Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Operator873

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.

The outcome of this RfCU is Successful. Per multiple stewards a closing Bureaucrat even one that has voted is allowed to close a functionary right request such as this, as the stewards will review to make sure all counts are in order.

28 Votes Support
0 Votes Oppose
100% Outcome - and enough votes even if the Closing Crat and Nominator are excluded, which per stewards those exclusions do not apply here. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873

[change source]
Operator873 (talk · contribs · count)
RfCU of Operator873
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

Hello friends! I am happy to be here to nominate Operator873 for checkusership. Operator has been editing here since late 2017, became an administrator in late 2018, and has been a dedicated contributor throughout his time here. He’s quite active, available on IRC as well, helpful to new editors, and experienced with the running of our project. Importantly, he’s also very knowledgeable in technical aspects. Many of our abuse filters were made or contributed to by Operator, he’s written code for bots we use on IRC channels, and is very well-versed in networking, IP addresses, and the like. I believe it’s time for Operator873 to be trusted with this tool, and there is no doubt that he could use it effectively to combat the spambots, promotional accounts, sockpuppets, etc. that shore up on our project. Thank you for your consideration, Vermont (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I humbly and graciously accept the nomination from Vermont and look forward to continuing to serve this community in the best way I can. I am already identified to the WMF and understand the local and global CheckUser policy. Operator873talkconnect 23:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[change source]

Additional Questions from Examknow

My service on this project and my ability to utilize the tool would not be affected by the lack of quality rum such as Flora de Cana. However, my keyboard may suffer slightly heavier keystrokes. Operator873talkconnect 00:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Stewards typically only intervene in emergencies such as abuse of power by a CheckUser. Other than emergencies, when do you think stewards should intervene in place of a CheckUser? -Examknowtalk 00:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Stewards should only act in emergencies or at the direction of the community, as normal. During an investigation by the Ombudsman, I feel like an Ombudsman could utilize a steward as a resource and/or tool, but the commission has their own powers to affect that end. The better check and balance of users of this tool are the other CUs on the same project. This is why WMF requires no fewer than 2 active CheckUsers on a project. Operator873talkconnect 01:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that answer. I will stop annoying you now :) -Examknowtalk 01:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions from Naleksuh

IRC Questions
  •  Question: I see you are requesting checkusership. While deciding how to vote, may I ask how you got the idea there were 74k articles on this wiki?
I was scanning the project with AWB using a regex to locate specific IPv4 spam. The few hits I got, I manually reverted. However, I determined AWB didn't correctly process the database dumb and only arrived at 74,500ish articles that took 2 days to scan through. Operator873talkconnect 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Secondly, some checkuser requests sit for around a week or longer on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. Do you plan to use checkusers for independent actions or processing request actions, or both?
All of the above. WP:RFCU can become stale at times. But, I feel the bigger issue is the spam problem. Operator873talkconnect 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: How much vandalism do you estimate comes from the range 192.168.0/16
Well, 192.168.0.0/16 is Class C private IP space and not a 'real' IP address, or in other words, it's not a public IP address. But in your example, 192.168.0/16 isn't an IP address at all, public or private, as it's missing an octet. Operator873talkconnect 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions from Camouflaged Mirage

  • Some questions, thanks for volunteering and hope you don't mind my questions. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Should you nominate someone for an RFA, there are some suspicious opposers who seems to be socks to one another in RFA. Will you check them for abuse / not?
If I nominated the person for the RfA, I would have a Conflict of Interest. So I would defer to my counterparts to investigate the accounts. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: You noticed some excessive checking by another checkuser, (i.e. more accounts than needed / more ranges than needed), what will you do?
Speak with them privately. There may be more to the story that I don't know. CUs are responsible to each other and they are their own check and balance. If abuse is found, then take the appropriate steps per WMF policy. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: There's 4 technically indistinguishable users, all voting keep on a RFD started on one page created by the 1st user. In what cases you will consider a block / in what cases you won't consider a block?
This is a very expansive question encompassing several "what if" scenarios and endless possible outcomes. Suffice to say, if there is sufficient evidence to believe 1 human is abusing multiple accounts, the local and global policy is quite clear on what action is to be taken. In fact, tampering with a community vote is specifically mentioned as an example of appropriate use on the global CheckUser policy page. Further, technically indistinguishable usually results in the confirmed finding and is generally the threshold for causing a CU block. Additional information may bolster that finding or give reason for further investigation. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Should there be someone that is accused about socking, and he agrees to a check to clear his name, will you do so?
This action is deferred to the community by the global policy. A brief check through our project here doesn't seem to indicate whether this action is permitted or not. So, in this instance, I'd consult with the other CUs on this project or allow them to take or refuse the requested action. Knowing when to ask questions and when to not act is sometimes more important than knowing the answer. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: If an user who is duck-blocked ask to CU in an unblock request, what are the cases you will agree and what cases you won't?
This seems to be another question heavy on the "what if" side and depends on the details of the incident. If the account is obviously connected, as in I don't even need the CU tool to connect the account in question to an LTA or etc, then no, I wouldn't. Another CU would still be welcomed to, which is the beauty of it. I'd consider taking action if I couldn't find a connection without the CU tool and a private conversation with the blocking admin didn't yield any answers. In other words, I think it's important to communicate at the sysop level and that communication is more useful and more powerful than any tool. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Generally, sock accounts have already been CU'd either to confirm the status or record the information attached to the sock account. Operator873talkconnect 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last one  Question: When will you share / when will you not share CU results with other wikis CU?
Explicit sharing of information which the WMF calls sensitive as well as other information is permitted with other project's CUs via approved channels. I would happily share any information that would further protect the global community via the previously mentioned approved channels. Operator873talkconnect 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support as nominator. Vermont (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This user understands technical aspects such as IP addresses and their ranges. Additionally, the user has shown that they are dedicated to this project and are very friendly on IRC. So really, why not support. -Examknowtalk 23:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - reasonably extensive technical background, active on-wiki and on IRC. Will be an excellent CU. Hiàn (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I see no reason to oppose such an awesome editor/user --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After private questioning, I can only conclude Operator873 is an amazing checkuser, both due to technical knowledges and promises to clear the backlogs that existing checkusers do not.. I hope you are paid with extra rum. Naleksuh (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a checkuser I am very concerned by the above comment - what backlogs are you referring to? Users must realize that there are many restrictions on what we can and can not check. There are also restrictions on what we can and can not report on. I am not aware of any of our Checkusers failing to meet their obligations. If the comments on a backlogs have been made during private questioning, I do think we are owed some sort of explanation.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. I did not discuss with him any particular checks that needed to be made, just that page in general. Naleksuh (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, I think that the CUs around here do an impressive job. However, we are shorthanded and we need more :) -Examknowtalk 00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Naleksuh may not have an accurate perception of "response times" on smaller wikis. In the questions they asked me on IRC (which I've asked for them to share here), they stated they felt WP:RFCU requests go unanswered for a week or longer. In my answer to them, I said I think the requests can go stale at times; however, I indicated I also believe the bigger issue is spam, which includes paid editing and LTA related self-promotion or etc. I do not think any CU on this project is flubbing their responsibility nor do I think requests wait unanswered for unusual or unreasonable amounts of time. Operator873talkconnect 00:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that considered and responsible answer.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah they are sometimes unanswered for awhile, but I can assure you they are generally checked (if there is a valid reason) within hours depending on the time of day. There can be times we don't comment for a reason such as WP:DENY. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes perfect sense once you understand that. But I think our friend here may not have known as they are a newer account. Operator873talkconnect 01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand things can take a while on small wikis (part of what makes them small!). For example on a certain (non-wmf) wiki, many deletion requests as old as 2015 were deleted only three days ago ([1]). However, I do think faster responses can help things be less stale, and I also agree that Operator can make good use on uncovering spam-bots, paid editors, and such, as I know he has had to deal with multiple of them on a daily basis. If you are interested with the exact logs of converation, that has been posted into "Questions" at Operator873's request. Naleksuh (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I can definitely trust a user who is an admin, and a user who keeps on blocking these IP Addresses for block evasion that keep on accusing me of sockpuppetry. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arthurfan828: As a point of interest, only admins can be given the checkuser right, so the fact that Operator873 is an admin is to be taken for granted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Chenzw  Talk  02:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trusted user. --Path slopu (Talk) 08:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Active, trused and has the necessary skills for the task so why not?-BRP ever 09:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Knowledgeable and is often available, can always use more users that have advanced rights that are easily accessible/available. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - A user who has a grasp of technical details of IPs and ranges, will be helpful to the team.Peterdownunder (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support User has reasonably extensive background knowledge and seems to have a good grasp of conflicts of interest. It does not appear that this user would abuse the power. I support. ~Junedude433talk 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems to have a good grasp of CU requirements and practices. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support besides answering well the questions, he appears to have the required knowledge for the flag. Good luck! —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 03:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Very excellent answers to my questions. Shows they have a good grasp of global policy. re the checking for innocence, yeah for globally there isn't a policy but in zh, we typically don't allow based on supplementary local policy. I am confident that they will learn the nuances of the job in no time, and with the help of the rest of the CU, will prevent more abuse. I am also fully confident with their technical skills given their background. Thanks for volunteering Operator873 Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. Desertborn (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support active and competent user. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. Jianhui67 T★C 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support in a heartbeat. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Of course! ~riley (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Clear support, well qualified and trustworthy. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 07:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Peterdownunder. Minorax (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sure. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I'm not a member of the community, but I think Operator has great skills that would be useful to the CheckUsers team. Esteban16 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per others and based on their good answers. On a side note, it may be worthwhile to note that self-requested checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia as well, per the local (and not the global) CheckUser policy. Ahmadtalk 18:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No concerns. Majavah (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]
  1. Holding per answers to my questions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Supporting. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2020 (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/Operator873&oldid=8873204"