Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 62; (4 supports removed)  Oppose = 13; (4 opposes removed)  Neutral = 0 - 82.67% . This request for CheckUser status at Commons is deemed Successful. A request has been placed at Meta. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, SB Johnny is now a Commons CheckUser. —Giggy 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This vote ended at 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC), and this RfCU is now closed. Any further votes will be struck. Bureaucrats discussion took place at the 'crat chat after closure. Non 'crats are welcome to comment at the talk of the 'crat chat. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SB Johnny

Vote

This vote has closed at 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Links for SB Johnny: SB Johnny (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · 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]

Votes

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]
  10. —Giggy 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [1][reply]
  11.  Support --Attention, the more you do, the more you get criticised. Foroa (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  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]
  13.  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  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]
  15.  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]
  16.  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support thanks --.snoopy. 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  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]
  20.  Support Trustworthy. Lycaon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support. Sb Johnny is incredibly trustworthy. I agree with every word Whiteknight wrote. guillom 19:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support per nom.--Ahonc (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  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]
  24.  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]
  25.  Support as nominator. See above. Bastique demandez 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support and let me be #25. I almost sat this one out. I almost opposed. It wasn't because "we don't need another" (as those who supported have taken that idea out of my head) or because of others' reasons for opposing (although very valid concerns). I just wish SB_Johnny was more consistently active. Hopefully this will change. Having more of Johnny around, CU or not, would definitely be a good thing. Rocket000 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support -- Drini 18:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Rock On! He made me do it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support Having had interactions with this user in the past, I definitely support this. From my experience, privacy is a major concern of his, and I have no worries with him being granted checkuser rights. --Neskaya (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support Unconditionally. SBJ is perhaps the finest Wikimedian I know. --Jomegat (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support Kylu (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support - sure - Alison ❤ 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Support Maxim(talk) 12:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support If Cary, who is more conscious of privacy policy issues than almost anyone that I know, can support this user despite Durova's objections, I don't see any reason not to. Swatjester (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support I find the opposition unconvincing. Naerii (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support Given this users Commons track record, I'm confident this user will use the tools responsibly. Brynn (talk!) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Support His conduct seems perfectly reasonable to me; it only looks bad when looked at through the funhouse mirror of the BADSITES fanatics who insist on framing things in an "Outing! EEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!!" way. To those people, even hinting that a link to Wikipedia Review might at some times be of some use and relevance is a thoughtcrime deserving of intense punishment. See my essay for a perspective on this. And, unlike some of the people voting on this, I actually do have a Commons track record. Dtobias (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support I feel he could certainly be trusted with checkuser, and has the support of many experienced commons users I greatly respect. The opposition is unconvincing. In the interests of openness, I found this page via Cla68's evidence on a contentious en.wp arbitration. I do have a number of contributions to commons - though more sporadic than I would like. the wub "?!" 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Support Trustworthy, and I am not convinced by the opposition. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support I came upon this request by way of a certain badsite (hence why a slightly active user on Commons is participating in this request). I have read the claims of privacy violations, and I have read the reponse by SB Johnny and I find his response to be a more than sufficient explanation of the situation. Where users have shown themselves to be suitibly trustworthy, rights such as CU (paticuarly CU) are of great benefit when held on multiple projects. I think SBJ has shown himself to be both qualified and trustworthy On a related note - has anyone considered asking for global CU - wherea CU simultaneously on the the projects you hold the right on? It would certainly save some work. (Or maybe add to it depending on the findings) Viridae (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god no, we had enough trouble getting global deleted image review through. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  Support I'm willing to trust him, and I find the politics which has entered here to be somewhat distasteful. I include the first five words to try and show that I'm not supporting merely to annoy en.wp. That's just a fortunate side effect. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Support With the support of many trusted editors, including WMF employees, I see no reason to oppose. Reviewing the editor's history, he seems to be quite suitable to fill the role of check-user. I have confidence that he will not abuse the additional tools. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support From what I have seen of SB Johnny as a fellow checkuser, he knows what he is doing as a checkuser, and understands restraint. On the WV matter, he is nuturing and monitoring a fledgling Ethics project (started July 9), which is an outside opinion of enWP. It is not unexpected that such a project will have teething problems, especially given the people involved in it, and it quickly reached foundation-l (July 13). Durova oppose is underpinned on a belief that SB Johnny should have let the request pass if he couldn't take the requested angle of attack. That is wrong, as it suggests that Durova would have kept shopping to find someone who was willing to tackle it Durova's way. SB Johnny tackled it in a way that was appropriate for that wiki, and the appropriate outcome was achieved there. Other projects work different ways and often they specifically do not wish to mirror the approaches used on enWP. Having an enWP Voting bloc come here in opposition, some voting here as their first edit, is very bad form. It is this type of interaction which causes miscommunication; displaying disregard for how another wikis is managed, or asserting that the practises of enWP should be followed on another wiki, is a sure fire way to frustrate honest attempts to resolve the matter in the most appropriate way for another wiki. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please allow me to clarify; it seems a misunderstanding has arisen that supposes I asked Johnny not to discuss the request among other administrators. Actually what I asked was that Johnny refrain from discussing the request with the user who had violated my privacy. I did inform Johnny that I intended to take my appeal to the Foundation. The matter in question was a close call and I considered it reasonable to seek a second opinion about Foundation policy directly from its source. Please do not construe that as an intention to forum shop forever. That difference of opinion over policy, however, is not why I oppose this candidacy: I would certainly respect discreet disagreement. What Johnny did instead was compromise my privacy by directly engaging the person who had violated my privacy. If you wish to know more I will gladly discuss this via e-mail. With respect, Durova (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested more info via email. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have received a general description of the oversighted edits in question which I conclude where primarily to cause annoyance and drama and thus should have been removed one way or another, some general information about the offline request that was made, but am waiting on further information about the specific expectations to see where the breakdown in communications occurred. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not received clarification from Durova on a number of queries regarding her intentions and method. SB Johnny has indicated that he did seek second opinions from other en.wv volunteers on how to handle it, and also that Durova did request an indef block of these people. Without further clarification, I can only assume my initial assessment was close to the mark, and that while this might have been handled better, this is best notched up as a case of communication issues and unfounded expectations. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Support It is unacceptable to make unsubstantiated allegations against someone to attempt to sink a candidacy. If you can't fully explain what the hell you're talking about, you shouldn't have brought it here. —Random832 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  47.  Support SB Johnny is cut from different cloth, compared to the more typical admin on the English Wikipedia. Not only does SB Johnny bring his noble Quaker ethic to his role as Custodian on Wikiversity, he embraces the secular theory and practice of ethics as we have culled it from academia. —Moulton (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has only 1 contribution on this wiki not related to his user page or this matter. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support I've always been impressed with what I've seen of SB Johnny, and think he would do excellently as a checkuser. I took the time to read and investigate the opposes below, and I don't see anything with enough substance to convince me otherwise. I should state that I despise users who attempt to drag en drama to Commons, we are mellow here. Take your drama elsewhere. The strange phenomena of users like OrangeMarlin registering Commons accounts solely to drag drama over here is particularly suspicious. Kelly (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49.  Support I have very carefully considered the points raised by the opposers and they do not dent my conficence in SB Johnny, so yes - support.--Londoneye (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50.  Support From my experience with SB Johnny, I have full confidence in his judgment and use of the tools. --mikeu (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  Support From what I have seen he will make a good CU.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! You need to use a registered account for voting though :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52.  Support Along the same lines as Londoneye, Random832 and others. I give little weight to the opposes. How many more editors from an en.wiki clique are going to come here to make their first edit to Commons? LaraLove|Talk 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53.  Support One must keep in mind that expected behaviours from those holding higher-level permissions varies from project to project. It seems to me that SB Johnny has a very good handle on separating responsibilities dependent on where he is acting in his designated capacity. Checkusers in particular need to be able to hold strong on requests and demands made by experienced users if they deem them inappropriate; it strikes me that SB Johnny has been able to do that on other projects, and there is no reason to believe he will act otherwise on this project. Risker (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, many of my contributions to this project involve proposing copyvio images for deletion, so they will show up only as deleted contributions. [reply]
  54.  Support I trust SB. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  Support I'm one of the three checkusers at en-Wikiversity and I can attest that SB Johnny makes use of the checkuser tool for dealing with vandals....this is the original and true purpose of the checkuser tool. About the "oppose" votes below that are related to issues that go beyond using the checkuser tool just for vandalism.....in my view, checkuser is not a tool for dealing with problems like "outing" the real world identity of wiki editors. In my view, debate over how to deal with "outing" the real world identity of wiki editors is not relevant to this discussion about giving SB Johnny access to checkuser tools at this project. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56.  Support Wizardman 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Support No problem. --Dezidor (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  Support I interacted with SB Johnny quite a bit when I was active for a year or so at Wikibooks (my activity ended little over a year ago). I have seem him elsewhere occasionally (such as at Commons). I can attest to his comments on the Discussion page about his approach to blocked users, having seen his interactions with the (as far as I am aware of) only user ever temporarily banned from en.wikibooks. I think that he would be a great addition to Commons in the capacity of checkuser. (Note that I was made aware of this request by way of the Wikipedia Review, which I sometimes read.) --Iamunknown (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59.  Support Per JWSchmidt. And I have seen SB Johnny handling difficult situations with diplomacy. Hillgentleman | 書 ---2008年08月04號 (星期Mon), 04:46:07 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Roche.gif per Mattbuck. And enough of the en.wp zerg rush. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  Support I have had the opportunity to evaluate answers to my questions from both sides, and I have looked diligently. I do not oppose, but in light of everything that took me two days to look over, I support. I do caution however, SB to use discretion in dealings that are not however covered by the privacy policy. I do not however, have a reason to believe that SB will violate the privacy policy. As an aside, I am saddened that the crat chat mentions my vote may not mean much because I only uploaded a couple of pictures. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm bemused as to how you reached that conclusion you weren't listed on the 'crat page when you added that comment (I've now added you), and considering the notes on that page that having your name in bold means you have less than 50 edits; nothing more (for now). —Giggy 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I read it said eligible when it actually said ineligible here. Of course that changes the context. My screen resolution is set too small. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62.  Support I trust Johnny. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63.  Support Seems like a good choice for a CU.--Grandmaster (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64.  Support I know SB Johnny from en:WP and here. He is a scholar, a farmer, and a gentleman.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much concur. :-) --Iamunknown (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65.  Support I know SB_Johnny well from Wikiversity where we often work closely on the most difficult issues facing Wikiversity. He is an immense asset to our work. --McCormack ( ) 10:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66.  Support and a rebuttal: One note to consider is that the opponent(s) tends to write as if there is a certain high level of empathy needed in regards to privacy concerns, but that kind of empathy was not shown by the opponent(s) in my case, which even revealed my daughters name on Wikipedia. I believe Lar has the right judgment that a link to an off-site is different than one that would post the information directly on the wiki (or further exploit on-wiki). I feel the opponent(s) acknowledges such, and thus one has had a motive to try to justify ends (and past mistakes) by harshness, as noticed here in discussion. To this day, such opponent shows no empathy to the concern of my family and the damages that could happen. The events have affected other matters outside of Wikipedia and damages were done. The opponent has praised others to block me there, and other Wikipedians have 'laughed at' me (quoted by their own words). I hold in my hand a copy of a tape of a sexual threat made against my daughter (original in police custody), and it should not be much wonder about the grave concerns I have about privacy and my personal agenda on Wikiversity. Undoubtedly, I feel SB Johnny has shown and continues to show the level of empathy required for the CU position for me to place this support here. Dzonatas () 11:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A clarification: I do not support or approve of links that go directly to pages that "out" editors. Even if the "outing" is republishing information already publicly available. Nor of links to sites that seem to have NO other purpose than to do so. Such links, if brought to my attention, and if on a wiki where I have standing to do so, will be removed by me. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further clarification: I don't support them either (not just linking to them, but the whole "outing" thing in general). Those links are being removed on WV as well now, since we have (finally) received a policy interpretation from the foundation on the matter. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:27, 6 August 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 knew 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]
                        • You can be sure that SBJ is not acting alone in that matter at Wikiversity. He may appear as the single one answering there, but be sure other Wikiversity participants would act same or even more liberal. Wikiversity is just different than other Wikimedia projects. I am also sorry, that this different philosophy caused unhappiness. ----Erkan Yilmaz (discussion, wiki blog) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I have no objection to Wikiversity participants establishing and following their own norms. If good faith toward new participants is greater than at other projects, I wish you success with that. What I do object to is when someone uses me as an unwilling guinea pig to test the limits of that good faith, and treads upon my confidentiality. Durova (talk) 04:23, 3 August 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: [2] His suggestion that the same person start importing content from WikipediaReview into Wikiversity if it adopts GFDL[3] 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]
    That's a very strange interpretation of those 3 diffs. For the first one, Cary didn't tell me to patrol for links (in fact I was told that the foundation-level privacy policy doesn't address them at all, and we have no such policy on WV (at least not yet)). I didn't do anything on either side, actually... both sides were asking me to block the other, which I didn't do (in fact they were asking me to run checkuser on "Centaur of Attention", which I also didn't do). I have been trying to get an explanation of why the links are relevant and/or serve an educational purpose, but still working there (help on that would be appreciated if you have the time and the concern). For the second one, please re-read... I was talking about using import, not blocks and such. And if "WR" has something to do with the "ethical management of Wikipedia", it's worth discussing. I'm not "with those guys" any more than I am "with the other side"... my job there is to just make sure that it stays focused on content within the scope of Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight: You don't think adding links to sites which out other contributors is a problem? You're saying that someone with an ax to grind adding links to sites outing those he hold a grudge against is an acceptable thing to do on Wikimedia Foundation sites? Were you the one outed at WikipediaReview and your employer contacted in an attempt to get you fired as mine was I have no doubt you'd have a very different take on protecting other's privacy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If posting the links you object to is such a problem, how do you explain the curious fact that in lodging his identical complaint on Wikiversity's Request for Custodian Action, Centaur of attention posted the URLs to the very links he was objecting to?!? —Moulton (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't say I don't think it's a problem, just not a problem I can solve in an admin capacity (no policy violation), and not a problem likely to be solved by edit warring. I was going to try to work on that in this week's "progress review", but that's going to be all that harder to do now since apparently they're aware of this discussion. I've been in discussion with Cary, other stewards, and the Wikiversity custodians from day one, and there's really just nothing I can do aside from discuss it with them, so that's what I've been doing. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This opposing user has 6 contributions on Commons. Two of them are this oppose. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point and concern remains whether I have ten or ten thousand edits at Commons. Let's not ignore that I've been a active contributor to Wikipedia for 4 years. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, on the off chance you know... Who was "Centaur of Attention" anyway? We never did pin that down, did we? Any ideas? C of A's beef seemed to be with the very idea that suppressive persons be allowed to try to develop material on wikiversity, and when that didn't go anywhere, C of A tried other tacks. Their last complaint seemed to be about linking to SITES, not to pages. I don't think there is anything wrong with linking to a SITE. BADSITES is rejected policy on en:wp and not even that elsewhere. If we couldn't link to every site that had something bad to say, we couldn't link to anything. So that didn't fly. SBJ had the good faith to say "hey, let's let these people give it a go, if they can edit within the wikiversity guidelines, great". I think that's something to applaud, not to smear. Fortunately, I think the majority of active contributors here (which I do not number you among) feel the same way. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Centaur of Attention is one of four Wikipedians outed at WikipediaReview in a discussion you and Moulton participated in. A site which Moulton links to now at Wikiversity and which SBJohnny failed to remove. I put the same questions to you: Do you think adding links to Foundation sites which out Foundation volunteers is a problem? Do you think that someone with an ax to grind adding links to sites outing those he holds a grudge against is an acceptable behavior on Wikimedia Foundation sites? A simple yes or no will do. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about links to Wikimedia Foundation mailing lists where Wikipedians voluntarily disclose their identities and associated E-Mail addresses? Is that a problem? —Moulton (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "simple yes or no" will not do, actually, and your trying to turn it into a yes/no question suggests that your understanding of the situation is too simplistic. I do not condone outing. I was unaware that Centaur of Attention was "outed" anywhere. Can you substantiate that? (feel free to mail me a link if you don't care to post it)... To answer your question, though... "no", I do not think that posting a link to the New York Times site is problematic, despite the fact that the New York Times has "outed" people in the past. Why don't you try not talking in BADSITES lingo, it isn't policy here. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you think adding links to Foundation sites which out Foundation volunteers is acceptable or you don't. And either you think that someone with a personal ax to grind adding links to sites outing those he holds a grudge against is acceptable behavior on Wikimedia Foundation sites or you don't. It's is as simple as that. Furthermore Lar, you and I both know that the New York Times is not the site SBJohnny and Centaur of Attention were disagreeing about there: WikipediaReview and Moulton's personal blog are. BADSITES has nothing to do with this; whether or not those who support those who out others are good choices for Checkuser access does. If you don't want to answer simple and direct questions that's your business, but stop trying to reframe the issue. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the person trying to reframe the issue here (and at Wikiversity as well, if the suggestion that YOU are Centaur of Attention is correct...) is you. Your questions are in "have you stopped beating your wife" format, and you know it. They are highly uncollegial, and unbecoming of someone who is an administrator at a Wikimedia project. I would strongly suggest you read, and internalise, what SB Johnny says here, as his words show a deep and abiding commitment to principle. Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/SB_Johnny_(checkuser)#By_way_of_explanation... He is, by far, the better man here than you. Or even I, regrettably, because your actions, and those of the other drive bys here, have provoked me into losing my cool a bit. For that I apologise to all and sundry. For rebutting this unfounded smear of a truly awesome Wikimedian, I do not apologise, because I find these tactics here (as elsewhere) reprehensible. To be clear, I do not support outing. But I am not opposed to linking to WR, or to anywhere else either, if it is appropriate and relevant, in the context of whatever discussion or presentation of information is occurring. I'll reiterate. This is not en:wp, thank goodness for that, and tactics that until recently worked there will not work here. I hope I make myself clear. Your comments are verging on disruption. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The links removed by Centaur of Attention were a many and varied bunch, including a page outlining the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Progressive Stages of Moral and Ethical Reasoning (which always somehow makes me think of being marooned on an island). This sort of clumsy, heavy-handed censorship was rightly rejected, and people like FM and MONGO are being absurdly unreasonable to oppose somebody for properly opposing this. Dtobias (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the links which Centaur of attention removed on Wikiversity, he also simultaneously removed content on Meta-Wika (all of which was restored there by Majorly and Lar before I was even aware anything there had been tampered with). On Meta-Wiki the suspected owner of Centaur of attention also has his well-known en:WP login. See Lar's note on my Meta-Wiki talk page. —Moulton (talk) 04:15, 6 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]
     Comment This user has only this single contribution, so the vote may not be counted. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is (SUL activated) w:User:Orangemarlin, a user in good standing there with 18057 edits. —Giggy 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That I noticed (checked), but just registering on commons to oppose on an RFCU looks a bit fishy to me ;-). Lycaon (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would question whether this user has the activitly here on Commons, or with the candidate, to really have views that are based on indepth experience. I have to wonder if this isn't more political than anything else. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, the problems are severe and genuine. Just because a user's new doesn't mean that his pointing out of severe and unreconcilable problems with the requestee's handling of privacy issues is invalid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, "severe and genuine" is your interpretation... putting those words in bold doesn't turn them into fact, they remain interpretation. My own interpretation is different, and I give it below. Also, with all respect, I do think it quite interesting that OrangeMarlin's very first contribution here is to comment on this matter. By custom and convention, we may discount input from those who are not active here. We also tend to discount shouting... we're rather a mellow bunch here and try to not be influenced by en:wp politics. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have doubts about how respectful it actually is to equate a privacy concern that has been substantiated with evidence, to some project's politics. This is a person whose livelihood has been (at least implicitly) threatened. If we allow a Wikimedian might occasionally cross projects and oppose an ops request when the reason is strong enough, then this would be such a reason. You may have reached a different conclusion, Lar, but please don't attempt to diminish the seriousness of the underlying concern. Durova (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but an editor turning up here to oppose that has hardly other contributions at all? That's a coincidence, if we assume good faith. When two editors turn up here with hardly any contributions, editors who have been known to bloc-vote in the past, it's an amazing coincidence. Or politics. At some point you can't assume good faith any more, you have to go with probabilities. THREE editors turning up here to oppose, known to bloc-vote? Now we've blown past coincidence and well into the realm of politics. YMMV of course. But on Commons we go with strength of arguments, not strength of numbers. And THAT's not politics. As a Commons admin yourself, you should know that. Look. I don't think SB Johnny is perfect. You have concerns, and valid ones, but they are getting blown out of proportion, I think, and there's some misrepresenting going on. SB Johnny has CU on two wikis already, and is active on the CU list... other CUs all have been supporting, because he's a good CU, very conservative in his checking and his release of information. But now I see something that has the hallmarks of a smear campaign developing here. I'm not at all pleased to see that sort of thing happening. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing bureaucrat may close this however he or she deems best. I asked only that you express your doubts about the validity of the individual's vote without diminishing the concerns that our good faith must suppose are his motivations. In return you allege a smear campaign? How severe, and how disappointing. Who is in this supposed smear campaign? Am I in it? Durova (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Per both Durova and FM. I cannot stress enough how harmful it could be to have someone who is not vigilant about privacy issues having checkuser. The situation screams potential abuse. KillerChihuahua (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some concerns about possible bloc voting by allied editors with a long history of clannishness . —Moulton (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose in strongest possible terms. Under no circumstances should this user get the tools. [4] (linked above) is sufficient evidence of inability to understand the privacy problems that checkuser requires. Indeed, I would suggest that his checkuser should be immediately stripped on the projects where he has it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to make that case at those projects, then, or if you really think there is a privacy matter serious enough, to the ombudsmen. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose - MONGO (talk · contribs) is right, the concerns brought up by Durova (talk · contribs) are quite unsettling, to say the least, and Checkuser tool rights should really be given to those who are very very highly trusted with no outstanding issues - especially, as KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) note, issues surrounding the importance of privacy. The points raised by FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) are also indeed quite troubling. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose per privacy concerns outlined above. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed boldface "oppose" to {{Oppose}}. —Giggy 08:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose per the above. I reviewed the so-called "course" at Wikiversity and if this is a representative sample of what that project offers, I'm very much unimpressed. If he is supporting this group outing Wikipedians, then I do not consider SB Johnny a trusted user. --UserB (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose - No. I don't know him (never read the name). I will not vote for a person I don't know. CU is too "hot" for such jobs - try an error is here not possible. And I don't see, that we need more CUs. And a third - such an introduction like made by Bastique is not confidence-arousing. Nothing about the candidate and his qualification (Wikiversity is in my eyes not a qualification - and we have some Wikiversities - which one?). Bastique it means so serious he forget the Signature... Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose per privacy concerns above.--Filll (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose, per quite valid concerns raised by Durova. And I must thank User:Cla68 for directing me to this page. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User hasd only 1 contribution on this wiki not related to his user page or this matter. Dtobias (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Since the vote here, Jayjg has uploaded a few photos. Tweaked by John Vandenberg (chat) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia projects for 4 years now, with tens of thousands of edits to my name. I have adjudicated on dozens of ArbCom cases. Commons is not some distant planet inhabited by aliens. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. You have not been active on Commons at all during that time and thus you are nothing more than a single purpose account who has openly admitted to coming here to vote because of seeing something you did not like on en-wp's ArbCom pages. Uploading images after the fact does not gain you sufferance, either. Please go back to en-wp and stop trying to cover for these lame attempts at votestacking. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an fomer arbitrator and current en:wp CU, Jayjg's reasoned input should be welcomed by us all as providing another perspective and additional information, even if it is very clear that he does not have suffrage here (no contributions before the vote started certainly fits "few or no contributions"). Some of Jayjg's input has been reasoned and worthy of consideration. And some (such as "Wow, was it time for the Two Minutes Hate again so soon? I would have thought your most recent BADSITESgasm would have gotten it out of your system for a while") probably should be disregarded as excessively heated. But then there's been a lot of that going around, on the part of supporters and opposers, and I do not omit myself. Let's all endeavour to do better going forward, stick to the facts, and not cast aspersions any more. Regardless of what has went before. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose per [5]. --Sandahl (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I view check-user rights on multiple projects as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Well, maybe not as a rule, but seriously... wikibooks and especially wikiversity are distant planets inhabited by aliens as far as I'm concerned, roughly as far as one can wander from the English Wikipedia without being forced to learn another language. Experience on backwater projects is not, in my opinion, a qualification for the same position on commons, which is Grand Central Station for contributors (such as myself) of free media suitable for use on all projects. If I had some reason to distrust the people running the Klingon Wikiquote or the Sentinelese Wikisource I could avoid these wikis easily enough without creating a major scene. With commons no serious editor from any project has that luxury. Bastique's nomination statement is (as Marcus notes above) sorely lacking in luster and fails to explain how the desired result would benefit this or any other project. — CharlotteWebb 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont agree that Checkuser rights on multiple wikis is any form of power; the tool is primarily used to help prevent vandalism and other abuse across multiple wikis, so having the tool on multiple wikis cuts down the time required to collate the data required to determine how widespread a problem is, in order that other wikis can be notified to preventatively block. For this reason I think it is helpful to have cross-over, where some people have checkuser on multiple wikis, but that is just my opinion.
    Regarding the "backwater projects" aspect of your reason, sorting meta:Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size by number of users shows en.wb as the 16th most populous wiki (bigger in population than en.wikt and meta). When sorted by number of edits, it is constantly changing at roughly the same rate as meta, and its database size is roughly the same too. (en.wb and meta appear to have both been created in 2001, so those stats are not skewed much.) see also wikibooks stats. I hope this illustrates that en.wb is not a backwater, but if not ... well, I enjoy looking at the growth stats of our project inhabited by aliens. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It fascinates me how views vary. I am someone who views en wp as being populated by quite a few aliens and basically "left" it quite sometime ago because of such people. I went on to discover small wikis (& then larger ones like this!) where there is some work to do in a good environment.
    I might be described as a "power hungry" wikimedian by some in that I have had, & still do have, multiple rights over projects. In practice being an admin on a small wiki (yes - en wb) taught me far more in a week than I would have learned in far longer on en wp. Frequently I was the only admin around - you need to learn.
    Cross project CUs (so long as they are trusted) are highly effective as they can respond to list postings on active vandals on multiple projects - those skills are highly transferable. Equally for the benefit of the en wp people here CU on all projects other than en wp largely relates to vandals not puppetry per se. --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose Thought about this, but decided to oppose per [6]. Garion96 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose Will not support due to privacy concerns raised above. R. Baley (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose per issues raised above and elsewhere. --DHeyward (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Canvassing by 'tards at WR doesn't justify participation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Oppose. I know little of the issues raised, but what I've read gives me some doubts. I notice that even his supporters say that he could have handled things better and that there isn't an urgent need for another checkuser. I notice also that some of the people opposing are very experienced and it seems in good standing at other projects, so I think their concerns should be taken seriously. Granting checkuser rights is a very serious business - not something to be given if there are valid questions. Stratford490 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

 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]

 Neutral Abstention. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) NonvocalScream now supports. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB_Johnny&oldid=33076258"