Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Vermont

Questions

Note: Comment about Hian and IP is purely example to gather data about reactions to linking accounts and IPs. I do not think Hian is socking, nor that the IP is connected to him Naleksuh (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Vermont has a fine skillset and is extensively experienced in dealing with cross-wiki abuse and long-term abuse. I'm certain he'll be a major asset to the CheckUser team. Hiàn (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Good sysop with the skillset to use this tool effectively. Operator873^talkconnect 18:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Vermont has extensive LTA knowledge, both here and globally. He has the complete knowledge to be able to use this permission effectively. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 19:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Without a doubt. Competent and would be a benefit to this project in that role. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Strong Admin in vandal and LTA fighting. Frequently available on and off wiki. I see no issues here --Enfcer (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Definitely. Crosswiki as well as technical skills; experience and integrity. No issues. Antandrus (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Strong support Yes. Vermont is one of the best sysops we have and he would make a great check user. -Examknow^talk 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Support and a strong one at that, clearly trusted user with good undertanding of the policy and the necessary knowledge for CU tasks. No concerns.-BRP ^ever 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Support excellent user. Trusted and will do fine with the CU rights --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Vermont would be a strong addition to the CU team. His crosswiki and local experience demonstrates a clear use case for these permissions. ~riley (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Support, has a good skillset and experienced in dealing with cross-wiki abuse and LTA. Hope he's assistance will very helpful for CheckUser. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
12. Support IMO Vermont is perfect candidate for CU, as their work in stopping vandalism and LTA's on this project has been great and this will aid their efforts to do more in that direction. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Strongest Possible Support I know Vermont well, they had been a pillar in this wikis countering LTAs and vandals (so I am totally perplexed by oppose #2 now stricken that said they don't know LTAs, if Vermont can't, I don't think the rest of us can). I am also perplexed with the oppose rationale that says simple doesn't require so many CUs. Rights are meant to be used and for trusted users, and more hands are always good. For a project with such a high level of abuse (which the opposer raised in meta RFC closing this project), why not having more competent people dealing with the abuse? I can't understand the logic of closing local CU down and pushing to SRCU, I think this will make the abuse mitigation even harder. Having said that, what we can do is that for those people not using the tools for very long period of time, we can remove them without prejudice of regaining if they are to be active again. This I think is more desirable than a blanket oppose based on too many CUs. I think they are well qualified to be elected as CU for this project.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Support Competent in technical and communication on the live chat, including with confidential information. Helps out new volunteers with understanding how wikis work and what the procedures are, as well as with content. Has a sense of judgment. Strongly recommend. --Gryllida 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
15. Support, having more & more helping hands are never a problem. Candidate is extremely trusted & qualified for the role. No concerns. I believe, Vermont will definitely do great with this tool. Keep up the good works! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 04:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
16. Support Can be trusted with the tools. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
17. Support I simply can't explain this guy, efficient, caring and dedicated. An extra tool could probably be of benefit to the community. Continue with the good work mehn! --DJ (✉ - ✔) 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
18. Support --Minorax (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
19. Support Kevin (aka L235 · t · enwiki) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
20. Support - as nominator. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
21. Support - very fair request. It's humbling to see how far you've come since your RFA. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
22. Support In response to the points raised in the oppose section, simplewiki does get a lot of the LTA spillover from enwiki. --Rschen7754 01:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
23. Support Very well-qualified. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 02:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
24. Support - I'm not really active on this project so I'm not sure this will count, but I would like to point out that the other English Wikipedia has been sending troublesome users to simple for years, occasionally even overtly, and it is therefore unfair for enwiki admins to try to deny simple the tools they need to manage the disruption. I know Vermont from his work on enwiki, where he is a conscientious and diligent Wikipedian, and I am sure he will be a great asset to the checkuser team here. – bradv🍁 04:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
25. Support -- CptViraj (📧) 04:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
26. Weak support What do you mean by being identified to the WMF? Have you attended any of the wikimedia conferences? Please explain. Otherwise Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znotch190711 (talk • contribs)

    Anyone who is a Checkuser must provide proof of identification to the WMF of their real identity. They are saying they have already done so. -Djsasso (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Djsasso: What is a "proof of identification"? Does it mean that you have to do a face reveal to the Wikimedia Foundation? Znotch190711 ^{(Talk - Contributions - CentralAuth)} 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    They have you sign an agreement on Phabricator, basically a non-disclosure. Vermont (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

27. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
28. Support - Per nomination. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not because I don’t trust Vermont, but because simple.wiki currently has 4 too many CUs. I would have opposed the other recent nomination had I known it was going on. This is a small project where most people are active in other communities and where there might not even be a need for any CUs. What is the justification for this project having almost double the CUs as es.wiki? Expanding CU permission on what for most people is a small secondary project makes zero sense, and honestly it might make more sense just to turn over checks on simple entirely to stewards. Sorry Vermont, but I also expect you knew this was my view already. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   Though we currently have 6 CheckUsers, only two or three are actively checking requests, and it was 1-2 before Operator873. This project also has an extremely high ratio of vandalism/spam to good edits, compared to most projects. There's dozens of spambots, RfD sockpuppets, vandal socks, etc. that land on this project weekly. If anything, like with administrators, the more you have that are trusted and active members of the community results in more oversight between checkusers and faster response times to attempts to abuse our project. Though I respect your opinion, your experience on this project is nonexistent, and your comment that stewards would better handle CU here is not based in any knowledge of this community's situation. We'd end up flooding the meta requests page doubly as often as zhwiki does. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   I historically have opposed expansion of CU on smaller English language projects because it does impact me as an English language user. It’s not personal to you or simple. Even using an “active” standard with one additional active CUs, you’d have an equal number of CUs to fr.wiki and es.wiki. The scale isn’t even comparable. Spambots are easily handled using loginwiki and SRG, and there is already a steward who is a CU here and regularly handles the vandal socks. That’s not the discussion here though. The question is whether this English language project needs 7 CUs total, which would be tied with it.wiki for second place to en.wiki. As a movement we have historically limited access to CU based on project need. There’s just no justification for simple.wiki needing the same number of CUs as it.wiki and almost double fr.wiki and es.wiki. It’s a principles thing: we limit access based on need, and English language users have an interest in the expansion of access on English language projects. We shouldn’t be expanding here, especially this soon after a recent grant. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   TonyBallioni: This is a discussion whether Vermont should become a Checkuser. It is not a discussion on the appropriate number of Checkusers, or to compare these numbers to the number of CheckUsers other wikis. Yes, we probably are the wiki with the most admins per active (regular) users. We also do have both oversighters and checkusers, while in other wikis of comparable size, stewards handle these requests. Please note: Only admins can become checkusers here, while on other wikis, there is no such limitation. The number of Checkusers is irrelevant, as long as the community trusts these editors.--Eptalon (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   That’s not true. The only way the number of CUs is controlled is via appointment or election. Historically opposing for lack of need on a project is a very common reason to oppose an individual for the CU permission cross-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, and you evidently don't understand the need on this project. You have tried to get this project shutdown using, among other things, arguments about our level of vandalism/spam, and yet you try to prevent editors from gaining tools to handle such abuse. Vermont (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   TonyBallioni As someone not active in and not a part of this community (save for a couple days last year and your voting here), can you justify your participation on this election as the global policy explicitly says the community should elect their own CUs? Operator873^talkconnect 18:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   When I voted in support of Vermont’s RfA he told me simple’s Policy was that anyone could participate if they’ve ever edited simple wiki. I assumed that was the policy for this as well. Edit: yep, Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship says that individuals can participate in discussions that occurred after their first edit. Since the criteria for CU are also a part of that policy, my assumption is the voting rules are the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

2. I have seen Vermont be very helpful as an admin and there are no glaring issues with any more groups, but I am ... not as satisfied as possible with the answers to his questions. In particular, he seemed to incorrectly identify certain LTAs and did not seem to get that IPs and Accounts are not checked together, even after being to answer this (for more specific details in exact conversation, pop open the collapse box above in the Questions section). Because of this, I am somewhat concerned about checkusership in this case. While I don't forsee immediate problems, I am a bit concerned about supporting, especially when there is no apparent need for any more checkusers (one was promoted only a few days ago!) Naleksuh (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   IPs and accounts are not publicly connected,for privacy reasons, but if a named editor is socking using an IP, the only way to check is with CheckUser permissions. And, I do not believe I misidentified any LTAs. Vermont (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The request here was to publicly connect them. Naleksuh (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please identify where this implies a public connection: "can you make sure they're not the same person?" Vermont (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh For clarification, what were you wanting to publicly connect? Operator873^talkconnect 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: as a CU for 2yrs, and a steward, I'd like to clarify that a public connection of IPs to accounts should not be made in 99% of the cases. Only extremely specific cases allow it, and we need to report the disclosure immediately, as it is not something that should be done. On the experience side, I've been in contact with Vermont for over two years now, and I do vouch for his experience with LTAs and vandals. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

•  Neutral I fucked up the questions and find that Vermont's answers were reasonable. I am going to remove my oppose as such. Naleksuh (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni What do you mean by "has 4 too many CU's..."? -Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This project isn’t big enough to need more than two. It currently already has more than projects many times its size. Look, there’s a question as to if this RfCU could even get 25 supports from people who are actually active on this wiki. He probably couldn’t (at least 4 supports are about as active on this project as I am...) I’m not one to complain since I just have checked this page daily since the last one passed, but 100% there are people here who are only voting because they are friends of his from SWMT who have heard about this. That’s allowed by simple’s “1 edit to vote” policy, but it doesn’t demonstrate there is an active enough community here to actually need it. In reality, this is resume padding for next years steward elections and Vermont is very likeable guy, so even people who I know 100% agree with me on the idea that simple should move to SRCU rather than having local CUs are currently supporting him because of personal reasons. This is a cross-wiki popularity contest and nothing more, and I don’t think that’s fair to the users on multiple projects who will have their private data shared with one more person for no reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Would a more harsh inactivity policy be beneficial? I'd be the second new CheckUser in about eight years if this passes, and as I wrote earlier, we don't have as active a CU team as we should with 6, not nearly, especially considering the amount of vandalism and spam we legitimately get that you are not remotely qualified to give subjective judgements about being that you've barely edited here. With regard to the reason, kindly assume good faith. I have been an administrator on this project just shy of two years, and in that time have done a ton of work with spammers/bots, LTAs, and normal vandals, much of which are cross-wiki, which sparked my involvement with SWMT, in a nutshell reverting those vandals wherever they may edit. If the editors I've interacted with over the last few years heard about this, as you did, so be it. Onto use of the tool, many of the blocks I've made of people editing this project in bad faith could have been aided by CU tools, as could many of the blocks I didn't make. I consider you a friend, Tony, but I hope you understand that my motive here is to gain more tools which can be used to do my work here more efficiently, more thoroughly, and more accurately. Discounting it as seeking padding for a steward election is patently undercutting it. Vermont (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you seriously believe our project is too small for CheckUsers at all, we can discuss that over IRC if you'd like, though I'm astounded you have the audacity to consider yourself an expert in our work load with your 39 edits here. Vermont (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I am not going to comment one way or the other on the need based argument, but just for data sake I would point out we have actually lost 4 CUs (flags removed for inactivity) since the last time we added a CU (prior to the recent Operator flagging), so its not so much expanding CU size here as it is getting back to what we used to have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (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.