Andrevan

Vote here (7/4/1) ending 23:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Andrevan ( talk · contribs) - Since we have a new policy that requires trustworthy individuals to step up, I submit myself. Wikipedian since June 2003, admin since September 2004, mediator since December 2004, nearly became a bureaucrat about a month and a half ago.

The legal stuff: I agree to abide by Wikipedia:Privacy policy, but I'd also like to add that I will not divulge IPs/hostnames found by using CheckUser to anyone, not even those involved; I will merely share the results of whatever checks I perform (sockpuppet: yes or no, etc). I agree to produce a full log of my CheckUser-related actions insofar as they are not automatically logged by the software. If I am ever judged to have violated anyone's privacy, I agree to forfeit my administrative abilities and my status on Wikipedia.

What else is there to say? This is a new aspect of Wikipedia policy and I'd like to be a central figure in shaping it. Thanks! Andre ( talk) 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Strong Support Andre is one of the most trustworthy admins we have. Ac e tic ' ^Acid 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support he can be trusted with it. - Greg Asche (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Stronger Support Very Trustworty -- JAranda | watz sup 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Strongest support. I've seen the kind of dedication that Andy has to Wikipedia, and it is one that clearly demonstrates how loath he would be to do anything to damage the community by betraying a trust which it has placed in him, the national trust. D. G. 23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Infinity support plus two. I win. Also, Andrevan is trustworthy, dedicated, and smokin' hot. I'd trust him with the key not only to my IP address, but to my heart. - Silence 00:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Strongestest support. Great editor and admin, very trustworthy guy. αγδεε ( ε τ c) 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Just a normal support, sorry to break the pattern >.> I feel Andrevan is perfect for this role, is a very active member of the community, no hesitation in recommending him :) Mallocks 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose Repeated from above: I see absolutely no reason to make this a seperate vote. Roll this into the admin position or (I'd suggest) the bureaucrat position at minimum. All this does is create two-tier admins: "those which can check and those which can't check." And then, of course, a series of glob-on votes "I want to check too!" Why do we need the waste of time? We seperate admins and bureaucrats for instance. And bureaucrats and stewards. Why shouldn't we leave this power higher up the food chain? Admins are supposed to be ordinary users. I think this is a bad idea and will oppose though I have no problem with the user. Marskell 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. I am strongly opposing all Requests for Checkuser until we set up and agree to a policy detailing checks and balances. [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose all nominations until checks/balances/transparency of process are detailed and privacy policy is clarified. -- Tabor 02:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Extremely strong oppose. BlankVerse ∅ 21:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral I will not vote to support anyone for this at any time, as I believe it is a legal minefield which could expose wikipedia to substantial liability, and would like Wales/Board signoff before institution of this policy. However, this user has promised to abide by the privacy policy and instituted his own privacy policy, and I have no reason to distrust them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Fvw above has some experience of IP addresses, proxies and the other arcana that go with checkuser. Do you? - Splash ^talk 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly, I know a lot about networking and so on, if that's what you mean. Proxies, IP ranges, ports, TCP and UDP, and all that - I'm quite familiar with them. I think even someone not knowledgeable could get by with a little help from WHOIS, but rest assured I am knowledgeable and I'll make full use of visual tracert programs if necessary. Andre ( talk) 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• What sort of actual experience do you have with IP checking? -- Carnildo 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not quite sure if I understand the question. IP checking isn't actually the name of a process, outside of Wikipedia. Andre ( talk) 01:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• You have, above, promised not to divulge IPs found by CheckUser, which is a far stronger statement than that found in the official privacy policy. Does this mean that you would refuse to reveal the IP block responsible for a vandalbot attack (such as the ones that prompted this process)? Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, and I believe the software already accounts for this by assigning IP autoblocks numbers and referring to them that way, instead of using IPs. Andre ( talk) 01:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Of course, that applies only to IPs hit by the autoblock. My question was, more specifically, in reference to actions like this — would you be willing to block an IP range used by a vandal even if that meant revealing the association between that IP and the vandal's accounts? Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply