Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→SB Johnny: Oppose
Line 51: Line 51:
#{{oppose}} Checkuser tool rights should only be given to those with near perfect track records and Durova's comments lead me to believe that granting checkuser rights to SB Johnny at this time is not wise.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} Checkuser tool rights should only be given to those with near perfect track records and Durova's comments lead me to believe that granting checkuser rights to SB Johnny at this time is not wise.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centaur_of_attention&diff=next&oldid=293276 This reply] troubles me. His reasoning is flawed in so many ways that's it's hard to know where to start. SBJohnny was tasked by Cary Bass to ensure linking to outing was not something that became an issue. Not only did he fail to remove links outing Wikipedians (including myself) he went a step further to excuse and support the violator: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia&diff=292953&oldid=292948] His suggestion that the same person start importing content from WikipediaReview into Wikiversity if it adopts GFDL[http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia&diff=293210&oldid=293197] shows a pattern of very poor judgement considering much of the outing in said links affecting myself and 4 other Wikipedians takes place at WikipediaReview. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] ([[User talk:FeloniousMonk|talk]]) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centaur_of_attention&diff=next&oldid=293276 This reply] troubles me. His reasoning is flawed in so many ways that's it's hard to know where to start. SBJohnny was tasked by Cary Bass to ensure linking to outing was not something that became an issue. Not only did he fail to remove links outing Wikipedians (including myself) he went a step further to excuse and support the violator: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia&diff=292953&oldid=292948] His suggestion that the same person start importing content from WikipediaReview into Wikiversity if it adopts GFDL[http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia&diff=293210&oldid=293197] shows a pattern of very poor judgement considering much of the outing in said links affecting myself and 4 other Wikipedians takes place at WikipediaReview. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] ([[User talk:FeloniousMonk|talk]]) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} Per both Durova and FM. This candidate has a laissez faire attitude towards editors who out other editors. He should not be trusted with checkuser rights, especially if he lacks a fundamental respect for privacy.[[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] ([[User talk:Orangemarlin|talk]]) 04:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


;Neutral
;Neutral

Revision as of 04:25, 1 August 2008

SB Johnny

Vote

Links for SB Johnny: SB Johnny (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) I'd like to nominate SB Johnny for checkuser given that he's active on Commons, is already responsible with the tools already (is a checkuser on Wikiversity) and also given that Bryan has resigned as checkuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastique (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. I actually have the tools on both Wikiversity and Wikibooks, and have had very productive results from doing cross-project checks (essentially if I find an IP with multiple vandal accounts on one project, I check and usually find the same on the other project). Both of those projects (particularly WV) are much smaller than commons, so "pattern vandals" tend to stick out more and are more easily identified. Being able to move from project to project like that ends up saving a lot of work (cleaning up messes, or blocking the same user over and over again without realizing that it's the same user). I am quite conservative with the tool though... the CU tool has been used less than 50 times on Wikiversity, including Steward checks made before we had local checkusers. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1.  Support Absolutely. I've had only a few interactions with Johnny, but they've all been very pleasant. It makes sense to have a "replacement" for Bryan. Majorly talk 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support - seems a sensible choice. WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. yes. Hesperian 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support based on strength of nom. rootology (T) 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't know that we necessarily NEED another CU, we do have a few, with the return of Gmaxwell... but I think SB Johnny will be a great addition to the team. If you want to see a deft touch on his part, go scope out his contribs at en:Wikiversity... Enthusiastic support... with bells on. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support feel this as a symbolic "thanks" for all the times you blocked/deleted for me when i wasnt sysop yet (also to rama, riana, epo...) abf /talk to me/ 11:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Yes --Mardetanha (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support I know SBJ from en.WV and his actions I have seen there convince (at least) me that he can be of valuable help also on commons. ----Erkan Yilmaz (discussion, wiki blog) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Yep, SB Johnny should do fine as a checkuser here at Commons. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    # Support. —Giggy 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to withdraw my support for now; I am particularly unimpressed by the handling of the situation alluded to by Durova below. I will reconsider my stance if he comments on the situation or new information comes up. —Giggy 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support --Foroa (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Well maybe...:) Another CU or two might well be useful. Given I nominated this user for their first CU longer ago that I care to remember it would be rather weird if I didn't say yes here! Fully trusted, just stay active here:) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll always remain active here, dear friend :-). Anymore I try to concentrate my efforts wherever help is needed most... having the CU tools here just makes my efforts elsewhere more efficient, since I can solve more problems more efficiently (or at solve one problem in 3 places rather than 2). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support I don't know however whether we need another CU but if we do SB would be an excellent candidate. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support , Cross-project checks by SB J is a welcomed idea, SB Johnny is already one of the team. I trust him fully with the tool within commons. --Tarawneh (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support thanks --.snoopy. 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Johnny is an excellent Wikimedian with impeccable credentials. His work on Wikibooks and Wikiversity, as checkuser/bureaucrat has been exemplary. He is marked by his extreme patience, tolerance of and willingness to guide new users, and steadfast adherence to the virtues of openness, freedom, and education. He abstains from and rises above the bickering and politicking that characterizes so many of the on-wiki discussions anymore. He is careful, thoughtful, patient, and tolerant: The qualities that we should demand from our checkusers, if not from all our administrators. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Trustworthy. Lycaon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support. Sb Johnny is incredibly trustworthy. I agree with every word Whiteknight wrote. guillom 19:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support per nom.--Ahonc (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support after lengthy and agonizing consideration. I can imagine many ways the incident Durova refers to could have been handled better. However, that is not a good reason to oppose this nomination, in my view. A good reason to oppose it would be that Johnny is not particularly active on the front lines doing anti-disruption. Indeed, he has only one block so far this year, and seems not very active in that area generally. I can certainly understand such an oppose. However, given that we apparently could use additional capacity with CU and Johnny is able to fill some of that, and given past interactions which lead me to believe Johnny will make use of the tool when needed (if not the most prolific CU), I'll support this nomination.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support I think SB Johnny is a professional Wikimedian, who is able to respect user privacy, but at the same time abble to work towards project protection from vandalism.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support as nominator. See above. Bastique demandez 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1.  Oppose Very recently I requested assistance from SB Johnny regarding a privacy problem on another project. If he disagreed with the request I would have respected a decision not to act, but he intervened in other unwelcome ways. This is someone who refuses to distinguish between help and interference. He offered bizarre unsolicited advice and behaved as if he new my own good better than I knew it myself, with a delicate problem he hadn't seen before that I have been dealing with for over a year. I was very surprised to encounter this behavior from someone who already had so many ops, and I certainly don't trust him with any more. Durova (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I for one would be interested in further detail being provided so that I can look into my vote again if necessary. —Giggy 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't really provide any details (since it was, in fact, a privacy issue), except to say that I see the events rather differently than Durova does. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, sorry, I should have indicated in the making of my above comment that I am now aware of the circumstances over which the oppose was made. The onwiki evidence I've seen is what I base my comments on. —Giggy 09:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 09:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of the problem was that Johnny provided more details than this directly to the very person who had violated my privacy, over at the other project, in spite of my explict requests to refrain from that type of interference. Durova (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's rather difficult to ask someone to behave differently if you don't tell them why it's a problem. Durova, if you really want to discuss this, link to it, otherwise I think it's best to just end the discussion. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did everything I could to dissuade you from involving yourself in that way. I even sent you recent examples of how that approach had been tried and had backfired. A narrow request for action is not always a free-ranging welcome to interfere. Yet even now, with a checkuser candidacy at stake, you refuse to yield any merit to my opinion about my own privacy. I accept some risk to myself by saying this much here, and do so only to prevent a similar misfortune from befalling others. Many of the users of this project are not native English speakers. How could they possibly steer you away if it enters your head to charge like a bull in a china shop? This exchange should be a red flag to all who see it. Trusted Wikimedians who wish to know more are welcome to request details offsite. Durova (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Durova, I can speak about it more now because the early versions of that page have been oversighted. The user you were asking me to "oversight and indefblock" had not actually violated the privacy policy, though he did push the envelope about as far as he could without actually crossing that line. With the exception of blatant vandals, I don't use admin tools without trying simple discussion first, and he did, in the end, voluntarily remove the offending text. I know you think I was being naive with him, but WV gives much more weight to "Assume Good Faith" than Wikpedia. I wasn't "interfering" on your behalf, nor on his, but rather was just doing my job to the best of my ability. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • My position was very clear: if you interpreted the policy differently I would repeat the request elsewhere, without complaint, but I emphatically did not want you to take any other action. After over a year of experience with this person I had examples of how well-meaning efforts similar to what you were planning to undertake had always made my problem worse. First, do no harm. I sent you examples of how the same thing had recently done real harm; you persisted anyway. Perhaps that really was the best of your ability. So for inability to accept feedback and recuse when appropriate, I cannot entrust you with the checkuser op. Durova (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Since the specific instance I encountered is not available onsite, here is a second occasion. SB Johnny defends the inclusion of links that out Wikimedians, using the rationale that the violation of a user's privacy at one project would be an excuse for violating it elsewhere. Durova (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Checkuser tool rights should only be given to those with near perfect track records and Durova's comments lead me to believe that granting checkuser rights to SB Johnny at this time is not wise.--MONGO (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose This reply troubles me. His reasoning is flawed in so many ways that's it's hard to know where to start. SBJohnny was tasked by Cary Bass to ensure linking to outing was not something that became an issue. Not only did he fail to remove links outing Wikipedians (including myself) he went a step further to excuse and support the violator: [1] His suggestion that the same person start importing content from WikipediaReview into Wikiversity if it adopts GFDL[2] shows a pattern of very poor judgement considering much of the outing in said links affecting myself and 4 other Wikipedians takes place at WikipediaReview. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Per both Durova and FM. This candidate has a laissez faire attitude towards editors who out other editors. He should not be trusted with checkuser rights, especially if he lacks a fundamental respect for privacy.Orangemarlin (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1.  Neutral for now - I don't know that we need more CUs; indeed Bryan stated as much when he resigned his bit. Perhaps current CUs would weigh in on this issue? Secondly, I wonder if Johnny has plans to maintain or increase his activity levels here? That said, there is absolutely no question of my trust in Johnny's ability to perform this function for the Commons community.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser nominated him, Lar, Herby and Bryan have all supported him. I think that's sign enough. Majorly talk 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need more CUs but we have a very reasonable, or even small, number when compared to our file count, user base, number of admins or other metrics of wiki size and activity. We don't need more CUs but we could definitely use them. I support not out of need, but out of the thinking that SBJ is likely to be an excellent CU. I'd like to know more about what Durova's raised though. I confess I'm baffled by it all. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you feel any better, Lar, I'm baffled too :-/. --SB_Johnny | talk 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova has sent me the details. I have to think about what they mean. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection and review... could this have been handled a bit more sensitively? Perhaps. But I think perhaps both sides miscommunicated a bit. I don't fault SB for trying hard to be inclusive, even of contributors not particularly favoured at other wikis. I don't fault Durova for being concerned either. We are none of us perfect, and both parties were operating in good faith. Live and learn, but I don't see this as a show stopper issue. My support remains unchanged, although I'd urge greater care in future to make sure clear communication is occurring. That goes for Durova as well as SB... let's not get our backs up too fast. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB_Johnny&oldid=13200181"