Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Djsasso

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Djsasso (talk · contribs)

End date: 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating Djsasso for the position of checkuser. Djsasso is an admin and crat I both respect and trust greatly. We do not always see eye-to-eye but I think that is a very good thing because it keeps me in check and makes me more considerate of actions I take. Djsasso has a very good knowledge of the technical aspects of CU and sockpuppet investigations. He is a mature minded person who I find always thinks before he acts on a matter and who knows when to act and when not to. Djsasso is also active and that is very important. CU is a great tool but only if a person uses it. It takes a lot of experience with vandals and sockpuppeteers to make CU really work for you and D's activity level would help him in this regard. So, ask him some questions, ask him about the past, or the future and make him justify why you should vote for him. fr33kman 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. -DJSasso (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Jon@talk:~$

Q What are XFF headers?

To be very simple (I can expand on any of these answers if needed), XFF stands for X-Forwarded-For. What it actually is, is a standard for transferring forward an IP address to a web server when it is going through a proxy. So that you can see who the actual person (IP) is behind the message, as opposed to only seeing the IP of the proxy server. They are a good tool to help you with trying to track down who the person is behind a proxy server, however, not all proxy servers support it (there is a project out there trying to get ISPs to switch to supporting them) and they are not always accurate as they can be spoofed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q What is CIDR?

CIDR is an acronym for Classless Inter-Domain Routing. Its a pretty technical concept but generally its how IPs are handed out and how IP packets are routed. One of the uses on wiki for an admin is to determine range blocks which use CIDR blocks which are a group of IP addresses. Basically it can be used to determine if edits from a couple IPs are likely to be the same person based on their IPs being members of the same CIDR block. Its sort of like 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 affected (its a very general match). But as each octet farther to the right also matches the more specific a match you have as there are less IPs in that block. I probably did a horrible job explaining that as I am not a teacher. But thats the general idea. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q Can you give me the IP of an editor?

In general no, there are some situations where it can be done, but those mostly involve the WMF. Basically checkusers should reveal as little information as possible. Such as saying possible match, likely match, not a match or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up Can you expand on those situations in which you can give me the IP or IP range of an editor?

The situations I think you are getting at (as a local editor) are when an IP has been associated with persistent vandalizing and its necessary to release the information to create a complaint to the ISP involved. The other situation that a local editor might fall under could be where it is reasonably necessary to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. And possibly with permission of the affected user might also pertain to a giving to a local user (but I think this would almost never happen). The rest pertain more to the WMF, ie with a subpoena, to the chair of the WMF when deemed necessary for abuse complaints, and in rare cases to solve technical issues. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q Can you check just because a user is new and you have a "hunch"?

Checkuser is not for "fishing trips". There should be a reason to check. ie the new user is continuing the same style bad edits that another recently blocked editor was doing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support fr33kman 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, no doubt.Now changed to weak support per Barras and Griffinofwales. —I-20the highway 00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. πr² (talk • changes) 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Chenzw  Talk  01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. The CU's on this wiki are a very efficient team who all work well together. I think it is somewhat imperative that the whole team be able to work together, as they all work fairly closely on cases where more than one opinion is required. As I trust DJ, and because two CU's whom I trust very much also support DJ, I think he will work well with the existing team, making our CU team ever more efficient.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Katerenka ^[talk] 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Exert 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Always good to have an extra pair of hands if they're trusted. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per PeterSymonds. I was actually considering to oppose this request. Even though you have my trust and belief that you'll do quite well with the extra tools, I wanted you to enjoy your time after your marriage. Believe me, the first few months don't come again ;). Well, anyway, but that would probably be a bad reason, so I'm going for support. I hope you had a happy wedding! Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Hazard-SJ ^Talk 21:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Seems knowledgeable. Nifky^{^} 03:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - very competent and active admin. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Trusted and has the skill. James (T C) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. - Yottie ^=talk= 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Has the proper level of familiarity with Wiki policy. Kansan (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. wiooiw (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    # Strong Support per enwiki. WrongPlanetoid (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Account created two minutes before voting here. Nifky^{^} 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I would like to support Djsasso. I understand I have very few edits on Simple, but I do read the site regularly and watch pages like this. I assure you that nobody asked me to vote here. I have actually been aware of this RfCU for several weeks but I didn't have a strong opinion until now. —Soap— 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, but I just took a look into your logs. There are other admins who do much more with their admin tools. Not even 50 deletions in August (proof) and doesn't use his block tool very often, which would at least imply that he is an active vandal fighter (proof). He often misses that an IP is an open proxy. Yes, I know that it is not always easy to detect them, but most of his recent blocks shows that he did't detect open proxies. Furthermore, I fully disagree to block clear vandalism-only accounts for 31 hours only. Such users should simply be indefinite blocked. (proof) The nomination states "who I find always thinks before he acts on a matter". I don't think this is the case when he is editing. I feel that he almost never thinks or re-read the text he writes on a discussion before he clicks the save button. (1; 2; 3; 4; all recent edits and many more. Please alway check the following diffs to see what I mean. I do not refer to the content or something!) I think and admin should know how to use the preview button. Which would actually show that the nomination is correct. Such edits are (at least from my point of view) very annoying, because they create edit conflicts en masse. Such edit conflicts let me go away so I normally don't comment on such discussion pages anymore. Admins should already know how to use the preview button. Furthermore, he's clearly not always careful. He regularly forgot to log in in the past and edited with IP. Not that it is a big deal at all, the IP has been removed. But this shows that he isn't really careful enough. It can happen that someone isn't logged in, but (for my taste) it happened too often. I know that most of those things doesn't really speak against being checkuser, but I wouldn't even support an user for adminship, if the user would have such edit patterns regarding to not use the preview tool, so why should you support someone for even higher rights? One more thing is, that a checkuser should be around in open IRC channels (when he usses IRC at all!). When I'm on IRC, I see him normally/mostly only in the secret admin channel. So he doesn't give normaly users without sysop rights the chance to contact him there, even if he is around. Sorry, but not this time. Please note that I do not argue due to numbers, I think one more checkuser wouldn't hurt, but I don't feel that you are suitable. You don't have to agree with me and can argue here against my position, but I'm not going to join an endless discussion. -Barras (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Just a few things to not, not even 50 deletions in August, I was away for two weeks in August out of town getting married. Unfortunately I do choose real life over on-wiki editing. Even considering that, I don't race to be the first to delete something because we have a large number of admins who track the RC almost endlessly. I realize you seem to have some activity level that you like to see in people, but it truly is a pretty ridiculous one on a wiki full of admins. As for missing open proxies, as a regular admin I don't look for them, its a waste of time to do so unless its an IP that has been creating alot of vandalism, in which case as an admin I would look. The situation is a bit different for a CU, where of course I would be looking for such things. But I don't think admins need to or even should be wasting their time searching out an open proxy that has only made 1 vandal edit. Time would be better spent on other things. As for the preview, I don't use it on discussions because I believe discussions should be stream of thought. It makes people more accountable and shows what they are truly thinking better than if they have a well prepared "speech" in front of them. As for editing from an IP instead of logging in, I can think of less than 5 times that that has ever happened to me so hardly regular. All of which were caused because of my job where I bounce around VPNs all day which cause my wikipedia to show that I am logged in, but sometimes the system has actually cancelled my cookie, I have no way of knowing when that has happened until I make an edit as it shows me logged in until I edit. I have long since set up a virtual machine to edit wikipedia from when I am in the various VPNs so it shouldn't happen anymore. As for IRC. I am on IRC pretty much every single day, so comments like (when he uses IRC at all) are misleading. A CU should be in open IRC channels and as an CU I would be in open channels, I am not currently a CU however, I am an admin/crat and as such I am in the channel where admin matters are discussed. There is no requirement that anyone use IRC and !voting against someone for not using it gives the impression to new editors that they have to or they aren't part of the "elite". This is not a good attitude. Finally, I can't speak about the other CUs as I don't know all their real life jobs. But I actually use most of the information and similar tools that CUs use every day in my real life job every day. From a technical stand point, I am probably better prepared to analyze and work with the information found than most people where when they first became CUs. From a trust standpoint I am already and oversighter so I already am seeing highly sensitive information. Anyways, you are free to oppose for any reason you like, but most if not all of them don't reflect on if I could do the job of CU or not. I do think they are pretty poor reasons, but you are certainly welcome to have them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I forgot to respond to the comment about indef blocking vandalism-only accounts. I don't indef block vandalism-only accounts on their first block because we are a small wiki. Even if there is a small chance that a vandalism-only account will reform I am willing to give them that one chance, many many many decent editors now have started out as doing some test/vandal edits as their first edits. If a vandal-only comes back after my initial block and does it again then I will indef. We are trying to build a userbase here after all. Having to press the block button twice instead of once is a small price to pay for possibly getting a new user who could contribute positively to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. [1] Personalizes debates on wiki, just one recent example. I do not want this editor personalizing his checks. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That is insinuating I would abuse my tools by doing a check because it was personal, please show me where I have blocked or deleted a page or whatever with my tools because it was personal. I take great offence that you accuse me of being likely to abuse the tools. I did not personalize the debate. I simply did not understand your answer and wanted clarification, which is a key component of discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You say now that you "simply did not understand your answer and wanted clarification, which is a key component of discussions." Which does not appear true, because in that very same discussion, you said that the reason for your responding the way you did was "so that I can point to this if you complain next time". I can not support you because I've found instances of this in the past, and now most recently. I can not support you because you do not tell the truth here as stated above. There was no "simply wanting to understand my answer" as being a key component of discussion, you just want to use it against me as you stated in the diff above. Not personalizing wiki discussion, and telling the truth, and trust, are values I look for in a checkuser. [2] and [3] do not agree. Jon@talk:~$ 19:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I said that I did not understand your answer right off the bat. You stated opinions on the subject jive drastically and I wanted clarification because I didn't understand. I wanted you to make clear so I could have a definitive answer from you, so that in the future I would know exactly what your thoughts were on the matter. None of this is not telling the truth. Wanting the definitive answer I can point to is seeking clarification. If you can't see that then maybe its you who are personalizing the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Administrator note: Jon has opposed, DJ has responded; it's enough now. Neither is doing their reputation any good by arguing. fr33kman 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong oppose, mostly per Barras and Griff Purplebackpack89 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   And now Scream as well Purplebackpack89 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Per Barras. —§ stay (sic)! 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Jon@talk:~$ 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many CUs does this community need? While having Peter makes sense (for the time zone), others (like this one) don't make sense. Bsadowski (who covers the American time zones), and barras (who covers the european time zones) seems sufficient. The other CUs (IMO) simply assist in the coverage. Of course, I'm a fanatic about not giving out rights so feel free to ignore me :) Griffinofwales (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always have when you bring up that line of reasoning ;) And if you think fr33kman doesn't compete up there in the numbers of checks you are sorely mistaken :) James (T C) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its the IT guy in me, but my response to that is redundancy. If one is away another picks up the slack. One might have said we had enough admins when you were running for admin. :) Because we certainly did, but that didn't stop you from running did it? Of course not because you felt you could help still. No different here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUs (at least the one posted at RFCU) are rarely time-critical, that said having one around can be helpful. --Eptalon (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now almost two days overdue for closure Purplebackpack89 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Bureaucrat note: Extended one week. Jon@talk:~$ 21:02, 25 September 2010 (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.