Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/John Vandenberg

From Wikisource

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by John Vandenberg. See current discussion or the archives index.

[edit] Jayvdb (June 2009 renamed to John Vandenberg)

[edit] 2007-10 admin

I joined Wikisource in March 2007 to work on Author:W. H. R. Rivers and Author:Siegfried Sassoon, and have been contributing almost daily with only a few gaps when other activities have prevented me. In addition to adding books, journal articles, court opinions, obituaries and assisting with discussions on the Scriptorium and the two deletion boards, I have been working my way through the images on Wikisource, moving them to commons where possible, or proposing deletions. To this end, I have started operating JVbot (talk • contribs) and dragged BetacommandBot (talk • contribs) over to help speed things up. While I have only 4000 contribs between me and my bot, I expect that they are sufficiently broad to establish that I will not use the sysops capabilities rashly or obstinately. I will use the capabilities to protect the Wiki (being in the GMT+10 timezone will decrease chances of unchecked vandalism sprees) and assisting in the backlogs. John Vandenberg 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, even just on watchlisted pages I've seen - John has checked/corrected licenses, created disambiguation pages and fixed incorrect headers. In addition, he's performed "above and beyond" the necessary amount of "raw work adding new texts", and seems to value debate and compromise over rash autonomous decisions. All told, he would be an excellent choice for administrator. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables} 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, his contributions are well-balanced and my experience of him in discussion have been nothing but glowingly positive. He all but embodies my ideal administrator. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• support ThomasV 07:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely helpful fellow who "gets it" and is "not likely to delete the front page". Support ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Finally!! Always the guy I look to as the voice of reason. - Epousesquecido 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Knowledgeable, trustworthy, and extremely helpful. Giving this user admin tools will be a great benefit to the project, indeed. FloNight 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support--BirgitteSB 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yann 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Politicaljunkie 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Appointed by a steward on meta. John Vandenberg 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-03 checkuser

The following discussion was for two candidates (including Pathoschild), and split for the archive.

The previous request for Checkuser here on the English Wikisource ended unsuccessfully in April 2006 when it was pruned from meta and then Wikisource. It was covered in Wikisource:News/2006-04-19/Local_CheckUser_status_in_doubt.

Foremost in my mind as the reason to have local Checkusers is to allow checks to be run where there are unusual circumstances. For example, I have just unblocked What467 (talk • contribs) when there was a suspicious Zzzzz356 (talk • contribs) also active and doing similar page blanking. I have had to give the benefit of the doubt, despite my doubts, because it isnt worth requesting a meta CU.

Also worth considering is the aspect that without a local checkuser, someone considering using two accounts to manipulate a situation will have less reason to think they will be caught. Having a checkuser who is active in the community will be preventative.

Also worth noting, Lar commented on local CU at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Checkuser_request_on_en:wp_which_included_en:ws, and English Wikibooks (who was also unsuccessful at the same time as Wikisource) have since been successful and now have four local CU. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be successful, the requirements at m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser are two candidates with at least 25 approvals. We have enough active users, and I hope at least one other administrator will join this request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A note for future reference: there are some very good policy ideas in a recent discussion on Checkuser-l (checkusers-only). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:34:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any public discussion about a local checkuser policy yet? The most important things are already regulated by the Meta checkuser policy. But I'd like to see some more details defined, in particular:

• What's the term of office for a checkuser, and what are the formalities of re-election?
• How do they account for their actions? For example, once a case is closed, will they notify the editors on whose accounts a checkuser was performed?

--GrafZahl (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started a draft Wikisource:CheckUser policy so we can all work on this, and discuss it on the talk page. Until a local policy is adopted by a community vote, the meta policy would be in effect (coupled with common sense). That said, if the local policy is making good progress towards adoption, I think the tools shouldnt be used until it is adopted (unless there were exception circumstances that required it). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser policy on Meta will still be in effect after we create a local policy; we can expand upon that policy, but not override it. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:09:43, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the draft.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, I drafted the restricted access policy with John's input. That policy is being considered at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Restricted access policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:45:49, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff of a post on Meta to m:Steward requests/Permissions, where I have asked that CU access be granted once Jayvdb has identified to the foundation (unless he has already). The requisite 25 votes have been received in both cases. Seems reasonable to start the wheels turning on granting access, even if the policy is not completely nailed down. I have absolute trust in both of these users to abide in spirit. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As an active administrator, and as someone who is accessible privately for the majority of the day via email and IRC, I'm requesting candidacy for checkuser. I am familiar with the policy and capability of the tool, having requested public and private CUs on en.wp as part of arbitration clerking and enforcement, and also on meta. In addition to being aware of the privacy aspects, I am technically capable of driving the tool having been a developer of HTTP software, including being a developer of the Mozilla Firefox web browser as the maintainer of the IRIX port.[1][2]. I can present more recent evidence of intimate technical working knowledge of the HTTP specification for anyone who requests it via email. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question I don't entirely understand your example above. What would be your reasoning for running a CU on User:What467? The case that prompted the previous request of CU's was about the posting of content that involved a real life dispute and the WMF had been contacted by lawyers. I doubt they would involve local admins in such things today, but that was some time ago. I believe I have once made a CU request on meta in all the time since, involving what appeared to be good hand/bad hand accounts (it was not). Account B was nominating the works of Account A for deletion and had posted on Account A's userpage instead of Account B's userpage (or something similar). But the accounts you list above have no connection to one another so I don't understand why there would be CU run on them.--BirgitteSB 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  At 05:48, What467 blanked London Convention‎, and Yann blocked What467 at 6:00, who requested to be unblocked at 07:26-33, using the {{unblock}} template.
  Zzzzz356 (talk • contribs)'s first contrib was to blank Yann's talk page at 08:01, and Zzzzz356 then also blanked my talk page after I reverted the users actions. I unblocked What467 at 08:08, and then blocked Zzzzz356 at 08:10.
  In my experience with Wikisource, there is a low probability that two registered accounts will be doing page blankings on the same day, and there is an even lower probability that the second's first action will be to blank the user talk page of the admin who blocked the first account. These circumstances are sufficiently odd that I felt it would have been worth looking to CU data to determine if there are more issues. Prior to unblocking the first account, it would have been useful to know if the two accounts are tightly correlated. If they were from the same IP, it would indicate that the user was a little bit mad at the block and the lack of response to the unblock request, and acted up a bit. Even if CU did indicate that the second account is a sock of the first, if there were no other acts of vandalism from that person, I would still have seriously considered an unblock, as the damage was minimal and the credible possibility that the unfortunate use of sock all stems from an honest mistake that caused an escalation.
  
  Sadly, whether we like it or not, our block log is starting to look like the Wikipedia block log. This is a product of our success. I hope that we never attract the same level of vandals as Wikipedia, and I do recognise that how admins react to vandals plays a large part in whether they come back and repeatedly vandalise, but we also shouldnt stick our head in the sand. The tool can help - especially when placed in the right hands. How it is used is dictated by the meta policy, and I will be regularly seeking advice from local admins, both on whether a CU is desirable and on whether any post-CU action is advisable.
  In addition to being used to protect our own Wiki, being able to run CU means that in the event of a serial vandal, we can share the offending IP with admins on other smaller wikis to prevent vandals moving from one wiki to the next to pass the time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  I am not against us having checkusers so much as am generally cautious. I am thinking right now it would be a mistake to elect checkusers without a first finding consensus on a policy of when the tool should be used and how transparently. I would support you personally as a checkuser. But I suppose I would first like to be reassured that you (and other candidates) understand a checkuser policy in a manner I could support.--BirgitteSB 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  A comment, I think BirgitteSB knows this already but it's my view that any local policy can be "tighter" than the overall policy (located at m:CheckUser policy) but can't be "looser"... CU can't be used for things not allowed in policy, but local policy could restrict CU activity to, for example, require all public CU requests be formatted a certain way. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Support I would be happy to see John as a checkuser if a second good candidate can be found. We had a lot of problems on Wikiquote until we elected two local Checkusers, and we are currently trying to get a third.--Poetlister 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I am the Checkuser candidate on Wikiquote. Local checkusers are very useful and every Wiki should have some.--Cato 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - John is a great guy for the job. - Epousesquecido 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. I have worked with John several times now and value his approach and thoroughness, I feel he is an excellent candidate. John, please canvass/buttonhole/strongarm some of the good and reliable users here until you can secure a second CU candidate... as if a second candidate is not found, this support vote will be for naught. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
5. support Excellent user and very trustworthy. —Dark ^(talk) 10:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Tarmstro99 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Yann 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support as policy is in works.--BirgitteSB 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support SQL^{Query me!} 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, this is the right person for the job. --Grandmaster 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support (disclosure, as the result of 'canvassing' over at WP :p Dbachmann 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Absolutely no hesitation. Cowardly Lion 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support.--Drboisclair 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support -Steve Sanbeg 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Can not think of a better person for the job. FloNight 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. I think he is trustworthy.- --Zephyrus 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. - Mtmelendez 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, have never had any issues with Jayvdb. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Karl Marx} 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Giggy\^talk 08:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - Suicidalhamster 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support--Jusjih 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. Hesperian 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - Politicaljunkie 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Support as a local CU policy is in the process of creation.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Suport Moondyne 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11 confirmation

• I favour confirmation; very active and productive user. —Pathoschild 00:09:07, 05 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm, very active (even when he is taking a break:) Jeepday (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Hesperian 02:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm, one of the most useful administrators in my opinion, heavily involved in steering the direction of the project, while still taking the necessary hours to add texts in great quantity. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCrae} 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• The idea of John not being an admin makes me shudder. Confirm. EVula // talk // 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm <joke>per John</joke> — Jack Merridew 10:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm. --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm of course. Durova (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm of course. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm, naturally.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Of course. A token vote, but I can't imagine Wikisource would be a better place without John as an admin. In fact, I think the average quality would go down by several percent if he were removed. Jude (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm, indentured servitude does not end until 2200.--Shanel (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm, Shanel (talk • contribs) is funny. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm. Of course. Synergy 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm FloNight (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm--Jusjih (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Confirm--Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-12 confirmation

• Support without hesitation. Jude (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support.--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support and the sooner he gives up silliness elsewhere, the better <laugh>. billinghurst (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Hesperian 04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, no worries. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support,--Zyephyrus (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• support ThomasV (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support ResScholar (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, first administrator on WS I ever encountered, and even though he's dumb and insists both sides have equal culpability in a dispute...he's still the best I've seen ;) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no other admin like jayvdb. He is a great resource to the community. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yann (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Tarmstro99 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. —Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep ;) Jack Merridew 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

— Confirmed billinghurst (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)