Versageek

Versageek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
On the boring facts side:

• I've been an active user here on en.wiki for close to two years now, and an admin for slightly more than one of those years. (for the curious, my account was created sometime in 2004). I've been an OTRS agent since May 2007. I've been an admin on en.wiktionary since Sept. 2006. I've been a checkuser on wikiHow for ~2yrs, and a checkuser on en.wiktionary for ~4 months. IRL, my work involves diagnosing network and connectivity issues - so I'm familiar with the technical networking tools.

My Views:

• I view CheckUser as a technical tool to help stop disruption. Experience on other projects has taught me that all CheckUser tool output requires interpretation based on both technical knowledge & awareness of the context in which the disruption is occurring. Between my IRL experience with networking, my experience with the CheckUser tool on other projects, and the time I've spent here on en.wiki - I believe I have the ability to handle this sort of task in the this environment.
• I consider myself conservative when it comes to user privacy, and I would certainly adhere to the WMF's privacy policies and the project's CheckUser policies. I identified to the Foundation when I became a CheckUser on en.wiktionary last year.
• I'll admit up front that there are folks on this list who have far more experience with our SSP/RfCU/SPI processes. (er.. well, all of them do).. The amount of time I have to dedicate to the project is limited by normal, real-life commitments. I spend my time where I feel I can be most useful - and spending time at SSP/RfCU/SPI without access to technical tools didn't seem particularly useful to me. Should I be selected, I will shift my project time into CheckUser duties & away from other things.

In case it isn't obvious, I hate writing about myself.. I like to think I'm much better at answering questions. If you'd like to get a head start, my talk page is over here. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Versageek 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Versageek

• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Helpful and civil contributor both on Wikipedia and Wiktionary (from what I've seen). No evidence of abuse/misuse of sysop tools to this point. Opening statement assures confidence. Appears trustworthy. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Have you tried asking the foundation for CU on en-wikt? miranda 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? She has CU already there... Majorly talk 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, didn't have the screen increased to mega size. Apologies. miranda 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• yes, you'll be just great. I've already seen your work as a checkuser on wikti - Alison ^❤ 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#Versageek. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This 'secrecy' thing is a bit complicated..

One of the things which prevents all but the most determined of our dedicated sockmaster corps from evading detection is a bit of opaqueness in the CU process. We don't tell all of our behavioral or technical cues because doing so would allow the sockmasters to avoid giving those cues.

I think that the sort of limited public logging you suggest would create more drama than it would prevent.. If the requests/results were logged without being accompanied by the reasoning behind the request, it would be a source for constant speculation and if we log the detailed reasoning, it removes the opaqueness and makes the tool less effective.

That said, I think that MOST requests should be made & handled on-wiki. There are two types of requests I'd be willing to take off-wiki.. one would be checks to stop currently active blatant serial vandals (we all know how they behave!) , and the other would be a very long, complicated request. In the latter case, I would post a summary of the request & my results on wiki. In anycase I would keep a personal log of everything I ran & and the reasoning for running it - in case my actions were called into question at a later date. I have no objection to having any of my actions reviewed by someone - but for the reasons noted above, I don't think that public logging of all requests is the way to go at this point in time. --Versageek 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, barring any need for extraordinary measures, it's certainly the practical thing to do! --Versageek 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Versageek

2. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Hermione1980 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Chick Bowen 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. BJ^Talk 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Kuru ^talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. MER-C 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. miranda 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support LittleMountain5 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support — Gavia immer (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Joe 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Yes --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Xclamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. لennavecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Alison ^❤ 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Cenarium (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. shoy (reactions) 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Synergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support.--Crunch (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. GlassCobra 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. - Ken g6 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. + Corpx (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support -- Acps110 (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Stephen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Secret ^account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Sam ^Blab 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Philippe 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Alefbe (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Rje (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Spencer^T♦C 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - of course, Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support -Dureo (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Graham87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Versageek

2. Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. RMHED. 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   minor oppose Chergles (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]