Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Adrignola

Since Whiteknight is no longer active on Wikibooks, we could use another bureaucrat. The obvious candidate to fill this void is Adrignola. He clearly understands the way this project works and has something like 30,000 edits. I think that's more than anyone else, but I'm too lazy to check! Also, edit count is not the main consideration. His work here has been exemplary, and I think it's high time we granted him the tools he could most definitely make good use of. Please remember to not vote on this until the nominee accepts or declines the nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[]

For those who are counting, my preferences page currently says 40,415 edits. But anyone interested in this discussion may also find the toolserver's listing of admin actions over the past year to be more relevant (and useful for gauging sysop health for Wikibooks as a whole). I will accept the nomination. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]

• Support As per my nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support My only complaint with Adrignola is that he makes the rest of us look bad with his ever-soaring edit count... Chazz (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support --Panic (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support. Being a 'crat is a pretty dull job and I welcome anyone who is competent who is willing to do it... Adrignola is. Thanks for the link BTW, didn't know that tool was available. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support Well I used to be active here so I don't feel bad about voting but if it bothers others then strike it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]
• Support - As a fellow Bureaucrat that isn't very active anymore I think it's important that we keep things fresh and ensure an active 'crat is around. -withinfocus 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

• Question: How do you measure consensus in a VFD (now an RFD, I suppose) where there is not 100% numerical agreement? How does that process translate to RFXs?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  The renaming of VFDs to RFDs make it clear that consensus is not determined through simple votes. It all comes down to the quality of the arguments for or against. If one side brings up valid points that cannot be properly addressed by the opposition, then that's a barrier to consensus right there. If those points can be properly addressed, hopefully the other side would be satisfied and change position on the issue. If they choose not to, then the situation becomes one similar to judges deciding which team has won a debate. Quality rationale is important at Wikibooks where the level of activity may only result in a number of participants one can count on a hand. A comment on the level of "because I say so" won't hold any weight, as it demands an assignment of value to the opinion based on personal feelings of a person's worth, which is not acceptable in an environment where everyone is supposed to be equal. A purely emotional reaction such as "I don't like it" also won't hold much weight as it's far too subjective when an objective analysis is called for.
  
  Translating that to RFXs seems to me to be tricky, as RFPs, for instance, often take the form of votes of confidence. It has not passed beneath my notice the additional questions you and others have posted during these nominations compared to past nominations in the archives. I appreciate those questions and believe that is a good way to go for RFPs in particular. It makes them more substantial and allows for better determination of consensus in more contentious nominations. It's not a surprise to me then that I've seen opposition to the requirements for a successful checkuser nomination as they relate to smaller wikis, as they turn it into a vote and set a fixed percentage of support votes required. That tempts users into vote-stacking one way or the other and eliminates the possibility of consensus-building or determining of consensus. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Adrignola should, in my opinion, also have access to the Check User tools. We have but two CU's, one who is here regularly, and another who I believe lurks (though that's hard to tell). If our existing active CU's decide to take a break, we are without. Again, please refrain from voting until the nominee accepts the nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Meta requires a minimum of two CUs, and given the requirement that CU elections have 70-80% support with 25-30 editors approving, it's not a bad idea to make sure we have more than the minimum. If one of our two CUs were to retire, we might not have enough time to elect another before losing all our CUs due to being below minimum. So, I accept the nomination. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]

1. Support Again, as per the nomination. Thank you for accepting. --Jomegat (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
2. Support what else can I say? Chazz (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
3. Support But again with the same reservation I (and others) made on the last attribution of these tools.
   3 Wikibookians with the checkuser flag should (again) fill any mid to long term requirements the community has for the function.
   Echoing some of the comments made elsewhere, Wikibooks has lost many of the sporadic users (including vandals) it had in the past (the revision system). With the activity level we have now, the declining number of administrators (most CU tasks are requested by other admins) and since Mike has been promptly performing the job, all makes this attribution a bit unnecessary. Having said that, if the situation of the project or the other CU's changed, Adrignola would be on the top of the list. That's why this isn't just a comment.
   A post should be made by the nominator on the general discussion area since we will need a greater level of participation on this. --Panic (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
   • I'll put a notice in the watchlist.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
4. Support It's never sensible to have just the minimum and with just two you can't be sure either will be available. I personally don't like having to call a Steward to an active project in an emergency, so better to have an extra CU. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
5. Support --Pi zero (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]
6. Support My views on use of tools (& activity) vary from some folk. If you are here and active that is good. Tools are there to be used by active people. Folks I trust seem to think you are ok. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]
7. Support Trustworthy, competent, and bringing a good attitude to the messy business of CU :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]
8. Support - Sure. -withinfocus 23:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]
9. Yes, I'd say I'm comfortable with giving Adrignola this privileged access - they're in an ideal position to put it to good use.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[]
10. Support --Yair rand (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[]
11. Support Can't see a reason against doing so. Soeb ^{talk|contribs} 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[]
12. Support Adrignola has been a very positive force on Wikibooks and used permissions responsibly in all cases I have seen. Shaitand (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[]
13. Support Trustworthy editor. --ЗAНИA ^talk 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[]
14. Support Trustworthy editor who's very active. There's no reason not to. Empire3131 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[]
15. Support Given Adringola's statements below, he seems to respect users' privacy and I trust he will remain "hesitant to use it unless standard administrative tools are ineffective at resolving a situation." --Swift (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[]
16. Support My position on this issue should be made abundantly clear, but for "vote counts", sure, add my vote onto the heap. Adrignola seems to be active on the project, and IMHO more trusted users ought to have this ability in general. --Rob Horning (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]
17. Support: Adrignola is a hard-working trustworthy user. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]
18. Support: Don't see why not. --SoylentGreen (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[]
19. Support: He is very trusted here. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 03:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[]
20. Support Trustworthy and active editor. He has got my support. Marco 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[]
21. Support He does a lot of administration, glad to see he got bureaucrat. Arlen22 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[]
22. Support Both a trustworthy and active editor. Has my support. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
23. Support Adrignola's responses below indicate limited and responsible use of this tool.--Paul James (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
24. Support Pmlineditor (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
25. Support He seems like a well-qualified and level-headed guy, though I can't imagine when he fits in his college studies. Recent Runes (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]

• Question: : Have you read the checkuser and privacy policies? Do you think they make sense? Is there anything you'd change in the policies (for example, to better protect our users' privacy, or to change how oversight of the tool's use works)?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  With regard to the privacy policy, some users may not be aware of what the terms "IP address" and "cookie" mean. It makes sense to me, given my knowledge of those terms, but they could be source of confusion for others. Potentially they could link to a Wikipedia entry on the matter. If there are concerns about lack of oversight of the tool's use, why not have notifications sent to the checkuser-l mailing list any time they are used? That could eliminate the need for two-checkuser minimum at any particular project and also increase the potential for cross-wiki coordination against abuse/vandalism. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  enwiki has orders of magnitude more checks than we do - notification to the mailing list of every one would make doing the work impossible. For smaller wikis, I think the two-CU minimum makes sense. A notification cannot guard against abuse: the CU would simply fail to report it or make it look legitimate. However, I agree that explaining terms in these policies would be useful, since quite often users may have a lack of awareness. As well, a naive user reading the policies may not understand who the groups being referred to are. Who are stewards, what are they for? That one is linked, but there is probably a lack of clarity for most new users.

  On the topic of IPs... would you make a short comment about your knowledge of the technical aspects of the CU tool? It is not magic pixie dust, and requires a basic understanding of computer networking, for example. It would be helpful to come to an informed decision to know whether you'll be lost in a sea of uninterpretable data, or whether you'd be able to make sense of it. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  I have not used the tool itself before and can only take away what I can from m:Help:Checkuser in terms of its operation in particular. Computer networking, IP addresses—if I don't know much about those I have a problem given my current field of study, information technology. Certainly most ISPs' customers' addresses will change based on the lease time of the address and whether the equipment had been rebooted during that period. Few have a static address nowadays. It may only be possible to determine that two users happen to edit from the same ISP and nothing more. Proxies can be used to shield one's address, not to mention onion networks such as Tor. I'm CompTIA A+/Network+ certified and also have earned my Cisco Certified Network Associate certification. I'm familiar with CIDR notation, subnetting, and routing. Maybe you recall a recent edit of mine where I noted the CIDR of a network using the IP address ranges given in a whois lookup. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  I do recall (my question was to make sure others have information useful for making an informed choice here)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  While there's no local policy dictating it, if it would reassure anyone, I do not have objections to being checkusered myself. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

• Question: The CU tool has only been used 20 50 times since and including July 9. That's a Very Good Thing IMO... it's not a tool that should be used very often. Adrignola, I've noticed that you are the sort who likes to find things to do with the tools you have now, but I've also noticed a pattern on other projects that suggests that very active CUs tend to attract (rather than discourage) some of the more dedicated cross-wiki vandals. With that in mind, I'd like to know a bit about how and when you intend to use the tools if you have access to them. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  I'm surprised they had to be used as often as that, even. The primary situation that comes to my mind would be a disruptive user creating accounts to hide their IP address (and network), with each new account part of the same network but with a new IP address from their provider. Autoblocking the last IP address used would be ineffective and an administrator would be unable to view the underlying network as a whole if vandalism is only performed while logged in. Another might be suspicions of vote-stacking or sockpuppetry, though I would not initiate a check for that without a call for it from the community and behavior that would support such a suspicion. The level of responsibility associated with the tool would make me hesitant to use it unless standard administrative tools are ineffective at resolving a situation. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

  Sounds good :-). Just FYI (and for others who are curious) it was actually 50, but more than half of the 50 were to do with cross-wiki issues (e.g., if word comes to Mike or me that there's been a vandal hitting multiple wikis from a given IP or account, we check here to see if something's going on that our RC patrollers might not be aware of). Transwiki stuff is something you'll be exposed to if you take this on... it can become something of an obsession (both in a good way and/or a bad way). Just keep that in mind, and good luck: your educational background and your enthusiasm suggest that you will be a formidable and excellent checkuser! --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[]

The situation sounds foobar to me, and should be corrected immediately. I would like to nominate Adrignola for Check user. Adrignola, please indicate here if you accept this somewhat ridiculous nomination. (Ridiculous because it should be automatic). Thenub314 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

I believe that I already have a successful nomination. Just as people are able to request tools back if they did not resign them under a cloud, because my CU tools were removed as a result of the requirement for a minimum of two CheckUsers, I do believe that it would be automatic if we are able to approve another CheckUser. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the clarification. If there is any reason that WMF requires DL to give personal information, and this is not acceptable to him, then I will self nominate. But the overall situation is just messed up in my opinion. Thenub314 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

My view on the subject is the same (and I expressed in on DL nomination). As the tools were never lost, you were just prevented to hold them by the policy minimum requirement of 2 CUs. Getting the tools active again does not require a new request for permission.

It can be argued that any other flag will be granted the same consideration as in every case that a community decision isn't used to repel a previous community decision. For instance any other self induced removal of flags that aren't validated by the community will be able to be reversible (I do think that some considerations should be made into policy, especially because we have a special de-adminship process, since a justification should be required for self induced removals, and a time limit for those cases should be present, a time limit for the validity to turn the self induced removal in a permanent state requiring the a reevaluation by the community). --Panic (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

• Support Adrignola is a trustworthy user. Diego Grez (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
• Support We can trust them. —I-20the highway 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
• Support though, as mentioned, a new voting process should not be required. Chazz (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]