Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Jamesofur

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.
Successful with 25:1. Rights request will be made on meta soon. --Barras talk 16:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur

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

End date: not before 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Extended to 04:50 on 29 December 2009 by –Juliancolton | Talk.

Hey Everyone, I would like to present myself for Checkusership. I know I haven't been an admin for "that long" but I think that it would be good to have another checkuser on the staff and believe I have the technical knowledge, experience, and to be honest interest to do the job appropriately. While our wiki is relatively small compared to many our overlap with En gives us more then our fair share of vandals and troublemakers unfortunately making Oversight and Checkuser more helpful and necessary then it normally would be on a wiki our size. I've done quite a few Requests for checkuser in the past months and I think all of them have been appropriate and well grounded. I am also active on En Abuse Response as one of the coordinators working to try and get it back off the ground (we have developers who are now starting work on a great looking interface). As part of that research both on En and here on simple I have had to handle CU evidence and logs released to me (under the privacy policy clause about releasing info for abuse investigations) to help formulate the abuse report, contact isp's and determine exactly which accounts were the same person. I should also of course note that I have read and believe I fully understand the CheckUser policies on Meta, am over 18 and am able and willing to identify myself to the Foundation if you feel I am capable of the job. I know I can talk to much so I'll stop here, please let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to keep the answer short,simple and correct :) James (T|C) 04:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination James (T|C) 04:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Barras talk
This can actually happen fairly frequently. The easiest, simplest and often best way to tell them apart is simply edits. One of the reasons that people who are not CU's can so frequently see socks :) Most sockpuppeters have a very clear style that they follow whether they know it or not. The CU tool also provides additional technical info that can be helpful. These include basic things such as browser type and Operating System (though those can be fairly common and some browsers and Operating Systems "appear" to be something else). You are also able to see XFF data which, when available, can allow you to see the local IP who is editing which can be invaluable when an ISP (or in some areas entire countries or regions) are using proxy servers and so countless people could be using that IP. James (T|C) 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer. I see you will know what you are doing here. --Barras talk 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from fr33kman talk
  • Question 1: You talk about using XFF data above. When is XFF useful, and when is it useless? When can it be trusted and when can it not be trusted? Tell us what XFF is, and what software provides the XFF data to us? Proxy, server, client, what? How can XFF data be used to track down a specific individual for reporting to their ISP/employer etc.?
  • Answer:

XFF stands for X-Forwarded-For it is data that is supposed to show the trail of IPs that have been used to access our system and therefore to show the real client IP that is editing when we are seeing the proxy ip here. That does not mean its an open proxy though because many isps or companies will send a group of customers through the same IP (proxy) to save money. The XFF data is useful to show ISPs who was editing through their proxy at the time, they can sometimes find the information in their logs but it is much harder when they could have countless users using the web at that time, through the same proxy. It can also be useful to find the actual isp involved, there is a growing trend of proxy services actually passing along XFF information because of abuse problems and so are much less anonymous then users may think.

The data is of course only as trusty as the source, the information is passed along from the proxy, which could put any information it wants into it. That of course means you have to trust the proxy. Schools and governments are usually fairly trustworthy but you have to be able to make a bit of a judgment call on anyone. If you look at an XFF header you will see something like: XFF: client1, proxy1, proxy2. The last one will be OUR proxy which of course means we can trust that it has passed along the information before it correctly, so we have to look at proxy1 (which is the ip that we see as the editor) to decide if its trustworthy enough to pass on the client correctly, on occasion you can see it go through multiple proxies (or certain routers) and have to again decide if you trust each one in turn.

XFF data can be helpful (if you trust it, and if that server gives it to) to help determine if its the same person editing (or for a collateral damage check to see when it possibly ISN'T them) but unfortunately we can not block it directly, we can only block the proxy. There are exceptions of course, certain trusted sources (most notably America Online (AOL)) are recorded at meta and the server actually uses the client ip as the editing ip (so we can block it) but that's not connected to CU. James (T|C) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question 2: Give some examples of when you would perform a CU without being asked by the community and when you would not do such an action?
  • Answer:

The main reason is just when I see something obvious to me and generally happening right there and then. If we are having an ongoing account attack finding IPs or a range that can be blocked can be time sensitive to prevent further disruption. The other reason is when requested by an outside checkuser or steward to help with crosswiki abuse and I agree with the concern. In the end I think I should only do a checkuser when I personally think there is enough evidence to warrant it. If something happened while I wasn't there I would most likely wait for a request for the community (something that usually happens here) since it isn't as time sensitive or talk with other CUs for a second opinion. James (T|C) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question 3: Give some examples of times you would refuse to perform a CU for a known and well respected user on simpleWP?
  • Answer:

As I said above the biggest thing is that I don't feel I should do any CUs where I don't personally feel that the evidence isn't available. CU isn't a tool for fishing, sometimes people can get frustrated with a user or users and either see something that isn't there or be looking for a reason to ban a user where there isn't one. If I can't be comfortable doing a check then I'm not going to do it regardless of who the user is. James (T|C) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Katerenka Talk 05:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Pmlineditor ∞ 07:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. иιƒкч? 08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fairly new as an admin, but active enough on the RFCU page. Majorly talk 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Could always use some more help.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Good answer. No problems here --Barras talk 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Liverpoolfan567 Send me a message 10:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Trustworthy.--  † CR90  18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Your answers to my optional questions show a profound knowledge of CU functions, procedure and policies. I support you very strongly for this role. fr33kman talk 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yeah he has a thorough knowledge of the tool and the stuff needed to use it will. Definitely one of the more active vandal and sock watchers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Certainly. Goblin 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
  16. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't have any reason not to. Malinaccier (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No reasons why this user should not be a checkuser. This user has proven through antivandalism, and crosswiki abuse monitoring that he needs the tools. Cheers, Razorflame 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support for the same reasons as I supported him as admin in the first place Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Peterdownunder (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Looks like you know what you're talking about, and I'm willing to trust you with this tool. EhJJTALK 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support to try to get him to pass. James would do a great job and has an amazing knowledge of the CU tools. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Soup Dish (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support by---> Javierito92 (Talk to me) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. There we go! -- Mentifisto 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. I mostly Oppose the strict criteria about 25 active voters. During all those years on Simple, I've never been active during winters. Therefore, I wonder whether my http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_75#Emphatizing_my_.28somehow.29_1000th_birthday other seasons posts are enough or not to help the nominee fulfill this strange criteria. Michel Alençon aka ONaNcle (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is meaningless... how is this a reason to oppose? Pmlineditor ∞ 11:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imho it's meaningless not to vote and therefore not reach the twenty-five mark. ONaNcle (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really understand what you mean. <_< Pmlineditor ∞ 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being French native, it's harder to give full explanations ; let's try anyway ; I didn't vote on Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Bsadowski1 and the vote was therefore canceled ; there are two days left on Jamesofur's nomination... my vote will obviously give him a slight chance to reach the 25 drastic limit ; my main idea is even if I oppose him becoming checkuser, I feel to respect our community and its quite unanimous desire to see him promoted. ONaNcle (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify it for you: James needs 25 votes in support and at least 70% support. If you oppose, he still need 25 votes in support. In other words, refering to the current numbers of votes: the oppose is meaningless. I hope you understand. Not 25 votes at all, 25 in support. --Barras talk 13:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it... He is opposing James because he doesn't like the system we have?--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 15:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Gordonrox24: I've nothing specific against James who seems to have all the qualities to CU. My oppose is due to the fact that I'm firmly in favor we need NO checkusers here on Simple. Only people having 5,000 edits on other Foundation wikis should be allowed to contribute here... imho... ONaNcle (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a meta policy. See here. We have to follow. --Barras talk 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know about the policy, I'm just confused as to why he is opposing... I don't think an oppose that is based on disliking policy is valid. Unless of course I am just not understanding because of the language barrier.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 15:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more we talk about that, the more potential voters will be attracted while looking at Recent Changes. ONaNcle (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-ONaNcle. For a user to become a checkuser, they must have 25 support votes (Meta policy). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think I get it. Yes, not just 25 votes in any section, 25 votes in the support section. If you are trying to support James, you should move to the support section.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Gordon here ONaNcle (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  1. As there is no neutral: Don't really see the point.  GARDEN  22:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Knew I was missing something! Thanks for clearing that up!--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 05:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@

Consensus for extend...? If you can't get the 25 votes, then what's the point in having another CU because it's clear there's not enough activity. Goblin 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
We should always wait, so that the silly meta guideline is met. We have managed to get more than 25 votes before, so it's possible now. Spread the word if you need to, but it's ridiculous to fail for lack of input, if there's only 4 more support votes needed. Majorly talk 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if it doesn't get the 25 votes by the extended deadline? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 23:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about a deadline? Majorly talk 23:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I obviously supported him getting it per my vote above. Had I been around I probably would have closed it as failed, because like goblin, if we can't get 25 votes then we probably don't have the activity to require another checkuser when we have a few already. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 27 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/Jamesofur&oldid=8876369"