (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Trusted user. Thank you for volunteering. Red-tailed hawk (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Was trusted enough to be a steward in the past, and has done nothing to break that trust since. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support special:diff/9113058 suggests that the current CU venue is a single-user operated place, an experienced assistant should be welcomed. MathXplore (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - nihil obstat. #prodraxis connect 04:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support RiggedMint 16:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --BRP ever 00:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I Support :) --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have no valid reason to oppose this RfCU.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as I see no reason to oppose. :) 64andtim (talk to me) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - already did it in the past, no reason to believe he'd be a bad CU--Eptalon (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- EN-Jungwon 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Bsadowski1 00:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Few people I trust more with these tools. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, thanks dude! Nice to see you are still here!! fr33kman 03:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support trustworthy editor and there's always a need for an additional CU. Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Looks like another CU is needed and as a former CU would be able to easily join the team and help --DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support XXBlackburnXx (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. I Weak oppose Fr33kman's candidacy for CheckUser. With only three months of recent activity, the user's limited experience raises concerns about their familiarity with the community and its dynamics. I've seen multiple instances where they haven't "remebered" policies correctly. (simple things like how long an RFA should last) Additionally, their inappropriate replies to GeneralNotability in Bobherry's RFA indicate a lack of professionalism and may not align with the standards expected from a CheckUser. It's crucial to have individuals with a solid understanding of community norms and decorum in such roles to maintain the integrity of our wiki. Yes, we need some more checkusers, but I'm not convinced theres a new positive here. Illusion Flame (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that running this RfCU at the same time as running Bobherry's RfA would cause some people to wonder about my judgment. But I wanted to be honest. I could have run for CU and then nominated Bobherry but I felt that would be dishonest. This doesn't concern me. Being a CU is mostly about following the rules and reading the data the tool supplies you with. I have never misused the CU tool and have never had anyone question my use of the tool, not as a CU and not as a steward. I have the experience to do the job properly. As for posting the wrong date on the RfA that was a simple brain fart when looking at my calendar not a misunderstanding of the rules. Everyone makes mistakes. fr33kman 02:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, everyone does make mistakes. And I do appreciate you doing them at the same time and not waiting, as I agree with you about possible dishonesty. Illusion Flame (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) fr33kman 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Will abuse the tools. --170.24.150.113 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: only named users are allowed to vote.... Eptalon (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anywhere. --170.24.150.113 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Applies to all requests for permissions. Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship#Who can vote -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

When is this RfCU closing? Just curious. #prodraxis connect 04:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodraxis The global policy requires 25 votes (support+oppose). There are currently 24. My own RfO lasted nearly a month. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are 25 votes now. A bureaucrat should close this soon. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
25 support votes... Eptalon (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so we are still not done Eptalon (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above checkusership 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/Fr33kman_2&oldid=9252544"