bjweeks

bjweeks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello everybody, I'm Brandon.

I've been an editor since late 2006 and an administrator since June 2008. Currently I'm pursuing a computer science degree so I'm fairly well versed in the technical side of CheckUser. This includes CIDR notation for range blocking and doing collateral damage checks, using whois for looking up the owner of an IP and determining if the IP is static or dynamic, querying geolocation databases to find the general geographic area where an IP or user is editing from and using portscannning tools such as nmap, interpreting the results and manually confirming if a computer is an open proxy.

I'm a member of the OTRS team with full info-en access so I routinely deal with personal information and sensitive situations. Often in dealing with BLP tickets I will find sock farms by editors pushing agendas, I worked with CheckUsers to investigate the sockpuppets. The privacy of editors is very important; I intend to show the same regard for the privacy policy with CheckUser as I have with OTRS. I live on the West Coast and will be available during the day for urgent requests.

There are a great set of candidates running for CU—no matter who gets promoted, the community will definitely benefit. Thank you for your consideration and happy voting. BJ^Talk 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for bjweeks

• Question from Aitias (added 00:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

  Without trying to sound like everybody else, I honestly believe all five candidates are qualified for the role of CheckUser. Of course each candidate offers their own set of skills, all of which I feel would be a positive addition to the CheckUser team. While qualifications are very important, this election is mostly about community trust. I think I am both qualified for the position and have earned the trust of the community. BJ^Talk 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]
  1. When there is some indication provided by the account name that the account could be part of a sock farm, obviously abusive accounts should just be blocked. Many accounts with similar names created in a short period of time would be an example.
  2. Tag team inserting/reverting of content with sock puppets doesn't strictly require a CheckUsers but identifying who is who in complex cases can make sense out of a indecipherable mess. CheckUsers can preemptively stop serial vandals with large sock farms, whereas admins can only clean up the mess.
  3. Whenever the user requesting the check has a reasonable case for not wanting to draw attention to the user/articles involved. Sensitive OTRS cases and suatitions that require material be oversighted and it hasn't yet be done are two that I have encountered. BJ^Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Tony1: Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Tony (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In a theoretical sense I agree with "one account, one person". One person operating two accounts simultaneously without disclosing the connection causes more harm than it does good. Practically however, I don't see the proposal as feasible. With the current CU system there is no way to check every account with an automated process, nor do I foresee the community supporting such a system. For full disclosure I have one disclosed alternate account I use for editing from public computers: BJ (talk · contribs). BJ^Talk 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

  If I had previously seen CU evidence of wrongdoing connected to an account running for adminship, I would not publicly disclose it as Deskana did in that case. However, I feel I would be doing the community a disservice to ignore it. Instead I would contact ArbCom with the information and let them decide how to act on it. I don't think that it is the role of either CheckUsers or bureaucrats to take action on secret data during RfAs, that is in the purview of ArbCom. BJ^Talk 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) I weakly support you due to the lack of experience, but I like your statement.--Caspian blue 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Mike.lifeguard 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling checkuser matters?[reply]

  For private/urgent requests I will be available via IRC and email during the day when I'm at the computer. During the week I'm at my computer on and off during the day and at night (Mountain Time Zone), weekends vary. BJ^Talk 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC): Bjweeks, you're the only candidate I've heard of as I remember reading on another site how you work as an admin to stop vandalism when stuff is posted on 4chan asking people to vandalize pages. Well anyways, my questions... (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?[reply]
  1. I think that more female CheckUsers, or just more female administrators in general would be a Good Thing. I don't see the solution as seeking more females specifically for the roles but instead making the working environment more pleasant for them. Not sure how exactly to do this but clearly something is wrong.
  2. Dealing with impostor accounts isn't strictly a CheckUser function. Where an impostor account is suspected, either a message should be left on their talk page asking them to contact OTRS to confirm the account or in more extreme circumstances the account should be preemptively blocked and referred to OTRS.
  3. The new system is a large improvement over the old one. The community should always have a say in handing out user rights. Overall I'm pleased with the new system, however I would have preferred more transparency in the vetting process. BJ^Talk 04:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of bjweeks

2. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. JamieS93 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. iMatthew ^talk at 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak support --Caspian blue 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Aqwis (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Mixwell
16. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. ~ Ameliorate! 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Nathan ^T 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. — Σxplicit 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Willking1979 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Tony (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Shimgray | talk | 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. LittleMountain5 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. — Athaenara ✉ 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. RP459 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. —MC10|Sign here! 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Recognizance (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Shappy ^talk 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. BrianY (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53.  Cargoking  talk  14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Hell, yes. Pmlineditor 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Res2216firestar 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Alexfusco⁵ 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. --TitanOne (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Joe (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Ysangkok (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Atama^chat 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crafty (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)(Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 (c|s) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. WJBscribe (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. — madman bum and angel 04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. PerfectProposal 02:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Martin451 (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. β^_command 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. SBC-YPR (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80.   JJ (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Tiptoety ^talk 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Cynical (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. -- Banjeboi 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. GDonato (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Cailil ^talk 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. hmwitht 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. —Terrence and Phillip 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. -- Bishonen | talk 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Xenoarchaeologeest 10:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, voter does not have 150 article space edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Brand[t] 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support billinghurst (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Alio The Fool 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. — JamesR (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Lara 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support   --StaniStani  21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to bjweeks

2. Weak oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Oppose -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

5. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sorry, but I cannot endorse weak BJs, this week.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]