Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for de-checkusership/Fr33kman

< Wikipedia:Requests for de-checkusership
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Fr33kman change

Fr33kman (talk · contribs · count)
RfdCU of Fr33kman
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: Chenzw.

End date: 16:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Fr33kan's block of Cyber.Eyes.2005 and Dotdashmeredith we're beyond the pale horrible blocks that are honestly a cause of de-adminship. I think without checkuser priveleges the abuse of the user will die down, but damn. The discussion here shows that user is not willing to discuss the block at all, which is required administrative accountability. dotdash also. Fr33kman is blocking users based solely on enwiki behavior, and that is not allowed here. RiggedMint also thinks CU abuse is ongoing. --OhDear2 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support change

  1. Support as proposer. --OhDear2 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked your own account instead of the admin... RiggedMint 17:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, thanks for fixing. --OhDear2 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I was hoping Fr33kman would take my comments on his original request for CU rights more seriously. With only three months of recent activity, the user's limited experience raises concerns about their familiarity with the community and its dynamics. I've seen multiple instances where they haven't "remebered" policies correctly. This, unfortunately, shows that he hasn't. Whether it be confusion or abuse, it was a violation of the use policy that he should've known. Illusion Flame (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no violation of policy fr33kman 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose change

  1. Oppose While I considered fr33kman of doing abuse, I think it's more of a case of confusion rather than abuse. I don't think he realized that enwiki blocks dont apply here. It's kinda the whole reason that those people are here. That said, I feel opposing this as fr33kman is a bit of a respectable CU and Admin, I think he's still a good CU (as he was CU before a long time ago). RiggedMint 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with RiggedMint; it appears to be a case of confusion (I was the one who got blocked.). Both Dot and I were blocked due to sockpuppetry on EnWiki, which might have became the reason for our blocks here. Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkusers are not supposed to make mistakes like this. If he didn't properly read policy, his request for checkusership should have failed.--OhDear2 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I think this is some confusion. Brand new editors / IPs nominated @Cyber.Eyes.2005 and me for blocking. I am quite sure these users are targeting us, as they deleted my QD nominations without good reason. I would request these users to be blocked as they are clearly sockpuppeting and targeting us, and vandalizing by removing QD nominations. dotdashmeredith (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose bit of a trainwreck with prior socking on enwiki, add in a vindictive sockfarm upset for some of their articles being tagged and deleted and it's an utter mess. Perhaps a bit more time and some discussion with other CU's would have helped, but both named users are unblocked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I Support Fr33kman he is doing his job perfectly. so i will suggest no more discussion on this topic.--Anwi6644 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator observation) Anwi6644 was blocked for abusing several accounts. Kk.urban (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - "were beyond the pale horrible blocks that are honestly a cause of de-adminshi" - I wouldn't go that far and I wouldn't go as far as to say this was CU abuse either (unless there's more blocks we don't know about?), Mistakes happen and everyone makes mimstakes admins included,
    Anyway both users were unblocked by the blocking admin and I'm sure they now know blocks on other projects don't really have any bearing here. –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Looks like a big misunderstanding that got resolved already --DannyS712 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

 Comment: I am certain of my findings however since they occurred quite some time ago and are partly bsed on findings on enwiki I have unblocked the account. They have explained the second account they have had here on simplewiki was not used here I see no reason to block them here at this time. fr33kman 19:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that OhDear2, is a sock of Andrew5, and I've blocked and locked the account. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be grounds to invalidate this discussion? LilianaUwU (talk / changes) 21:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do now have a valid support vote, so I personally won't be closing it for that reason. --Ferien (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a valid support vote, so I'd side with a no. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew this was a sock attack. I was going to ask for a CU to be done. fr33kman 22:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend this be closed as a personal attack even though there is a support vote. fr33kman 22:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please share where you think a personal attack has occurred. I have yet to find one. Illusion Flame (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the running of a de-checkusership (or any process) by a blocked user against a member of the community is a personal attack. Allowing this process continue is unfair to me. If a blocked user managed to sucker the community into running an RfA and then it was found that it was being run by a blocked user it would be shut down immediately. But this is being permitted to run. You had your say during my RfCU and your opinion has not changed. I don't see how this process is valid. fr33kman 06:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you argue that, since you want to keep your checkusership rights. But valid concerns have been raised against you about checkusership, and you seem to have denied them like a 5 year old - stop acting like a quarter your age please. 170.24.150.2 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, as we can read, the request has been made, and it will be duly handled. This is an open community, anyone can bring a concern against an elected official of this community. I will neverthelss ask all to stay civil. Personal attacks, of any kind may be very gratifying, and allow to releve stress. In the end however, they serve little, as the community still has to decide on the issues brought up, in a civil and meaningful way. Eptalon (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just pointing out a source of bias in that he is likely to be defensive in his own RfdCU but he needs to act his age. He’s obviously over 18, otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to be a checkuser. 170.24.150.2 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He had this role over a decade ago, and did it for years... Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have blocked 170.24.150.2 for block evasion. They are most likely Andrew5 given their contribs. We can move on from this. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: I'm noticing that there are a good number of oversighted diffs on WP:RFCU, and that the very first oversighted edit appears to have been made by the respondent of this request. @Fr33kman: Without revealing any non-public information, can you explain a bit about what happened there? Red-tailed hawk (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't, I'm not an oversighter. I didn't oversight them. fr33kman 01:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon Care to share? Illusion Flame (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you’ve replied to this, but then deleted it and revdeled it. Again, why? How does this meet RD5. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave a lengthy reply below; what I replied would not move on the discussion. So we are better off this way (hence the deletion of the comment) Eptalon (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were those revisions deleted because they violated checkuser policy or for some other reason is what I am curious about. No need to go into details but would just like to know that. I am sure ombuds are already aware if it did, so even then, I feel like there is nothing further to be done here.-- BRP ever 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they did, most of the edits are surpressed because that was the time period between when the comment was made and when it was removed. No personal information was directly revealed but if someone was looking hard enough could have narrowed down some information to make guesses at personal information. I can't be more specific than that without causing the same issue. Basically the choice in wording could have been better. -Djsasso (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Djsasso for formulating it so eloquently. I deleted my edit, your response is better. Eptalon (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon That settles this basically. I would advice against using G5 so frequently to revdel your comments. It creates unnecessary confusion. If there is nothing bad enough to hide from general people, it can just stay in the history.--BRP ever 09:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ombuds commission, if you think there is abuse of CU tools. Without proper data, it makes no sense to discuss like this.--BRP ever 21:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all: Please step back, and consider: From a standard situation of 'named user gets blocked - user appeals - user gets unblocked', we went to a vote-of-no-confidence for a long-serving admin of this Wikipedia. This is a small wiki, and it is different in many ways from other wikis. Only a short time back, the commmunity put trust in Fr33kman, by electing him to the role of CheckUser (which he aloready had, about a decade ago). So, without going into detail: A checkuser can look up the ip adress(es) a named account uses to connect to Wikipedia. Checkusers also see the user agent of the browser. Based on this information he/she can say that two named users are likely related (or not). Yes, the ip can perhaps be placed in a geographical area, all this is information that can help with the decision. Unlike other admins, Checkusers need to sign a contract that says what part of this information they are allowed to release to what party, in what way. In addition, the checkuser policy states that this information is not public. But this was just to give you some context. I might as well cite our criteria for adminship: Adminship is about trust--Eptalon (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eptalon I think @Fr33kman is good editor. so we have to close this all discussions Anwi6644 (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    someone proposed this, and there are valid votes. So we will let it run, and close when it is due. We will then see how much support he has. Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Sure. Anwi6644 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I'm convinced by either side of this. I'm definitely not going to be supporting a RfdCU created by a sockpuppet, especially when it comes to CU abuse which cannot be proven on-wiki, but I can't say the oppose arguments are convincing either. This whole situation is bad, and no, I don't think it's all fine now they're unblocked, because getting blocked and then unblocked pretty suddenly serves as a bite, IMO. An identical situation for two different editors too... Admin policy was definitely broken on The Cramm which was bizarrely deleted as a G5 after DDM was unblocked, even though it appears no block was being evaded when the page was created anyway. I haven't seen anything from Fr33kman admitting any mistakes either, only an accusation of personal attacks towards Cyber.Eyes.2005 on her talk page, and trying to speedy close this above. --Ferien (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien i dont know whats going on Simple English Wikipedia now Sock Puppets getting rights on Simple English Wikipedia. 3 Different users forces @Fr33kman to unblock them forcely by this Wikipedia:Requests for de-checkusership/Fr33kman one is creating promotional article like Poybo Media , The Vach and Bayu Prihandito in fact the founder of The Vach is Poybo Media intresting. and today another master @Anwi6644 appears and added references on Dotdash. 5.254.80.194 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the reason in my unblock log be changed if possible? I just hope it doesn't diminish my chances of being unblocked on EnWiki; the current reason sounds like I abused multiple accounts here too "(has been some time since using multiple accounts)". Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyber.Eyes.2005 Unfortunately changing the logs is not possible. It is possible to add a postscript to the block log, that would require blocking and unblocking you again though. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fehufanga, Thank you for your response. If it's not too much trouble, could you please proceed with the postscript on the block log? I'd like to ensure clarity regarding the reason for my block. Thanks again.^^ Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit to making a mistake. i blocked Cyber.Eyes.2005 based on them using an account here that was part of the sock farm found on enwii. it was based on contribs because it was too old for CU data. So saying they never used a second count here is wrong, but i should have used CU data which is why I unblocked them. fr33kman 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair and understandable finding. Illusion Flame (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone kindly close this thing already? It's 3 days overdue. fr33kman 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-checkusership/Fr33kman&oldid=9271678"