Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Mike.lifeguard

+Administrator

Mike has been working on the first aid book (among other things), and should definitely have access to import, be able to do history merges, etc. He doesn't have a lot of edits in the Wikibooks: namespace, but from his (long) history here I'd say he's definitely trustworthy, and the tools will be very useful to him as he works on the first aid book (he vandal patrols a bit too). I'll happily "mentor" him vis-a-vis the use of the tools and WB policies (I have mentored before on Wikiversity). --SB_Johnny | talk 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Accept: I accept this nomination and promise to use these powers for good, not evil :P Specifically, importing edit histories for stuff I 'stole' from WP last week. I should clean up my own mess. Mike.lifeguard 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support - Mike has done an excellent job on the First Aid book. --Jomegat 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support - He a goodie not a badie. Good job so far. Xania talk 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support - Legit need for the buttons. --xixtas talk 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support (as nominator) --SB_Johnny | talk 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support - will make good use of those buttons. Webaware talk 08:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Support I really think we are reaching a point in our history where adminship can be given to more people then just the elite few users who do super-human work around here. A user like Mike.lifeguard who is hard-working, trustworthy, and experienced should be given the tools, both for his own empowerment, and also to ease the burden on other admins. The people who are the most productive authors tend to need the most admin-tool-help of anybody. Mike is a great choice, he does good work, and he will be an asset. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[]

Done I wanted to wait a little bit longer on this one because there were comparatively fewer votes and I wanted everybody to have time to say their piece. After 9 days there are no opposing votes nor opposing sentiments of any kind. User:Mike.lifeguard is now an admin. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[]

+CheckUser

I'd like to nominate Mike for checkuser rights. Mike is a good, solid contributor of content, a wise and thoughtful contributor to our community discussions, deals kindly and creatively with disruptive users, and is an excellent and active RC patroller. As he has firmly established himself as an integral part of our "front line defense" against silliness and hostility, I think he should have this tool available to him if and when he needs it.

As with all of our current Checkusers, I trust him completely (if he lived closer I might ask him to babysit). CU tools are of course only for the worst cases, but worst cases have, do, and will (unfortunately) continue to arise, and Mike is just the sort of person we'd want to be there when it does. I feel confident that he would use this tool with the caution and reluctance that are the marks of a good Checkuser. --SB_Johnny | PA! 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]

I accept and a big thanks to SB Johnny for the vote of confidence. I hope my involvement since getting admin buttons has demonstrated the necessary qualities to the rest of the community as well. I'm certainly up to learning how the tools work & applying them when necessary. As we all know, the CU tools are a delicate matter, and I would certainly aim to abide by the relevant policies were I to gain the buttons. For CUs it is important to be available, and my classload next semester is lighter than it is now, so I will be maintaining my activity level here. In the immediate future (2 weeks), however, I will be on semi-wiki-break as I have exams; I will be around, but not particularly active. I will check in on this nomination from time to time, and will gladly address any concerns people bring up, though I hope there will be no major concerns. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Relax Mike. :) A simple I accept would have been suffice. ^^ --Girdi 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  1. Support per nom. --Az1568 (Talk) 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  2. Support - as nominator, of course. --SB_Johnny | PA! 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  3. Support My only hesitation is that Mike is a relative newcomer to adminship, and historically CU nominations are generally for people who have been here a long time. However, as Johnny points out in his thoughtful nomination, since getting the tools Mike has proved himself to be an invaluable asset. I strongly support this nomination, and hope that other people support it as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  4. Support While mine on this occasion is something of a "me too" vote, I'm backing those whom I have found to be effective administrators in their recommendation. -- James Dennett 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  5. Support This has been going through my mind recently and Mike would be my choice for this role too. It is a delicate job however equally it is a "front line" job and Mike fits that well. Competent admin with the ability to see across wikis (something well worthwhile IMO). Purely the ability to see the log would be beneficial to the community I think. I would certainly do all I can to make sure he gets off to a good start --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  6. Support Again, more of a Me Too vote... My interaction with Mike has been limited, but he has seemed to me to be a reasonable voice. In this, though, because of how limited my interaction has been, I am largely echoing those that I trust. Chazz (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  7. Support I have always been impressed with Mike's work on the English Wikibooks. Junesun 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  8. Support --AdRiley 12:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  9. Support --Jomegat 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  10. Support Agree with everything in the nomination, and I completely trust Mike's judgement --Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  11. Support, I certainly think that he would find good use for the tools and has shown himself worthy of them. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  12. Support -withinfocus 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  13. Support I don´t see why not, he is a great user. :) Good luck mate! --Girdi 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  14. Support as I'm sure he'll perform the tasks well. Webaware talk 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  15. Support --Panic 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  16. Oppose This is in no way a vote "against" Mike but, rather, a vote against the need for another Check User. Privacy is a very sensitive matter and I would prefer as few people as possible to have access to such sensitive data. Xania talk 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Support This vote should be based on the character and actions of Mike and not other issues so I have changed my vote to 'support'. After the voting is over it might be useful to determine how many Check Users Wikibooks needs and how sensitive such a role is. Xania talk 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  17. Support ...Selden (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  18. Support --Jacques (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  19. Support--Cspurrier (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  20. Support Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  21. Support Balanced contributions, well-known person, great votes on the RfDs. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  22. Support My relatively short experience of him is overwhelmingly positive :) Redrocketboy (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  23. Support He has been amazingly responsive identifying a cross-wiki vandal on Simple English Wikibooks. I feel confident he would put the CU rights to good use --Ezra Katz (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  24. Support Very good user, has my full support. --Neskaya (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]
  25. Support Mike is trustworthy, active, responsive, motivated to help Wikibooks and Wikibookians, and has demonstrated a need for the tools. All qualities that I think made a good checkuser. --darklama 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]

25 support votes achieved, the rights have been requested on Meta which will be subject to Mike identifying himself to the Foundation --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Done the rights have been given this morning. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Thanks to all who voted; I do have the buttons now. I'd like to see the discussion at Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Checkusers continue if there are outstanding questions or concerns about the CU tools and how they're used. I think we should address the issue of activity levels which Xania brought up, but this will require input from all corners.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Discussion

I hope nobody minds if I move this down here where we have more room to talk, and don't have to worry about the formatting getting "borked" with every new comment that's added. I do want to keep this discussion close, because it is very important to the vote. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Checkusers just have access to IP's and whatever right? That isn't so sensitive I think. So what, what it matter if one person has this rights or a thousand do? There are always people that can do it. What matters is this, is it better to have 1 person to have Checkuser rights and be very nasty person, or a thousand great honourable members like Mike.Lifeguard with CheckUser? Its QUALITY not Quantity. --Girdi 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Just a little informational note here. Currently, we have 4 checkusers: myself, Johnny, Herby, and Derbeth. Derbeth is inactive here, has been for some time, and has expressed to me that he has been more active at other projects (pl.wiktionary specifically). Johnny has been spending significantly more time at Wikiversity and Commons. Herby also has been spending more and more time on commons, meta, and even wikipedia now. It is not inconceivable that within the space of 1 year we could be down to two checkusers here. According to foundation policy, we cannot have just one, so having only two puts us in a very precarious position. If we lose one, we would lose both. With that in mind, I would say that quantity is a big issue right now with this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Supporting Whiteknight's point completely. Derbeth is absent and I do not spend as much time here as I did. On this wiki CU is a "front line" tools for dealing with hard core vandals, nothing more, nothing less. The tools are and should only be used if needed but they should be available as quickly as possible. Mike is the right choice, he is far more active than many admins and you yourself (Xania) state that your vote is not against him. --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Ok, maybe it is so that quantity is an issue, but regardless of numbers and avalibility, I think Mike should still get CU. He knows this project in and out from what I have noticed by his contributions, edit count, and userpage. I support what Whiteknight and Herby stated, and Xania I think you should read over these comments and maybe reconsider your opposition vote for Mike. :) --Girdi 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Xania makes a very good point, one that was raised on the other votes for the tools (people seem to forget what they have said), a number limitation to users with the flag is in order, and that was one of the aspects I considered before supporting the nomination, in regard to the number of administrators we have. If there is a need to have more active users with the tools, next time, it will be better to redistribute them than increasing the pool. Another problem is lack of information that leads to misunderstanding, the nominator has been low on activity on site, if back channels were used to reach an understanding for the need for the nomination, I can stress it enough that it should be avoided or an expression of it should be stated on the general discussion areas so other Wikibookians can have a clear picture, and give input on what the existing problems are... --Panic 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
"back channels" were not used to decide to make this nomination. Nobody knew he was going to do it until Johnny posted it here. Derbeth's activity is a matter of public record, although I will admit that the fact he has become more active at pl.wiktionary is not known publicly (but that doesnt affect his inactivity here). Johnny's and Herby's activity levels are also public record, and the fact that they are both more active in other places is pretty common information. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Huh. For the record, no-one (including Mike) knew about this nomination ahead of time (except Az_1568 and anyone else on the IRC channel who was there while I was writing the nomination). My only interest in making the nomination was (and is) because Mike is often in the position where the tool would help him help the project.
As nominator, I'd like to request that this debate end here. Xania is absolutely entitled to his opinion, and we don't need to open a debate every time we disagree on something. --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Although he disagreed, its not that, but the reason he disagreed. I opened a debate because I feel that his vote for disagreement is not really valid reason to be against, in a sensitive vote for CheckUser, it is always good to challenge votes and decisions. That is the beauty of Wiki. --Girdi (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[]
My vote is entirely valid and I have stated my reasons but if nobody else voices their opposition I will have no problems accepting the will of the Wikibook users. I looked at Meta information and apart from English Wikipedia and Polish Wikis (which seem to have a different policy regarding CheckUsers) most projects have only 2 CheckUsers. I think that even such information as IP addresses is sensitive data. I'm not happy at being 'encouraged' to change my mind when I have made my feelings known quite clearly. However I think that other CheckUsers who are not active should decide whether they wish to continue having such status as many people DO think that access to such information is an important matter. Xania talk 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Okei, I apologise Xania. I mean, what I should have said was at this point your vote doesn't really matter at all since Mike only needs 5 more votes. :) --Girdi (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Wow! This got out of hand fairly quickly. Hopefully these random comments can be the last.
Xania's comment is just fine, and is as important as the rest of them. There should be a limited number of CUs; the disagreement is whether we have enough (active) ones now, and whether that will continue or not. IPs are sensitive data, and access to them is not to be taken lightly (which I don't). We have no backdoor channels to use, so Panic's comment can simply be disregarded. Nobody except Johnny knew ahead of time that this nomination was coming. For the record, it is public knowledge where Derbeth, SB Johnny and Herbythyme are spending their time. These three are very much cross-wiki people (a good thing; we need more cross-wiki cooperation), which unfortunately means we don't have as much time with them as we once did. Whiteknight's assessment of the situation is a tad dire, but not too far off the mark. CUs need to be available and responsive to the community they serve. If that means some CU tools should be taken away at the same time, we can discuss it. For now, however, I think I would be a good choice for the tools as I'm (judging by the votes and not by my ego) trustworthy and (judging by the fact that I'm here writing this about 2 hours before a final exam) available. In the end, Xania's vote counts, and the reasoning is understandable, though I disagree.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
And that is exactly why Mike would make a great CU. Well said mate :) Good luck on your finals. I begin them Monday. --Girdi (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
I don't think my remark shouldn't be disregarded even if you think it was out of oder or unproductive. I was not commenting directly on the nomination but on what could drive people to express opposition to similar proposals (lack of information).
The fact is there are back channels, but the problem only exists if needed information is subtracted from the main accepted channel. I for once was not aware on any CU problem, as in delay on getting the information, and as I'm not active in any other Wikimedia project I don't fallow other users activities outside of Wikibooks (if they do not mention it here), and think other Wikibookians also don't have any other contact with activities other than the on site postings.
The other fact is I voted for you based on your activity and do know you will need and make use of the tools, but not because of a pressing need to have another user with the tools, in that respect I was as inclined as Xania to oppose it, even more since SB Johnny did indeed came out of the blue with the nomination and the text doesn't refer any other aspects. (I know his activity here is low at the moment and he is active on other related activities like the IRC support, it is common sense to think that some reason or discussion/request had lead to this particular spontaneous and unsolicited nomination.)
This only has any impact if taken in account that I remember clearly past discussions about the tools, and it was with some admiration I saw so many support votes (clearly indicative of how your actions have been appreciated), but almost every one failed to stress the point that makes the CU tools a security risk. Trust but verify. A better appreciation of the facts would be gathered if you checked previous discussions on this topic. --Panic (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[]
First off, I wasn't trying to persuade Xania to change his vote, I was simply trying to make known information which is available, but might not be readily known. Even though peoples edit histories are common knowledge, I can't expect Xania or anybody to research them all in depth before a vote like this. All I wanted to say was that, in a sense, we appear to have more CUs then we actually have. That's why I was trying to share this information, because I was aware of it.
Second, in response to panic, there may indeed be "back channels" in the sense that all users have private email addresses. We also have the mailing list and IRC channel, both of which are under-utlized. If you are concerned about the dealings that happen in these two places, it's nobody's fault but your own that you don't participate in them. After the issue came up previously, it was made known that decisions could not be made through these venues without some kind of on-wiki account of it. To my knowledge, no violation of this de facto rule has occurred since it was created, unless you have some kind of evidence of it. Regardless, no portion of this nomination or the ensuing vote have been influenced by any off-wiki communications that I am aware of, so it's fruitless to talk about it here any further. If you do want to make a discussion out of it, you are welcome to start a discussion someplace more appropriate. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[]
It would be great if everyone had the private email addresses added to their account but alas that is only wishful thinking. As for the back channels I'm not rehashing old discussion nor implying any sort of bad faith, and I'm only still addressing the issue because it seems that we have a difference of opinion. I disagree with your view, as I understand it as expressed above. That if any information doesn't become evident to users it's their fault by not subscribing to secondary sources. That is the point I was making from the start. Any discussion of significance or facts can only become valid and constructive if they are reflected on Wikibooks, no expectation can be imparted only because a number of Wikibookians seem to be are aware of them, they must be part of the public record, here, as to validate any expectation of mutual understanding of the problems/subjects. Do you disagree with this last statement ? If so a more broad discussion on the subject may be of use. --Panic (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Further discussion located at Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Checkusers  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[]

+Bureaucrat

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

+Bureaucrat

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.