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.

fr33kman

[change source]
fr33kman (talk · contribs)

End date: 04:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of my "usual" working hours I am often active on the project when other checkusers are not online. I have, previously, spent 17 years as an IT engineer working with major banks and Fortune 500 companies in 7 countries. I am an expert in understanding networks and IP addresses and was formerly a CCNP (still current), and MCSE (not current) and also a Sun Certified Systems Engineer (current). I believe I have proven that I fight against vandals and users who run sock-puppet accounts. I have submitted multiple reports to WP:RFCU and have been able to justify each one. I am a trusted user on simpleWP and am both a sysop and a bureaucrat here. I am 41 years of age and don't take decisions in a rash manner. I am a medical doctor and am used to dealing with confidential and private information in a mature and sensitive manner. As such, I would like to ask the community to consider me for checkuser. (I am willing and able to identify myself to the WMF)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination fr33kman talk 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions

[change source]

From NonvocalScream (talk)

Q: Many editors may edit from an IP. What technical data provided from the checkuser interface may assist a checkuser in separating the users?

A: There are three parts to the checkuser interface; 1) Get IPs (obtains the IP addresses that a named user has used), 2) Get edits from IPs (obtains the edits that a particular IP address has performed), and 3) Get users (provides user names that have edited from a specific IP address). Using a combination of these three tools provides a checkuser with the ability to sort out who is abusing the wiki and who is not. Since many abusive editors have patterns to their editing, it should be possible to only target the right person. If in doubt, it'd be best to check with someone else who is a checkuser or perhaps even a steward. Since browser information is also available, it can be used to aid in separating users as most users probably only use a single OS and browser. This is not definitive however as some users do have multiple machines or use more than one browser.


Q:In what two circumstances are you permitted to release an IP (or group of IPs) to an administrator?

A:When the user has performed a lot of vandalism or very disruptive editing it is allowed to release the information to a third-party. This would include admins. Additionally in cases of investigation of abuse and it is also acceptable to release personally identifiable information when the safety of the WMF, its users or the public is at risk. Furthermore it can be released with the permission of the user in question and also when ordered to by a court order or a subpoena. However, it would not normally be needed to actually release the private information of a user. Most often it would be only required to say that the checkuser has been confirmed as the same person, or that the user is from the location they say they are from.


Q:Are you permitted to tell a user that you have checked them?

A:The privacy policy states that when presented with a subpoena to release information to law enforcement or government agencies, that the user whom it is regarding will be contacted in order to inform them information has been requested. This also implies that users can be told they have been checked. Since checkuser requests are normally made on a publicly accessible page on wiki, and since the result (not the actual private info) of a request is then posted to that page, it seems obvious that users will be aware that they have been checked.


Q:How many machines will a CIDR /16 block?

A:CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) is the "solution" that was started to prevent the running out of IP addresses under IPV4 before IPV6 was implmented. It has (in some ways) trumped IPV6 (which very few people actually use). The /16 range block will block 65536 individual IP addresses. It may, however, block many more than that due to use of NAT *network address translation". But it's the most accurate answer I can give in general terms.


Q:Will technical data always prove if an editor is sockpuppeting?

A:No! There is no such thing as "always". When ever anyone in life tells you that something will always happen, you can rest assured they it won't. The data will give you a good idea; often a very good idea. But you can rarely be totally sure. Sometimes it will be a judgment call. Sometimes a hard one, occasionally a wrong one (hopfully only rarely). This is why it is important to leave a blocked user able to edit their talk page, or able to email a sysop just in case a mistake was made.

Questions from Chris

Q: How would you detect if an IP is an open proxy?

A:I've not had much personal experience in dealing with open proxies, but I understand the basics. It is not always going to be possible to 100% determine if it is an open proxy, but one can often get a very good indication that it is by the following. Firstly, one should have a good reason to suspect that an open proxy exists. Such grounds for suspicion can include; that an IP is in fact running a web proxy, and that one of the following additional conditions are met; 1) the proxy permits access to anyone, 2) that it doesn't let anyone access it but that the level of authentication is very weak and easily bypassed, 3) that the details for accessing the proxy are to be found publicly on the Internet, 4) the host has been hijacked so as to allow one or more persons unauthorized access to it. Probable cause for thinking that an open proxy exists are; many edits from a single IP address, especially if they occur around the clock; inconsistent traffic coming from a single IP address or traffic of such a nature as to cause one to think that it is being used by multiple people; similar traffic originating from multiple IP address (esp if from all over the world) that lead one to believe that a single person is using multiple IP addresses can lead one to believe that some of them may be open proxies; listing on sites that contain lists of openproxies or in completewhois reports. There are also multiple checker scripts and tools that can aid one in making the decision. Checking also to see if an IP has been blocked elsewhere on WMF (meta, enWP) as an open proxy can help too. My standard rule would still apply; if in doubt, check with someone who knows more than you, and if need by, err on the side of caution with a short block and then a longer block if it turns out to be an open proxy.

Q: What method do you use to calculate a range block?

A:Generally I'd use a table of CIDR ranges as it is a very quick method and is less prone to error, but I do also have the knowledge to do the binary math if need be. I believe in as small a range block as is needed. I'd also check with the list of sensitive IP addresses and check what collateral blocks of named users I'd be affecting. If there is going to be collateral blocks, I'd consider using an anonymous only block or else giving the named users (if trusted) the flag "IP block exempt". Again, check with someone else if unsure.

Support

[change source]
  1. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Super mega extreme support, completely trust him. --S3CR3T ♥s you! 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I believe Fr33kman is well qualified for this position, and fully trust him. Exert 04:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No problems here. →javért stargaze 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Sounds good. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This user has an unparalleled understanding of this feature. I'll support. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Fr33ky would do quite well with this. Shappy talk 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support for two reasons. 1. I trust him to use the tools correctly, and 2. We do need another CU to fill in a time gap. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, despite certain errors, it is human to err on the side of discretion. I feel that Fr33kman did take matters into serious consideration and should not be blamed for his previous mistakes.-- Tdxiang 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: He is trustworthy and will do well with this tool. 'Cratship is not like having the cu tool. CU requires technical knowledge while 'crats are to take decisions. Pmlineditor 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I do trust him. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't have a reason to not trust him. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Trusted and has a high knowledge of the technological implications of the position. -Djsasso (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Has never given us any reason not to trust him. We have no basis to oppose and all evidence points to him being very reliable.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support From my experiences, Fr33kman has been nothing but friendly and knowledgable. He has my trust. hmwithτ 06:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
  16. Since I'm at the end of my tether here, another CU would be ok. Majorly talk 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I trust him. His responses indicate that he knows what the job is about; I have no issues with this. Good luck. иιƒкч? 12:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Peterdownunder (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Mature and competent; exactly what we need in an OS CU. Fr33kman seems to have a personal interest in removing libelous content, especially content so distasteful that it is illegal in some countries. I don't doubt that his request for this tool is solely to use it for its intended purpose. EhJJTALK 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a checkuser request, not oversight. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. As for CU, Fr33kman is a good applicant and I believe he will do fine at this job. If this doesn't pass, do consider running for OS. EhJJTALK 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – Fr33kman is a friend and very trustworthy, should do fine. American Eagle (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I am really impressed about your knowlegde. This is needed to be a checkuser. Barras || talk 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Technically sound. Trustworthy. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Yes, of course. This user has been the prime candidate for checkusership for a while and I definitely believe that this user will do the job correctly and use the tools the way that they are meant to be used. I definitely believe that this user will fully abide by the Privacy Policy and I definitely think that this user will make an awesome checkuser. Razorflame 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - User has the expertise and judgement for this role. Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Knowledge, decisive and willing to change. Ideal. Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Chris 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
Weak oppose - He's just become a bureaucrat and one of his decisions has already been disputed. I think you should slow down, ans settle in as a crat for the moment. CU can come later. Note: I am opposing and not just commenting as I know there's a required number of votes. I wouldn't have opposed otherwise. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification... how does his actions as a crat apply in the context of CU? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 06:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his recent disputed crat decision, do you feel that his judgement is in question? Also, crats judge consensus. CU's do not, they judge technical data and when to release / use the data. Could you clarify a bit? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment on wether it needs checking or not. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my first closure; the bureaucrat that reversed my decision has admitted (via IRC) that he was wrong to do so. Crat's either have discretion or they don't. fr33kman talk 07:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'm leaving my oppose because I don't want it to fail because there aren't enough votes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if you oppose or not, because he need 25 supports. 24 supports and one oppose means, that he doesn't become a cu. Barras || talk 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright then. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  1. Changed from oppose after Barras pointed out to me it was 25 support votes and not total one's. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said you changed from opposed. Does this mean you changed from oppose to nothing or oppose to support? Exert 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I can see your point. However, I don't think that Fr33kman volunteering to take on additional roles at Simple shows him as power hungry. It just demonstrates that he is willing to help in any way that we can. As there are currently only 3 checkusers there may be times when none are on when one is needed and since Fr33kman is online frequently when the checkusers are not, giving him the extra set of tools seems to me to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. He has the technical knowledge and know how to use the tools, so I think that he should be allowed to use them. Just my opinion. Best, →javért stargaze 20:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I view self noms as a much needed display of enthusiasm.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your reservation. Personally I don't see any of the "hats" on wikis to be as having extra power but merely having extra responsibilities and being in service to the community. fr33kman talk 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your bio, you say that you are 41, but you also say that you have 17 years of IT experience and that you are a doctor. Since medical school usually takes 8 years, 8+17=25. 41-25=16. So you were 16 when you started working in IT? Not impossible, but odd. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, people do attend school concurrently with their jobs. That is what I imagine happened here. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also strikes me odd that he works in IT and is a doctor at the same time. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read his statement as saying he worked on computers and humans at roughly the same time, but that he still had his computer certifications. That's not especially odd. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that but if he worked in IT for 17 years that leaves 6 years when he was above the age of 18, which isn't a lot of time to 1. go to school, and 2. get a career as a doctor, and I believe that he works in IT right now, so he might have retired from being a doctor. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying exactly? I am a doctor now, I used to work in IT. I also had summer jobs in IT which are included in the 17 years. I started in IT when I was actually 15 (I used to repair Commodore Vic 20s and 64s part-time). I am also still a junior doctor, I have training to complete. Hope this clears up any confusion. None of this is actually relevant to the position of check user however, or to my editing on WMF projects. fr33kman talk 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was only a question about your bio, not anything here at WP. Now that you have clarified things, it makes more sense, and gives me more reasons to support you. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. fr33kman talk 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, how is it relevant in the first place? :-) (en:WP:CRED) -- Mentifisto 10:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll politely suggest that it's moot now; Griffin has already explained that it's not explicitly relevant to this election, just the biography. No need to discuss this further. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not allowed to vote yet, but thanks for welcoming me on IRC Fr33kman, and I hope you pass the audition :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasWiki (talk • contribs)

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.
Category