Testwiki:Requests for permissions/SB Johnny

+Administrator

I've been around since February this year, occaisionally working on a garden book, which I plan to get back to after I'm not so tired from actually growing gardens (I have lots of notes, of course). I'd like the key to the toolshed to help clear some of the backlogs with speedy-deletes, etc., and for use in new page patrolling. I'm actually more of a veteran on WP than I am here, and am active there in the spam, vandalism, categorisation, and RfC-responder clubs. However, I'm one of the more conservative members, as I'm a very firm believer in consensus and assuming good faith. My hope is to bring some of the useful things I've learned from my WP experiences, while helping steer things away from the counter-productive aspects of WP culture.

One thing I like about WP is the RFA structure, So I'm copy-pasting it over here so we can give it a spin. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikibooks in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A: Cleanup chores, mostly, such as looking through speedy deletes, closing VfDs (they tend to stay open a very long time, and while I don't really need sysop tools to close them when there's obviously no consensus, it seems good practice to leave that to admins), etc.

Fortunately, we don't have a big problem yet with serious vandalism, but I enjoy vandal-fighting (I know that sounds strange, but it's true), and know when it's time to block. While not wanting to make a solution looking for a problem, I'm hoping to import the "test" tags from WP to here, as soon as the voting/consensus rules are decided upon (seems more radical than bold to just start bringing them in without prior discussion). I'd also like to propose a rule for protecting redirect pages, since these don't really need editing, and are frequently the targets of vandalism on WP.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikibooks, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: All of my writing here is very much in the slow-growth mode, as I'm suffering a bit of writer's block these days. Lately I've been working on recategorising and cleaning up the How-tos category tree, and am working on a proposal for standardising categorys incorporating the lessons I'm learning through that process.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Once, at WP. I resolved it using the Dispute Resolution methods (w:WP:DR), which was stressful and time consuming, but got plenty of others involved which allowed me to step back from it. The same user is now having the same edit wars with some other users, but I've "recused myself" from the current conflict. Setting up a rigorous dispute resolution system here is another thing I'd like to see come about, though I doubt edit-warring will ever become as common here on wikibooks.

(Add questions here, if desired)

Comments

• Edit count as of 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC): 759 (2494 on WP)

Support

• Support. I am voting for support here, although I worry that you are going to burn yourself out with all your help here and at wikipedia. I do appreciate your help in the matters of policy. WB isn't WP, and while we can certainly learn lessons from our sister projects, most of us don't have a desire to do everything the same. Your experiance in that community will be a benefit to us all, so long as you are willing to take the extra step of differentiating between these two communities. Wikibooks is at a point now--and I strongly believe this--where big things are about to happen. We need strong, knowledgable people who are willing to muddle through policy discussions, build infrastructure, and help to make wikibooks a great online project. by the way, if I may insert a shameless plug, I am trying to draft a new policy concerning admins at Wikibooks:Administrators/Proposal. Stop by there, and give me your two cents. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I'm planning to spend less time on WP and more here (fits me better, and it's kind of neat that I can actually go through all the new pages each day if I feel like it, without having to clone myself 5 times and have all 5 of me working at them all day). SB_Johnny | ^talk

• Support - You're active and I hope it stays that way. I tend to almost always oppose new admins because so many don't stick around, but you've been here about six months and I hope you're keeping a trend of editing here. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia and I worry that you'll try to move too much of their ideas over here, but there's enough participation on this project now to keep that in check I think. Even this RfA isn't our style but not all Wikipedia ideas are bad ones and we'll see how it goes. -withinfocus 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Don't worry about the "SB_Johnny-come-lately" thing... I actually spend much more time on wikibooks than I do on WP, though mostly as a reader. The low edit count has more to do with the quality of the work and lack of vandals/spammers here (as opposed to WP), than anything else.

As far as "bringing things from there to here is concerned", I'm feeling very conservative about that. If I seem very active on the topic, it's because (a) there really just isn't much in the way of consensus-driven policy here yet, and (b) I don't want wikibooks to be like wikipedia in certain respects. Let's chat about that some more.. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Cspurrier 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support From what I have seen, he is fully qualified to do the job :) --Aschoeke 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Considerate editor, works well with others. The more admins the better. Kellen ^T 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Done. 5 Votes for, none against, you are now a sysop. Congratulations. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

+Administrator

OK, this is a bit strange, but my name on all wikiprojects but this one is actually SB_Johnny (as opposed to SBJohnny (talk | email | contribs | logs). I usually forget about it, but I'm a little concerned about what's going to happen when SUL (Single User Login) eventually gets implemented, because I'd have to constantly be logging in and out (especially a problem because I'm a sysop on another project using SB_Johnny).

Apparently moving my account is a big pain in the butt because I hold the other account as a sockpuppet (if there was no account, it would not be an issue.

The reason I have it is because when I first signed up on wikibooks, there were server problems, and I kept getting logged out. managed to forget my password one of the times, requested a new one be sent, and it turned out that the email servers weren't working, so I made my current account and just forgot about the issue.

I'd like keep hold of SBJohnny as well, and perhaps use it for a bot (if/when I figure one out).

Sorry for the confusion :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Xania 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• I support the move to the other account, but I will only support that if the other is de-sysopped first. I just don't like the idea of "perhaps use it for a bot" since I feel it sort of avoids community approval. Even though I don't think you would be abusive in any way, all this business with everyone running bots now is a bit out of approved control and I think this needs to be taken one step at a time. Once you become the new admin (and unfortunately lose all your history) and are de-sysopped at the other, I would support a vote to make the old a sysop plus bot flag. -withinfocus 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't need the bot flag for a while... need to spend the winter learning how they work :). But, why would I lose the "history"? Even if this account is desysoped (which if fine with me), it would still have all it's logs, wouldn't it? Let me ask around a bit more to see if I can just get them combined somehow (or even just delete SB_Johnny and change my current username). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I am in almost complete agreement with withinfocus here. The rapid influx of bots, especially now that we are talking about (and in some cases actually using them) sysop bots does point to the fact that wikibooks has absolutely no policy or guidelines concerning the operation of bots here. In the case of regular contributor bots, this isn't a huge issue, but in the case of sysop bots, we need to be careful. Maintaining two sysopped accounts does appear to be a way around the need to confirm bots separately from their owners, a precident that I dont think we should be making here. Of course, this points to the necessary addition of policy concerning this matter, something that we should definately start discussion on at Wikibooks:Administrators. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Boring but I too am in almost complete agreement with withinfocus here. The "maybe bot" account must only have basic user rights. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support As long as you are the same SBJohnny, then I don't see a problem. --Dragontamer 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Ok, no problem. --Derbeth ^talk 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Betsy 15:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Pathfinders 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This has gone on long enough. Does everyone else agree that the original user should request de-sysopping so this can move further? If so, Johnny should request this at Meta. -withinfocus 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Panic 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Withinfocus' suggestion. --Swift 10:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed. I am going to work with Johnny over the next few days (if I can get ahold of him on IRC) to try and rename him from "SBJohnny" to "SB Johnny". If this is successfull, his adminship rights should stay with him in the new username. If it is not possible, we will work on the alternative (desysop the one account, sysop the other). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

+Bureaucrat

I have had dealings with Johnny from my earliest days here. It is unlikely that many will use the terms quiet and reserved about his postings however he is an extremely active and dedicated Wikibookian who appears to find time for his pet subject as well as considerable activity in more general areas. He has always been helpful to me with what I'm sure to him are minor and rather silly queries – I appreciated this in an admin and compared to the behaviour of admins in other places we are lucky to have such an administrator here. To those who would point to the period of time he has been an administrator I would ask you to look at the quantity and quality of the work done. I would prefer an active editor who is a little new to someone who is not new and may well be much less active. I strongly commend Johnny's nomination to the community --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nominee acceptance - I decline, for reasons laid out above. I would support Matt though if he chooses to accept.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Votes - Support - very active member with lots of positive edits and very helpful! Xania 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

+CheckUser

Please note Checkuser rights on this wiki are really sought for vandal fighting. It enables vandal fighter to see where a user log's in from (their IP address) and look at other edit activity/user creation activity from that IP. Due to the rules on the vote there must be 25 users in favour of these rights being granted so every votes really does count.

Johnny is one of the more active admin on this wiki who I have got to know quite well in the time I have been here. He (like me) takes a strong view on vandalism and is used to dealing with it. I believe that he has, and should have, the confidence and trust of this community and hope that you will be able to support him. On a personal basis I would ask that if he finds himself inactive for any real period of time he will consider his position. I understand that Johnny will accept this nomination and request checkuser check to be performed on his account. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Acceptance - I accept. It's a good tool both for combatting vandalism and protecting non-vandals who are using sharred IPs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmation of checkuser status: Checked. I've checked the checkuser database on this user, and it's perfectly clean. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion

• Votes

Strangely/interestingly if you read the top of the page a nomination does not count as a vote so Support as we will need all the votes we can get --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: another hard-working wikibookian. Should have additional powers over vandals as necessary to facilitate vandalblatting. Webaware 13:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Great Wikibookian who will make good use of these powers. Xania 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: $SBJohnny=Wikibookia{n}_{good}$ Jim Thomas 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. I would have been the first to vote, except I left for the weekend before you accepted your nomination. You are well-trusted, helpful, and very friendly, I can't think of a reason why you shouldn't be a checkuser. New abilities do increase your responsibilities, but they also can tend to increase your own sense that you must do more around here, especially more of the boring administrative tasks. Don't let all these tools (admin and checkuser tools) from keeping you from what you really love: contributing to your gardening books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -withinfocus 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Betsy 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Pathfinders 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: xixtas 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: James Dennett 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: --Elaragirl 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support This is a good idea to get as many as we reasonably can. A very trusted user and somebody who really wants to help the project. --Rob Horning 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Tommciver 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --Az1568 ^(Talk) 09:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --darklama 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- 100% support here. --Dragontamer 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- I don't know how I missed this before, he'll do well with this. Mattb112885 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- although perhaps I should be supporting this under his other name? Chazz 08:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley 09:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support-- KristianMolhave 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Celestianpower 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- A great user who is very helpful and will fight vandals well. Tannersf 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - Sundance Raphael 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support -- Urbane User 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support --Krischik ^T 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Johnny now has the required votes and I have requested the rights on Meta --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. guillom 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

+Bureaucrat

I am nominating User:SB Johnny for bureaucratship. There are currently three bureaucrats on this project, and User:Derbeth has been significantly less active recently. I would like to maintain a situation where there are at least three active bureaucrats, especially for times when there is disagreement among them over administrator promotion (although it is yet to be an issue).

Johnny has made 7800 edits in the 14 months he's been a member here. Just over half those edits have been dedicated to the main module namespace, while the remainder have been made in the talk, discussion, and policy pages. He's been active on VfD, and he's also taken charge in many activities such as the transwiki process, and the uncategorized page logs. Johnny was promoted to admin in August 2006, and since then has been one of our most active, most productive and most helpful staff members. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I Accept-- I'm not sure about the "disagreement over promotion" part, but being able to assist with name changes -- especially in cases where a trusted user from another project arrives on Wikibooks only to find their username was used by a vandal or for personal attacks (I have run into 2 such cases over the last few months) -- would certainly be a job I'd like to help with. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW: I recently switched accounts, so most of my edits and logs are actually using Template:User --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support (must be mad, him not me) but unquestionably support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should say "I trust him" but - to me - that is unnecessary. However I do understand Panic's viewpoint - it the end in a collaborative project we do all need to be able to collaborate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support A very competent and skilled wikibookian. Urbane (Formerly Urbane User) (Talk) (Contributions) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Oppose - Edits not withstanding, the only requirement to be made a bureaucrat is that a user must be a active administrator and trusted to understand the policies and guidelines that Wikibooks is built upon, recently SB Jhonny has made some posts that stood very close to personal attacks and were at least as such interpreted by the other user, causing him to expressly state to be discontinuing his active role on the project, more SB Jhonny promotes a certain type of partiality or preemptive action against users and probably not being as diplomatic as it could, I came to know SB Jhonny very well in the past 6 moths more or less, and wile I will not actively seek to get him deamin I will oppose at least for now granting the user more rights.
  I know the user will not find this position unexpected, and not an attack on his integrity as I don't find the user acting in bad faith, I just don't trust his personal judgments and have come to dislike some of his actions, this is not about divergence on several policy matters (divergence to me should be welcomed), but a state of how I see this nomination, considering the text on Wikibooks:Administrators "Creating a new bureaucrat is a more weighty discussion than the creation of an admin". --Panic 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  In your oppose vote explanation above I don't find anything explicitly relevant to bureaucrat tools. Before I take action on these votes (in due time), please answer if you have any actual problems with Johnny's use of the makebot, makesysop, or renameuser tools. These are what a bureaucrat really does and that's what I am more interested in hearing opposition to since we have several bureaucrats on the project that can evaluate the possible misuse of these tools. Although the admin policy says this is a more weighty vote, I am much more concerned with tool usage and not Johnny's personal demeanor that some may dislike. Clear-cut and non-lengthy answers, please. -withinfocus 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As per your request, I must inform you (and others) that also at the request of SB Jhonny I have exposed the why I mistrust the user (and therefore oppose the nomination) in the page SB Jhonny created for a RFC, on the this specific topic, it is my view that SB Jhonny will not do harm if granted the rights, but since a number of Wikibookians relate increase of access level to a increase of trust, including the nominator, my position will be of opposition, and recorded as so because not only on the facts I have stated before (and others that are also public) but also because the nomination in itself has several problem that I relate to how thinks seem to be coordinated (I know that SB Jhonny before this nomination needed some work done on some of his accounts), I would have been less willing to express my opposition if the user had proposed himself and with proper reasons for it or even in a better tone if User:Derbeth requested or supported it. --Panic 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support - I trust him. -- Jomegat 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - I also trust him = ) --Az1568 ^(Talk) 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - Does good work, shouldn't be a problem. -withinfocus 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Oppose - If you want to know why, e-mail me. --Rob Horning 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  That's not very fair. Such a thing should be listed here otherwise your oppose vote might have little weight. As a current bureaucrat I would like to have this written below because it could very well change the possible action I might take on this vote. -withinfocus 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  No, please, just email him, or we'll have this functional page filled with endless talk as well! Webaware ^talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Hahahahahaha no. --Iamunknown 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  A brief summary would be useful. It seems unfortunate that that position is taken. --Remi 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I'm with User:Withinfocus on this issue. Wikibooks:Decision making is clear that the quantity of votes is not used to make a decision, but instead the quality of the vote is to be considered. A simple vote of "yea" or "nay" with no explanation carries far less weight then a vote with a rational explanation behind it. It is well known that Rob and Johnny have personal issues with one another, but a personal dispute is hardly a valid reason to prevent a promotion like this. If Rob feels that there is more to this dispute, and that Johnny has broken some kind of policy or displayed an inability to be trusted by the community, then Rob should post that rationale here to help inform the voters. If, however, this is little more then an extension of their personal dispute and some form of revenge against Johnny, then it would be wise for Rob to not post that here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  Without explanation here I again state that it's not really fair to hold this oppose vote against Johnny. Although support votes need little explanation since they're for the affirmative, I believe oppose votes need proper explanation, just like in any of our voting processes here. If your comments are large enough please add them to the below discussion section and please add at least something, otherwise this vote has little to no weight. -withinfocus 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  I find such vote unfair and immature - because it makes the candidate unable to defend himself and treats other participants of this discussion as not worthy enough to receive the true motivation behind the vote. I'm sorry to see Robert Horning using this style of discussion. In my opinion, this is not in wiki-spirit to talk this way. --Derbeth ^talk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  The reason I wrote this is because I knew that I would have to nearly endlessly debate ths whole thing and make this "vote" into something of a diatribe about my concerns regarding Johnny. I simply didn't have the physical time to carry out such a lengthy discussion, and I knew it would be opening up old wounds as well that were better left alone. Also, if you wanted to know my reasoning, it isn't that hard to send an e-mail to respond to specific questions and points. Why is that "not in wiki-spirit"? --Rob Horning 10:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  In my understanding, wiki-spirit means that we discuss all things openly and together. Isolation, discussing things secretly in small groups should not be the rule. Also, requiring all other fellow-disputants to e-mail you in order to get explanations a kind of disrespect. --Derbeth ^talk 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support - I trust him too. I don't believe he shows partiality, although he can show his irritation at times (who wouldn't?) and I don't blame him for that. He'll use his new powers only for Good, not Evil. Webaware ^talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Neutral. I have full confidence in SBJohnny and have always believed that he is a very trustworthy and competent Wikibookian. I am withholding my vote for now because it is a clear that a few other active members may have a problem with such a situation - it really is nothing personal and I will happily change my vote if I feel that more of the community are behind this. Xania ^talk 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support I have full trust in SBJohnny and he has shown exceptional ability to address issues and problems when other administrators might have just given up. Xania ^talk 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• neutral Template:Support. I like and trust SB_Johnny, I think he is a valuable contributor. I am concerned about a certain situation where instead of seeking reconciliation he has opted toward escalation. I'm not convinced that we need another bureaucrat, and there are some questions in my mind about whether granting this additional privilege will result in an escalation of existing conflict. --xixtas ^talk 14:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

<added later>While we have been discussing, SB_Johnny has demonstrated good faith efforts to address my concerns. Whiteknight has convinced me that having another bureaucrat is desirable. Because of this I would like to change my opinion and support SB_Johnny's nomination as bureaucrat. --xixtas ^talk 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)</added later>

• • Promotion to bureaucrat doesnt really entail any additional responsibility or authority, as the name implies it's mostly a position of bureaucracy. Wikibooks also has a history of bureaucrats who have been very reserved in the excercise of their abilities, a precidence that Johnny is fully aware of. I am convinced that we do need an additional bureaucrat, and i'll try to explain (briefly) why. If you look at this particular nomination, I am not able to make the promotion because I made the nomination. User:Derbeth has been inactive for a month now, and so it is unlikely that he will be making the promotion either. This means that on the entire project, the only person who is available and capable of performing the promotion (should the community vote to promote him) is User:Withinfocus. Considering that I myself have made a majority of the recent admin nominations recently, and Derbeth has been decreasing his activity for some time now, you can see the additional pressure that is being placed on User:Withinfocus to make these promotions. An additional bureaucrat would help to spread the work load, and account for times when Withinfocus is absent or on vacation or something. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect - Derbeth has not been inactive for a month now. He (& others of us) may not appear in the public forums as much however it does not mean that he is not working. If you examine the block log you will find that his admin activity has arguably been higher than anyone else on this project recently --Herby ^{talk thyme} 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've seen some of Derbeth's IP block marathons, and the speed of them strikes me as being more indicative of a bot or other automated tool then of actual human interaction. I'm certainly not saying anything negative about Derbeth, but you are right in your clarification that he hasn't been active in public forums recently. Public forums are typically the kinds of places where a person would ask for help from a bureaucrat. Derbeth has been busy with his real life and I have the utmost respect for that, but at the same time it does highlight the problem that the absence of a single bureaucrat on this small problem can put undo pressure on the remaining two (especially with my inclination to nominate people for promotion). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a perception that this increase in privileges carries an increase in status. Since there is that perception, there is an increase in status (status is all about perception). Things that user says carry more weight and flaming out on a page in user space gains more significance than it should. It is a close call for me, but in the end I think that extending additional privs to SB_Johnny at this time might escalate a standing conflict between admins and I can't say that I think that is a good idea. --xixtas ^talk 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a little odd. For one thing, a "bureaucrat" is a "sysop" with two extra tools to help people, not some godly status thing. For another, I tend to rank people by their actions, not by some title they've claimed or been promoted into. There is a wide variety of people with "sysop", and I'd rank several of them as not being worthy of such a "title" were I to take your view on the access to wiki tools. Webaware ^talk 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Usually I bite my tongue but "hey it's Sunday". Agreeing with all that Webaware says. It is not the title but what you do with it that counts. In passing the "inactive" 'crat is busy getting on with the job in hand according to the current logs rather than talking about it - speaking of which actual work calls --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "...godly status thing." - In my opinion, when you restate an opposing viewpoint it is more civil to fairly and calmly present the actual position stated rather than to restate it with loaded words and extreme views that were not originally expressed. --xixtas ^talk 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
          • This is getting weird... I'm hoping that Herbythyme has this right, because I don't understand where I was either uncivil or not calm. Perhaps you are bringing more baggage to the discussion than is otherwise apparent. I simply meant that bureaucrat is an ability to do more work for others, not an invitation to feel smug about having a title. Some people here seem to think that being a sysop is a means to being smug about having that "title", whereas it appears to me that it entails the responsibility to actually help people out a lot. Were SB_Jonny to become a bureaucrat, his responsibilities would increase (marginally, only two new tools!). The greater mass of contributorsauthors on this project wouldn't even know about it, thus preventing any elevation in their admiration of him. But maybe I'm wrong, having too much bark in front of me to be able to clearly see the deforestation. Webaware ^talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Interesting, "Some people here seem to think that being a sysop is a means to being smug about having that "title"..." That's a strange accusation. Would you care to elaborate? Who is being smug about his or her title? --xixtas ^talk 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I strongly agree with xixtas on this... can we not be flip, please? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I do agree however can I just point out that English is an easily misunderstood language. Webaware & I have in common the fact that we are not from the USA and I think our postings are sometimes seen in a way that we had not intended (of course we do tend to see your postings in a similar way sometimes). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with Herby here, Webaware wasnt accusing anybody of being smug, he was saying that people assume admins will be smug about new powers. It's a common fear, everybody assumes that every admin promotion will create a person with more authority or more "power", when that isnt the case, historically. Nobody is smug, but everybody worries about potential smugness. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support He have enoght expirence, is interestet in the Interwiki coordination and a projekt from this size needs 3-4 bureacrats. --Sundance Raphael 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - --Remi 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - I've appreciated his role in working to address problems in the past, and having read a lot of what he has written, find him to be a responsible member of the community. James Dennett 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support. An active and helpful Wikibookian, in whom I trust greatly. Kind regards, Celestianpower 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Why the Hell not? (or some corollary thereof) --Iamunknown 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion

I generally don't think it's a good idea for a "candidate" to respond to objections, but I suppose I should in this case, because I think "candidate" is a term we as a community tend to take the wrong way (if you want to see how bad it can get, see the mess Wikipedia has made of the tool-giving process).

The bureaucrat tools do two things: (1) you can make someone a sysop after it's clear that there is general consensus that they receive the tools, and (2) you can change a username to another username. Abuse of these tools would of course be very bad for the project (imagine a rogue b'crat giving sysop tools to serial vandals and/or changing usernames against the wishes of the user!), but I can't imagine anyone thinks I would do that :). The term "bureaucrat" was probably chosen to avoid political connotations, but it's perfectly understandable that usergroup membership is interpreted by the community to mean "a step up on the ladder", because in some ways it is, but we should (IMO) try not to extend that metaphorically in political terms.

I strongly believe that changing someone's usergroup should not be interpreted politically. Being an admin, checkuser, b'crat, or steward doesn't make anyone more important... all it's about is giving someone access to tools, and we ask for community input so that any who feel that the user would abuse the tools should be pointed out and denied access to them. Panic is uncomfortable about how I use a particular administrator's tool (the block tool), but I'm quite certain that he knows I would never use the b'crat tools in a harmful way. Robert is uncomfortable with me because of things I say, but that has nothing to do with the tools (admin, CU, or b'crat).

So, I find myself in a funny position here, answering my own concerns: If I was a b'crat trying to interpret consensus on this particular nomination, I would want to hear from the "candidate" (I really wish there were a better word!) about the nays and the neutrals, because the neutrals in particular express trust, but also reservations because of other issues. It's actually a bit of a bind, because the expressed objection doesn't seem to have direct bearing on the tools in question, and the unexpressed one is, well, unexpressed (though I think the reason is pretty much common knowledge). It's an interesting conundrum, and were I in a position to make someone a bureaucrat, I'd say "no" right now... not because of the oppose votes, but because of the neutrals.

As an aside: I really think we should move towards a subpage schema for out RFAs (and VFDs), so that there can be a talk page... I would rather have put this there! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to this from both Rob and Panic is completely expected, considering your history with those users. Likely if I were up for promotion to bureaucrat right now those same users would object to my promotion as well. Fortunately, besides the hypothetical objections, I think that i have proven to be a decent bureaucrat. I would say that neither I nor either of the other bureaucrats have ever demanded additional respect or authority (or even received them without demanding). If people appreciate Withinfocus, Derbeth, or myself more then other users it's because we have been here for a long time and because we are helpful and knowledgeable.

There are a few important points that I think some people are missing. First and foremost all wikibookians are likely to have personal disputes with other wikibookians, and that doesnt mean that we shouldnt promote anybody. Second, we do need to maintain a continuous influx of new admins to both fill in the gaps from old admins who leave our project and to help keep a grip on this place as it gets larger. People always have some kind of fear that the granting of various admin tools will give a user undue political power, but I think the track record has shown precisely the opposite. If anything, promotion to admin or bcrat tends to give the recipient greater respect for the responsibility they have, and many wikibookians have risen to a higher level of participation because of it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear User:Whiteknight, I wouldn't object to you being made a bureaucrat, I have not seen any faults on your actions, I may have divergences with you. We may see problems in a different way mostly where we still haven't got a clear community consensus, and some points I don't agree with you just on the logic of how you see things, consider the way you value access rights as a status or an honorific granted to a user, I don't share your vision in that regard and find it very dangerous, I also have problems on how you face every divergence of views and have yet to see you change your mind on any subject and be willing to accommodate different opinions.

As for SB Jhonny the problem I expressed on my vote is clearly stated, even in the problem with Robert he has gone out of his ways to "cause" the problem, since it was up to you to state any problem directly, if his intention was to offer a comment he could have done it in a better way (and this is not the first time he takes action when he is not requested or required to), causing more troubles than he seems to be attempting to address, this is why I don't see the user acting in bad faith but to easily engage in validating damaging actions only on his personal judgment.

The other problem is the level of coordination I (and others) can see in several users, that indeed constitutes a power group inside Wikibooks, intentionally or not. The close relation, self support and self promotion, some times against logic or site policies not only constitutes a danger to the community but if not addressed will in time kill the project. -Panic 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Panic, I just had an edit conflict with you (becoming a habit! :P). I didn't intentionally escalate things with Robert... quite the contrary, I was hoping to move towards offering a way for those who have been venting (fire, brimstone, tar, and feathers) "off the record" to just say their peace, let Robert respond, and talk about it together so we could avoid future misunderstandings (and "misunderstandings" are the alpha and omega of the issues I and others have with him).

You are also completely correct about the coordination of efforts, and if you think I personally have played a central role in that, you're correct there too, but only in the sense that I try to encourage people not to get into public fights on-wiki (Robert refuses to answer my emails, which is why you see me going at him full-bore: I'm even meaner to those who you see as my "friends", but they fight with me in private, as it should be).

And you, of all people, should know why I'm interested in this tool. I did not block your playful sockpuppets, I only asked you to be careful about how you named them; Remember? You know me pretty well, and knowing me as you do, do you understand how I could use the name-changing tool to benefit the project? And do you really, honestly think I would ver use the makesyssop tool in a bad way? (And before you answer that, remember also the favor I asked of you when Darklama's RFA was open!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who speaks frankly (or in my case "tactlessly" might be a better term :P) is going to have a hard time getting "voted in" to a position with "political importance" (in quotes again because I don't see it that way, and really wish no-one else did!), but there's really nothing wrong with being vocally opinionated. I've never (and would never) used any admin tools in a dispute, and never in any way contrary to what I felt was the general consensus. I have a hard time believing that anyone (including both Panic and Robert) would think I would use the tools for any reason other than the benefit of the project, and deciding when the tools in question here are to be used is *much* more cut-and-dry than the other tools I have (particularly block and checkuser!): makesysop is used when there is clear support for a nominee, and usernames are changed only at the request of the user who's name is to be changed.

We're (hopefully) going to get more name change requests, as people from other projects arrive on wikibooks, and may unfortunately find their names already "taken". I haven't caught any of these recently, but a few months ago some rather slanderous vandal accounts were being created here on wikibooks using the names of Wikipedian administrators, and until SUL (Single User Login... sorry for the jargon) comes into play, we're still vulnerable to this sort of nonsense, because most wp admins pay no attention to Wikibooks (come to think of it, I think I'll leave a note about this on their Admin Noticeboard). There might also end up being a massive dumping of workload for local b'crats when SUL is finally ready to go, because usernames held by different people on different projects might need to be fixed locally (I hope not, to be honest, but I can't really see any other way for them to do this). We might need more b'crats if my worst nightmare about this comes to pass. For now though, I'm definitely the best "candidate" to be a b'crat (as far as name-changing is concerned), precisely because I'm a "well-known element" on our sister en projects, and therefore the one most likely to recognize that a vandal account is named after a prominent contributor on another project (I doubt I will have much use of the makesyssop tool unless Derbeth and/or Withinfocus really did go MIA).

This is a tool I can use for the benefit of "prospective" Wikibookians. The stress level on Wikipedia is truly alarming, and I hope that I might be able to entice more of the "jaded majority" to come help us write books. That is the only sense in which I want the "power" that's associated with the b'crat tools: not because it gives my voice added authority, but because I can say "no problem, I can fix that for you!" While I know most will disagree, I still think our best bet for making our project grow is to recruit those wikipedians who really believe in the idea of providing free, correct, and useful content... by the time they're jaded on wp, they most likely have been made "true believers", and IMHO what we need most around here are true believers. --SB_Johnny | ^talk; 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the idea behind this? It's been deleted now but this was probably one of Robert's reasons for the oppose vote. And also possibly User talk: Robert Horning. Xania ^talk 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will explain, but with the caveat that I don't think this is the proper place to explain it (and I will undelete it so people know what we're talking about... it was deleted out of process, but with good intentions, I'm certain). That was a "working page" (thus in my userspace), partially to test out a template for user-conduct RFCs, and partly just to get my thoughts together about why Robert has been driving me up a wall lately. My two aims were closely linked, because I felt that the best way to see how the template should be structured was to just use it, and it was a good time to test out the template because I really felt the need to use it. It was thrown off a bit when you commented on it, because it then ceased to be "my experiment" and became "public domain".

What I'm trying to come up with is a good template for "requesting comments", and a design for the template that encourages constructive criticism.

What I was hoping to achieve with the me/Robert situation was to provide some sort of good forum where those who were angry with him could just say what was making them angry, but in a semi-formal forum so that it would be a "point-by-point" discussion that Robert (or anyone else in the future) could read, think about, and respond to.

I've had a hard time communicating with Robert... he has on 2 occasions sent me very long emails, and on both occasions I have replied, but he didn't reply to my replies. I have, however, made it clear (by saying so, both via email and on wikibooks when he's brought it up) that I don't want him to leave the project, so I assume that the message on your (Xania's) talk page was about unnamed others.

To be frank, I've also had a hard time with a lot of other people not communicating well with Robert, because they bitch and moan to me using other venues, rather than just speaking their peace and assuming that Robert will have the good faith to respond to them respectfully. That is why I wanted an RFC... backchannel bitching has it's place, but the issues will never be resolved unless people talk to each other.

Without Robert's input "on the record", I hope he'll forgive me for venturing a guess: Robert believes I am a dangerously influential member of a dangerously influential cabal. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I do try to keep in touch with people, but it's only because this community has been horribly fractious for a horribly long time, and I feel that those wish to have a stake here should negotiate their differences (or at least agree to disagree) "off-wiki" rather than having public blow-ups on talk pages. And maybe more important: active Wikibookians should get to know each other, because a common desire to create free textbooks is a great basis for being friends. If there is a "cabal", the membership requirements (at least as far as I'm concerned) are pretty simple: a desire to get more contributors and more books.

But here's the caveat I mentioned: my issues with Robert have nothing to do with the b'crat tools. My issues with Robert aren't even about the goals of Wikibooks. My main issue with him about the admin tools is that he threatened to use them against consensus, and that is something I cannot easily forgive, because using admin tools against consensus is a serious breach of trust. My other issues with him have nothing to do with admin tools (his or mine). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will state here for the record that the primary reason for an objection to having Johnny become a bureaucrat is mainly for this to be seen as an endorsement of his actions toward me to kick me off this project and his very deliberate and personal attacks against me. While we don't really have a formal "no personal attacks" policy, I have seen both Johnny and others here on Wikibooks make a very pointed attempt to cut off discussion in this manner. No, I don't like it at all.

Other than these attacks and flamewars, I havn't seen any explicit actions on the part of Johnny that are disruptive to Wikibooks, and certainly I am not seeking deadminship for Johnny's account, which is something I would seek if he seemed to be as dangerous as he seems to think I am. His "request for comments" as a way to deal with me as a "problem user" also seemed to be something very much out of line, even if he is explaining it away as a mere "experiment". I think it fits his secretive manner to try and keep light away from discussing issues but rather form a political agenda.

As far as my "threats" to use admin tools in some ways that Johnny has objected to, I believe that he is mistaken on a very critical issue: Admins not only have the right but the duty to reverse the actions of other admins when either something is heavily misunederstood (as was the case with the VideoJug threats of deletions.... and don't tell me that you were talking abstractly here Johnny). Particularly when such actions are against explicit project policy. It is also reasonable that some exceptions to policy can also be made in the interest of trying to encourage new users and to help grow this project.

That there is some ill will between Johnny and I should be apparent to the rest of the community, and it doesn't look like we will be able to constructively get much accomplished together. I hope Wikibooks is a large enough project that it doesn't matter if a couple of users are pissed at each other.

The only real major problem that can happen with a "rogue bureaucrat" is that they can stack the list of admins to favor their point of view and limit access to those with an opposing viewpoint. My concern with Johnny here to become a bureaucrat is that he hasn't shown the flexability to consider viewpoints other than his own and to encourage a diversity of voices within the Wikibooks community. I'm hoping that he will show some increased maturity here and not continue the adolecent behavior I have seen lately. --Rob Horning 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What actions has SB_Johnny taken that were attempts to get you kicked off of the project? How could such a thing even be accomplished? I don't understand. --xixtas ^talk 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with xixtas in that confusion. While it's no doubt that johnny doesnt like you, i've never seen him make a concerted effort to try and have you removed from the project or deadmined or anything like that. Even his RFC didn't propose either of those options. For the record i believe that Rob has accused me (often indirectly) of the same offenses and even more. People are allowed to disagree without an underlying assumption that one of the people are trying to have the opponent removed from the project. People are even allowed to get really angry at each other without making the assumption that either one of them has to leave here forever. And when mentioning relative maturity levels around here, a lot of finger pointing could be made in both directions. It's best not to even bring that subject up at all, i think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear to Robert both on talk pages and via email that I don't want to run him off the project. I do wish he would rethink some of the things he's done lately. The RfC in my userspace was both an experiment and an expression of my concerns... the best way to come up with a structure for a user-RFC is simply to make one, in order to see what kinds of things the template should ask about in order to be helpful for someone who wishes to write one. And I do think it might be a good thing for all of us to eventually do that in the WB namespace, as a forum for all those concerned to express their concerns and praise for Robert, and replace the current sniping with a cool-headed, positively-oriented discussion. Roberts comments on this page are exactly the sort of thing I wish he would rethink... anyone who knows me at all (even Panic!) would know that I would never abuse these tools. I do understand both Panic's and Robert's desire not to give my "voice and position" any more credence, but frankly my voice isn't going to be taken any more or less seriously depending on whether I have access to these two tools.

It's rather unrealistic to say that the B'crat tool could be used to "stack the list of admins". The makesysop tool is used only after a request has been open for a week, and there seems to be general consensus that the nominee/requestor will use the tools in a positive way. The makesysop tool is also only effective in the positive... it can't be used to prevent people from becoming sysops (only stewards can do that). And, again, user's viewpoints aren't made any more important just because they have a few extra buttons. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't belabor this point too much further, but you have indeed suggested explicitly that you would prefer that I no longer participate on Wikibooks. That aside, I would like to point out as well that rogue bureaucrats have appeared on other Wikimedia projects (mainly non-Western European language projects that tend to not get the same level of review by WMF board members). This "vote stacking" is a very real issue that has polarized several projects and has driven many potential contributors away. Cleaning up these projects takes some sort of outside intervention that even the cure is often worse than the problem in the first place.

All this said, I hope that you use your current tools with maturity and care as you claim you will. While I have opposed your nomination, I'm open to the possibility that you may be a positive influence on this project and that you will be receptive to the idea that admin nominations for people whose ideas you don't always agree with can be acceptable as well. It is far better that we take care of our own in terms of appointing admin status within Wikibooks than having to obtain that status via stewards. --Rob Horning 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs)Actually, I'll just put my money where my (loud) mouth is. This one ain't in a userspace :). Wikibooks:Requests for Comments/SB_Johnny

• Reading this page and responding to silly points about status have chewed up what little time I had available to contribute something to this project this morning. I resolve not to look at this page again, so that I can feel smug about getting some actually useful contributions made to the project next time I have time to come here. You guys must have too much time on your hands, if you can put this much effort into endless talking and make useful contributions to the project and have a life outside of wiki. Webaware ^talk 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "life outside of wiki"? you must be very mad sir! I've got two computers set up right next to each other, and I do work on one. If i dont take a break every now and then to participate in something less serious, i might go completely crazy. This silliness is very therapeutic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have to explain some things here. Yes, I've been inactive for some time and this unfortunately won't change until the summer holidays. All mass-blocking actions were made by me using a semi-automatic tool. The university takes a great deal of my time and it's hard for me to engage myself in anything more that ad-hoc fixes. I am simply unable to take part in long-term disputes. Talking about this particular vote, I think that it might be a good idea to have two truly active bureaucrats on the project. I have always considered SBJohnny a reasonable person working hard to improve Wikibooks and we've always cooperated well. The only reason I haven't expressed my support here is that some users have accused SBJohnny of personal attacks and I haven't had time to read the hot disputes that caused these complaints and judge who is right. I feel that it would be something wrong to vote before gaining confidence that SBJohnny has always acted properly. Nonetheless, I wish SBJohnny all the best as I don't believe he might break Wikibooks rules. --Derbeth ^talk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your votes. I have thought about the matter as well as discussed some things with my fellow bureaucrats, and Johnny is now a bureaucrat. This discussion will be archived shortly. -withinfocus 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)