Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Barras

Optional questions from Fr33kman

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

A: There are different tools that help to determine if an IP is an open proxy or not. I normally check the IP with robtex. It often says if an IP is an open proxy or not. It is also helpful to take a look at enwp, dewp, meta and other projects if the IP is blocked there as an open proxy. This is easy because there is a tool to see all global blocks. Some other fairly commons characteristics of open proxies are 1) The IP is highly used at all hours of the day (This can be checked with the global edits for example.); 2) Several IP addresses are used for the same editorial behaviour, means they do the same vandalism in a short period of time (see our current proxy vandal); 3) The IP is listed on a frequently updated site containing lists of open proxies. However, even with this tools, lists and common sense, it is not always possible to guarantee that an IP is an open proxy. If I can't determine if an IP is an open proxy, I ask other more experienced people for help, as there's always one who knows more. Then I'd also block the IP for a short period of time only. The block can always be changed afterwards.

Q: You have just performed a checkuser of an old vandal. The checkuser shows that an admin edits from the same address and has the exact same user agent as the vandal. What are your actions and why?

A: First of all, I assume good faith. I would not block the admin or do something that would just cause drama. I would talk to the other local CUs and see what they think about this case. Such a situation is nothing where I would act in rush, but I'd keep an eye on the user. I'd propose to the other CUs to contact the admin and to tell him about this issue and ask him for an explanation. I'd first try to solve the "problem" privately together with the other cus and decide together with them what we should do next.

Q: A person is vandalising via open proxies, is there any point in CUing the proxies?

A: For a single occasion, no. If there's every day a new ongoing proxy vandal then maybe. It could help to see if an account is used via this proxy or if a sock farm is created with the proxy. I think it's most likely waste of time to perform a cu on an open proxy.

Q: What do you know about XFF?

A: XFF data are not always available. When available, it can allow you to see the local IP who is editing. It is also possible that an ISP (Internet service provider) is using proxy servers (they send several people via a proxy to save money). Countless people could be using that IP. It's important to mention that not all XFF data are trustworthy. The proxy could put any information it wants into it. Governments and schools can mostly be trusted. A list of trusted proxies can also be found on meta.

Optional questions from wiooiw

Q:You preform a CU on an admin because of suspicion its related to another user. Though you find these two users are not related, you do find that the admin has been using open proxies. What actions would you take? Would you tell the community this discovery? Would your actions be the same if the user was not an admin?

A: First of all: it doesn't matter if someone is admin or not. The admin tools are just some buttons to help the community. This means there is no reason to make a difference between admins and non-admins. Also I'd like to note that I would only run a cu if there is a very clear evidence that there is any abuse. I wouldn't take any actions. I wouldn't tell anyone if someone uses open proxies. It is sometimes simply needed for people to use them. There are governments who block websites such as Wikipedia or Commons (for example: Iran). That's also the reason why some people have IPBE. They use blocked proxies to edit and need to bypass the block. If the user wouldn't be an admin, I'd mail him and ask if he need IPBE to be able to edit.

Q:You block an IP for 31 hours for vandalism. The IP then threatens to use his existing sock puppets to vandalize after the block expires. Do you check the IP?

A: I'd wait until the block expires and see if the socks really appear. I think that the user would make similar edits with the account as he's done with the IP, so that the duck test could apply. Then there is no reason for a check. If more suspicious accounts appear, I'd run the check to see if there are more socks. In the case he created the sock accounts some time ago, I check could be useless. So I'd say it really depends on the situation.

Q:Would you ever use the CU tool on a user just for the hell of it? Why or Why not?

A: Short question, short answer: No. There's absolutely no reason to use the cu tool when not needed. Furthermore, the use of the cu tool 'just for the hell of it' would clearly be against policy.

Support

1. I support this request. Jon@talk:~$ 21:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
2. - Support. Yottie ^=talk= 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Kansan (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Support, excellent candidate and in the right time zone. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Barras is one of the few editors who has my complete trust. Our current team of checkusers is very very efficient, and I am sure Barras will work well with them to make the team even stronger.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support I trust Barras, and I know he won't abuse it. I gladly support him. Simon^KSK 23:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Support -Chenzw  Talk  01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Support I'm satisfied. Short note about the trusted XFFs: we do see them (as xffs on the CU report) but for those special ones on meta the blockable IP is actually the local IP (so even if a normal admin blocks they aren't seeing the proxy they see the real ip). We do of course sometimes come across XFF data that isn't trusted by WMF yet and have to decide how much we trust it (but as you said that is often a question of where the data comes from). James (T C) 09:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the notice. I'm still learning (well, reading books) and don't know everything yet (as stated in my first statement). I'll read a bit more about XFF data. -Barras (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

9. Support Barras is on at times when other CheckUsers aren't, has experience handling private info (hiding them at least), and is trusted with his current tools. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 09:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
10. Answer to Q2 is what I was looking for. I trust Barras completely and I'm sure the tools will be of great use to him. sonia^♫♪ 09:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
11. Strong support Wonderful and extremely genius editor: kind, caring, polite, and cheerful. He has all the potential I can ever expect from a checkuser. :) And also per everybody else. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 09:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I strongly trust and respect all of Simple's current checkusers, and I'm sure Barras would be an excellent addition. :) His steadily good judgment is without doubt calm and clear, and I trust him to be able to use the tools for Simple's benefit. —Clementina talk 09:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - Confident that barras will do well with the tool in appropriate situations. Nifky^{^} 10:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - I like Barras' point of view that admins are just like another user except with extra tools to help the site. I see that some users may feel that because admins have such tools, they are somehow privileged not to follow policy if they wish too. As far as my first question, I expected a different answer, but liked how Barras answered it. Even though the question may seem specific, there are countless number of scenarios and it does show that the use of the tool may be quite complex. Because Barras already has Oversight permissions, he is already experience in handling private information. Per NonvocalScream regarding about the timezones and all above, I not sure if there is any better candidate than Barras. oh and I'm glad to see that Barras will not use the CU tool "just for the hell of it". wiooiw (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
15. Support the benefits outweigh the concerns Purplebackpack89 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - Even though I'm retired, I'll still put in my vote for people if they let me know when they are going up for a position :) Good outweighs the bad, therefore, no problems here. Razorflame 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
17. Thoughtful and trustworthy user. Good luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
18. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
19. As long he can provide ID to the foundation I'll Support —I-20the highway 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

    He's an oversighter, so he has already done that. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

     (change conflict)  Being a member of the oversight usergroup, Barras is already identified to the Foundation. -- Lauryn (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't bother to look then. I am silly. —I-20the highway 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

20. Support —§ stay (sic)! 03:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Pmlineditor ∞ 09:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support πr² (talk • changes) 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support if I may. Kylu (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support trustworthy editor and that's what's most important here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
25. @Lauryn (parlez) 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
26. fr33kman 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - Solid choice. No concerns. EhJJ^TALK 00:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

• I am a bit concerned about the number of typos he makes Purplebackpack89 02:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, Barras is German and English is not the first language. Because of that, and the fact that nobody is perfect, I don't think spelling is that bad an issue.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

^. Also, how will this affect his ability to serve as a CU? sonia^♫♪ 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For the higher-up positions like CU, coherence is of the utmost importance, and repeated typos jeopardize coherence and could potentially lead to problems. If I had thought it was that big of an issue, I would've have been more than "a bit concerned" Purplebackpack89 03:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to berate you or anything, but I do want to gently respond. From time to time I make typos and as a crat, I sure have made typos in templates and RFx... normally I correct these, unless someone gets to it before me (rare). Not making typos using the blog interface would also be important, but I use a spell checker if ever I need to modify anything. I hope that we won't hold typos against the candidate, I know that he will try harder in the future knowing the concern has been raised. I don't think a large grasp of English or any other language for example, will effect anyone's grasp of the tool. For example, we have stewards that are required to go on Wiki that are not in their native tongue, they seem to manage the tool effectively. Honestly, in my opinion, I don't think this is an issue. Thank you for hearing, Jon@talk:~$ 08:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that my main problem is the grammar. I normally use a a program that underlines wrong spelled words. However, as Jon mentioned above, I think that it is not a big problem here. Language skills are more important for the oversight tool, as you have to judge if something is libel or not (just as an example). Also, again what Jon says, stewards perform checks on wikis where they don't understand the language. However, it is known that I'm not a native speaker (just look at my userpage), but I think my English is understandable... Anyway, I try to do my best to not make too many typos. -Barras (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

......James (T C) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I must echo James' ".....". If we're getting to the point where people are denied advanced user rights due to tyops, when our user base has several members whose second (and even third and fourth language) is English, and others who have learning disabilities, then we need to come to a full stop and reevaluate our personal criteria for different user rights. This is, to put it mildly, asinine. -- Lauryn (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And that's a personal attack, Lauryn. Notice how overblown this got. I said I was a little bit concerned, and everybody acts like I just cussed out the whole wikis. Honestly, why did you guys jump all over this? Purplebackpack89 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You should probably refamiliarise yourself with what actually constitutes a "personal attack". Just a friendly suggestion. -- Lauryn (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lauryn didn't call you asinine, she called questioning ability to do a job based on language skills asinine. Considering that you obviously don't feel to strongly about your comment, this not an attack on your or on anything which you strongly believe.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did they jump all over this? Maybe it's the mere fact that you are concerned about typos in a request for checkusership. How will typos affect somebody's ability to serve as a checkuser? Simon^KSK 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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.