Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SB Johnny 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] SB Johnny

Final (55/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 15:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SB Johnny (talk · contribs) - I bring you a farmer/horticulturalist/gardener who could benefit the community and find some uses for the tools. I first met Johnny when I wandered on to Wikibooks just over a year ago. He was patient and helpful with me as a newbie and I have seen him the same with many since. He is a 'crat on Wikibooks as well as a CheckUser (nominated by me), a custodian (admin) on Wikiversity and a CheckUser and an active admin on Commons. From this it should be clear that he is a highly trusted Wikimedian. He deals with challenging situations firmly and is always open to comments from others. You can find his contributions with these links, Commons contribs, Wikiversity contribs, Wikibooks contribs.

His main focus on Wikibooks is is A Wikimanual of Gardening, on Wikiversity he has worked on and promoted the Bloom Clock project while on Commons he is an active part of WikiProject Tree of Life. Having admin rights here would help with a number of issues regarding his cross wiki work. The transwiki'ing of files from en wp to en wb can raise issues particularly with copyright - this may require Johnny get hold of an en wp admin to check on deleted edits etc. Equally there are issues with images copied to Commons and then deleted, access to teh original material via deleted edits would allow verification of copyright for example. Custodianship on en wv is done on a mentoring basis and access to deleted edits here would again be useful in evaluating those requesting rights there. Finally Johnny is a very capable & experienced vandal fighter who with CU access on two project often finds cross wiki vandals and would then be able to deal with them. He is frequently available on IRC to help if needed.

I have every confidence that Johnny would make a useful addition to the admins here and I hope others will look on this nomination favourably --Herby talk thyme 13:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thanks Herby :). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily I'll be focusing on re-use issues regarding our sister projects (especially Wikibooks and Commons), such as confirming the copyright status of images, re-importing articles that were copy-past moved to Wikibooks (and have since been deleted here), ensuring that articles that are candidates for imports have proper history merges (i.e., when an article is merged and redirected, but without a full history merge), etc. I will also do some New Page patrolling (in particular speedying articles along the lines of "<person name> is a <pejoritive>, and <does this or that>, etc." Having rollback will also make my time spent on #cvn-wp-en a bit more efficient as well.
As Herbythyme mentioned above, I'll also be using the "access" part of sysop status for 4 important reasons:
1. to check for deleted contributions, etc., for accounts and IPs which have been vandalizing the other projects I volunteer on (including in some cases ips or accounts that have come to my attention while following up with checkuser), etc. A history of vandalism on Wikipedia essentially serves to bolster "evidence" which can help me determine the nature and term of a block (people tend to vandalize here first, then move on to the smaller projects). If CU and other evidence also identifies an open proxy, I'll close that down as well.
2. to check deleted contributions and/or talk page contents for users who are requesting custodianship (admin tools) on Wikiversity (we use a "mentoring" system there, so it's up to the current sysops to investigate and determine whether a user should recieve tools, and we accept Wikipedia (and other project) contributions in lieu of large numbers of Wikiversity contributions).
3. to see deleted edits on image files which were moved to commons and then got listed as NSD (etc.), in case more information was available on the original local version that didn't make it across.
4. to check for deleted stubs and "how-to" articles that may be of help to work on Wikibooks, so that I can temporarily undelete and import them if the information is worth grabbing .--SB_Johnny | talk 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I primarily work on plant and garden related articles, and have made numerous stubs (some of which have grown into rather good articles over the years) for missing plants, insects, etc. My work on the other Wikimedia projects is also in this field: on Wikibooks I try to preserve good-faith (but nonencyclopedic) content (mostly using Import, which was enabled on Wikibooks primarily because I lobbied intensely for it for a month or two), on Wikiversity I designed and participate in the Bloom Clock, which in large part was inspired by the need for a "geographically neutral" language for describing when a plant can be expected to have flowers (it will take a few years, but it's going well so far), and contributing and helping organize images on commons related to these fields.
I also try to help people understand both the nature of free licensing and the value of wikis as a tool for collaboratively creating good content, while trying to be gentle on people who don't understand it (I wrote WP:PANDA for the benefit of some of those folks). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I got caught up in some of the "colour/color" wars a few years ago (i.e., which English are we supposed to use), but really don't care much either way now. Spending time moderating disputes on other projects has proved to be a great way to learn how to avoid and defuse conflicts I might be heading for before they truly erupt. As a rule, I've found that the most important thing is to pin down why someone is being incivil/perplexing/overzealous, spend some time trying to find the common ground and collegiality, and then help the other person follow their wiki-passion without bringing on the ire of his or her co-contributors. I've only had to block two users (each more than once), and worked with both to find a way to avoid future strife (and in one of the cases I occaisionally offer a friendly but firm reminder). Keep in mind though that I probably won't be doing this much (if at all) on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has a well-developed dispute resolution structure (the other projects I work on don't have those, so I'd rather keep my moderation efforts free where the need is greater). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Rjd0060
4. Sorry to bring up things from your last RfA, but a major snag in that was your comment about page protection. Simply put, do you still believe that "there's a lot of articles that are quite good ("finished", in a way) that would be appropriate for the autoconfirmed level of protection", with emphasis on the later portion of that quote? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A: No. I'm tempted to leave it at that, but I'll explain anyway: I've more or less gone to the other pole on protection, mostly due to my experiences on Wikiversity (imagine being one of the very first admins on Wikipedia, and you'll be imagining what it's been like for me there). I'm not going to be going around unprotecting pages here on Wikipedia (I'm not familiar with the relevant policies and frankly feel I should leave that to more active administrators), but I certainly won't be protecting them, either. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)
5. Are you an active member of any WikiProjects? I don't mean just having your name down, but do you do a lot of work for them?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm an active member of WP:PLANTS, but I'm aftaid I tend to give them more work (through my mass stub creations) rather than "doing a lot of work". I don't feel bad about that however: a good wikiproject needs both people looking for something to improve as well as people bringing attention to things that need improving (I tend to be of the latter ilk). I often play the part of the reader, as opposed to the editor :).
I do of course chip in with an opinion when there's a decision to be made. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Marlith (talk · contribs)
6. What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? Marlith T/C 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I'd like it to be more of the same: a great encyclopedia and a stunning example of how open contributing can create open content. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/SB Johnny Requests for adminship/SB Johnny 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SB Johnny before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nominator --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Positions of trust on other wiki's do not automatically confer the same to en. However I think it should count for something. Okay, your hardly going to be the most active admin here judging by your contribution history (and a review of deleted edits seems to indicate basically nowt at C:CSD) but there seems to be a genuine need for the tools. User talk page and contributions seem all fine, no civility issues or anything so I guess it's a basic AGF thing - and that goes back to your positions on the sister projects. You could do with using edit summaries a bit more though, so I'd sugest you turn on the force request in your preferences. Pedro :  Chat  16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Has made substantial number of edits without indications of incivility on his talk page. Has demonstrated trustability on other project. Not likely to run amok with the tools. Use for tools you don't see every day. <after edit conflict> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. I was strongly considering a co-nom (if I got permission)... but it's went live so I'll confine myself to a support. I have worked with this user on multiple wikis and he really "gets it". Not a run of the mill candidate but the projects as a whole will greatly benefit from his having an adminship here. Very unlikely to "blow up the wiki" either. He really has a smooth touch and is very strongly consensus driven, so has a "deft touch". strong support with an offer to blather on more about specifics if they're really needed... I urge everyone else to do likewise. (er, support, not blather) ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Highly trusted user, the project will benefit from him getting the tools. GlassCobra 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per GlassCobra.   jj137 (Talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - I too was considering a co-nom, but it went live. :) And this trusted user, who has gained the best of names is worthy of the tools. Rudget.talk 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Probably should have been done a while ago... Jmlk17 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: I was just waiting on an answer to #4, and the answer you gave was great. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. support. There really does need to be a higher level of awareness on this project of the interaction with the sister projects, and how content that may be inappropriate for wikipedia may find a very welcoming home on Wikibooks or Wikiversity. By the same token, it's important to know what kinds of materials should not be "dumped" onto the sister projects if they don't belong. Johnny may not be the archetypical WP admin candidate, but his status as admin (and b'crat, and checkuser) on other projects proves that he is trustworthy, and his important role on many of the sister projects demonstrate his need for the ability to synchronize efforts between various projects in a way that normally only an admin can do. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Support. Admin on other Wikimedia projects. Jack?! 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support , but of course :) Good luck! Majorly (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Trusted user on three Wikimedia projects, surely a fourth wouldn't make it even better?? Like Herbythyme (talk • contribs • email)'s request for adminship, I'll support. --Solumeiras talk 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support already an admin in two other projects. NHRHS2010 talk 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support have crossed paths here, on Commons and at the Versity Bloom Clock, not seen any edits of concern. Gnangarra 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Daniel 08:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support ~ Riana ⁂ 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. :) — Kalan ? 09:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. I can see no problems, Wikipedia will only benefit with you having the tools. —Qst 09:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I've seen nothing but good edits from this user -Pumpmeup 10:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. My only concern with the candidate is that this would be his fourth project on which he holds a position of trust. He'll be busy. Can an administrator be too trusted? In this case - absolutely not. No objections to this candidate. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support A very trusted user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support Would have supported anyway but even more so thanks to the answer to my question--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support a very strong editor who will help out with much. Marlith T/C 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. I don't anticipate problems from this candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. – Steel 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems like he will make a great admin Alexfusco5 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support - Support because he has a great edit history, and seem's to know his way around. Strong because he was admin before on a few occassions and knows his way around well. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Why isn't this user an admin yet? He's able to help a lot, you know. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:56, 22 November 2007 (GMT)
  31. Support. No problems here - highly trustworthy and competent Wikimedian. WjBscribe 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. An excellent Wikimedian and fellow WP:PLANTS contributor. Great contributions and very trustworthy. Rkitko (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support No cons here. Húsönd 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. No concerns here either. He'll make good use of the tools across the projects. ×Meegs 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Clearly worthy. Axl (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Clichè I-thought-he-was-one support —Animum (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Ρх₥α 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Good interactions with this user on the mailing lists; complete trust with the tools. Give this man a mop! —CComMack (t–c) 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. I-already-thought-you-were-an-admin Support Seriously, I could have sworn voting for you in the past. I'm glad that you're finally an admin. --Sharkface217 06:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. A great guy on Commons. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Yonatan talk 14:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. A productive and trusted Wikimedian. Will be more productive with the admin tools here at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Has a great track and concerns of previous RFA in 2006 are all been remidied.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support We need more people who know about coordination with the sister projects.DGG (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Looks good. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. Experienced and trustworthy. Acalamari 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Good credentials.--Bedivere (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Never heard of him before, but how could I not support himBalloonman (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support trustworthy user. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
Decline - He's a crap editor. --69.156.172.63 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Trolling and IP. IPs are not allowed to comment in these sections. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (GMT)
[edit] Neutral
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.