Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Materialscientist

Materialscientist

Related requests:

• Administrators/Requests/Materialscientist

• Checkusers/Requests/Materialscientist

Vote

Materialscientist (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I would like to help the project by performing checkuser duties. My motivation is cleanup. I do that daily as an admin on en.wiki and Commons and as a checkuser on en.wiki (since 2009, 2012 and 2013, respectively). Experience tells that having access to CU logs on two projects, especially en.wiki and Commons, greatly increases the chances of making a right assessment of a user.

Here are my en.wiki admin and CU statistics. None of my CU actions were found inappropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support - No issues, will hopefully clean up a growing socking problem on this wiki...--Stemoc 07:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Юрий Д.К 08:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support user has ~2 million edits globally 💀 ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 09:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support as above. Yann (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Glrx (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support unreservedly. I have had nothing but good experiences with their work.🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Abzeronow (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support - Highly trusted user. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Taivo (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Highly trusted and experienced user of Wikipedia, I think he can provide benefit to Commons on this capacity. NikosLikomitros (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Support. Highly capable and clearly knows what he is doing Robertsky (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 12:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Riad Salih (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. —Hasley 14:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support —MdsShakil (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support GMG^talk 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Hugo (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted and experienced. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support EN-Jungwon 10:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for volunteering! --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Yep. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely, yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support FitIndia ^Semi-retired 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 18:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support – Ammarpad (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am contesting your statement that "None of my CU actions were found inappropriate.". I find that en:Special:Redirect/logid/148499599 was an inappropriate CU action. You changed an IPv6 /32 anon. only block for a Jio range to a hard block, marking the new block as a CheckUser block. This caused a wave of appeals due to collateral. Since, per policy, I could not modify your CU block, I requested that another CU investigate the collateral and reduce the block. Another CU restored the block back to anon. only within hours of your modification, citing "significant collateral". Collateral aside, you marked the block as a CU block, but it was not backed by use of the CU tool. This unacceptably made the block unreviewable by non-CUs. If you cannot use the tool appropriately on a wiki where you already have it, you should get access to it on another wiki. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  "I find that en:Special:Redirect/logid/148499599 was an inappropriate CU action." - indeed, that single action was found inappropriate by some users, and I still don't know who they were. There was no discussion that involved myself. Five long-term blocks were issued to that range before mine within 1.5 years. A public discussion was started a month after my block here. It didn't find the blocks inappropriate. All that said, I don't question the decision (of lifting my block or finding it excessive). Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  "it was not backed by use of the CU tool" - I have to disagree. We are talking about a busy ::/32 range. Getting its CU log is technically challenging even on a fast internet; hence we often scan parts of a range. According to Drmies that IP range has "1500 entries in the CU log since February 2021". Some partial results are kept on CU Wiki. I've scanned that range 7 times from 20 May 2023 to 26 June 2023. That IP range has been CU-scanned ca. 100 times in the period 18 May 2023 to 30 August 2023 alone. I've checked that range 7 times from 20 May 2023 to 26 June 2023. My block was issued on 26 June 2023. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm personally not going to comment or vote because of (active or former) hats and this is not a community I regularly contribute, but I am concerned. I have had to repeatedly and excessively reduce rangeblocks at ACC because of how blatantly they ignore colleterial, and I did it for years. I know the CU training is lacking, but I also learned how to block just through CU expirience, or looking at how busy ranges are. It causes more work for others. I haven't been doing ACC as frequently recently, but the previous pattern was long and extensive. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Amanda, for the record, I highly value your work and comments on CU mailing list. I wish you have talked to me personally so that I could learn from you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - per JJMC89 - Faendalimas (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose while I have no issues with his CU actions, I do have an issues with the unreviewable blocks he has made in his capacity as a CU. While Materialscientist and I have different views on vandalism blocks, which I don't really hold against him, what I do have an issue with is that he has CU block very large ranges as hard blocks without running a check. This has the impact of preventing non-CU admins from reviewing without the input of a CU; and for IP ranges most won't review because they assume something private was involved. While it is not an abuse of the tool itself, it is an abuse of the status to make a block unreviewable. I'm opposing on those grounds. Note that I cannot speak to any specific block per the privacy policy, but the en.wiki Arbitration Committee can confirm that I have reported this abuse in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  See my reply above. I am well known on en.wiki for a highly liberal view on my blocks, allowing to lift them at will. All you need is a brief message on my talk. Further, most admins merely assume that CU blocks are unquestionable and don't even try to discuss them. CUs, me included, may and do reveal some block details and reasoning, on Wiki and/or off Wiki. The discussion that I've linked above. Is an example of how it could be done. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Support--Kadı Message 18:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question Per m:Volunteer Response Team/Volunteering#Materialscientist I understood that you are going to focus on deletion request and permission tickets. Is CU an additional task you like to introduce to yourself at the same time? --Krd 07:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, these two are absolutely unrelated. Roughly speaking, the VRT nomination is about handling DRs, while CU aims at fighting abuse. I do both. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Question: Would you CU block an editor without having received a report against them from anyone on commons? (I was blocked like this in the en.wiki, that's why I ask.)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Question:Would you CU block an account without having adverted them of an eventual violation? (I was also CU blocked without having been adverted of a violation on en.wiki and would have happily just edited with one account if given the option before being CU blocked)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I guess you refer to a well-meaning editor who didn't know our policies on the use of multiple accounts, and your questions are 1) whether a checkuser may access CU logs without a community request? They may, at their own risk. All CU actions are logged, they can be questioned, and result in removal of CU rights. 2) Whether a checkuser may block on sight if they find evidence of abusing multiple accounts? Same answer. 3) What is my approach to 2)? It is highly individual. On-sight blocks are justified only when the situation is crystal clear, otherwise there must be a discussion, public or via email (e.g. via checkuser mailing list). The block severity depends on the situation. In case of abuse it may be indef hardblocks to all involved accounts. In case of obvious ignorance, the user may get away with a friendly message on their talk asking to consult our policies on the use of multiple accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the answer. For potential readers to clarify: Materialscientiest was not the CU who blocked me, and I AGF on them that they'd have AGFed my actions at the time as well. I have often observed them combatting vandalism during my rollback runs in the en.wiki. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)