Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/John Vandenberg

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jayvdb (June 2009 renamed to John Vandenberg)

Latest comment: 6 years ago161 comments67 people in discussion

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)

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 SQLQuery 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 --Spangineerwp (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)

2008-11 confirmation

status
  • administrator since 02 November 2007 (unanimous)
  • checkuser since 15 April 2008 (unanimous)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions

2009-12 confirmation

Administrator since 2 November 2007 and Checkuser since 15 April 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

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

2011-01 confirmation + resignation of checkuser

The following discussion is closed:

confirmed


Administrator since 2 November 2007 and checkuser since 15 April 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Support. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as admin, oppose as checkuser. I'm feeling quite resentful of what I perceive to be John treating Wikisource as a rehabilitation centre for users who have made themselves unwelcome elsewhere. I don't have all the facts and I guess I never will, but it seems like every time we receive such a user, it is because John has invited them to try their luck over here, to use this project to prove to the other projects that they can be a useful and unproblematic contributor. Jack Merridew was a success on this account, but I also think the massive dramafest of the last few days should be marked down as an inevitable consequence of John's policy. I'd like to strike a blow against his ability to pursue this policy in future, and I think denying him checkuser would do that. At the very least, consider this a protest vote. Aside from this one issue, John still enjoys my respect and trust, so I continue to support him as administrator. Hesperian 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose all aspects - Though I still respect him and consider him as a friend as I always did, I do not think he made appropriate moves for this community. Consensus should be king, and that requires community discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    For reference, Ottava has filed a request for comment about this wiki's 'adminstration problems', which includes John Vandenberg. —Pathoschild 02:30:50, 03 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I understand Hesperian concern and do feel that some users should be like-totally-banninated by slamming two hemispheres of plutonium together at the point where their head is (was;). Nothing to do with CU, however. fwiw, I'm trying to rehabilitate User:Gabi Hernandez, here; she's indef'd on en:wp; there's no maliciousness in her, just a bit of mildly disruptive behavior that need moving away from. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC) <Gabi, you need to get cracking;>
  • Question for John. After reading your comments on Meta, I wonder if it would be for the best if you voluntarily returned the Checkuser permissions and let someone with more time assist the Community with the task. As you know, in order to handle complex cases such as PL/Cato a checkuser needs to have adequate time to do follow up. Have you considered returning the Checkuser tool? Later if you have more time then the community can do a RFCU and reconfirm your permission. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Not answering John's question, it has me thinking though about a process to manage any extended leave of absence. Would whatever process that the stewards use for (extended) absence be something that could/should be considered for CU, as long as the minimum no. of CUs can be maintained? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    The steward inactivity policy is at m:Stewards policy#Inactivity. —Pathoschild 16:50:23, 03 January 2011 (UTC)
    Also relevant to Billinghurst's comment is m:CheckUser_policy#Removal_of_access: it appears that current policy is that the CU flag is removed after one year of complete inactivity. —Spangineer (háblame) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I've considered voluntarily returning my Checkuser permissions in the past, however the need to have redundancy and peer-review has been a consideration. I've only run 20 checks over the last 12 months, and 18 of those have been Poetlister related. There are plenty of suitable candidates for the tools in our community, and this is a good opportunity to let others take up the slack. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Both as administrator and CU. --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. --Eliyak T·C 16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
John, your contributions are a priceless treasure. FloNight♥♥♥♥

2012-02 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-03 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2014-04 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2015-05 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016-06 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2017-07 confirmation

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2018-08 confirmation (unsuccessful)

The following discussion is closed:

Unsuccessful / voluntarily resigned. Hesperian 01:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.

Removal requested.[3] Hesperian 01:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/John_Vandenberg&oldid=14004739"