Wikibooks:Requests for Comments/SB Johnny

This is a Request For Comments about the conduct and contributions of, put to the community by. All Wikibookians with something to add about this contributor's actions are encouraged to comment, but please remain civil if your comments are critical: The RFC process is intended for constructive criticism, and criticism that is not constructive will not move us foreward. While it is in the nature of this process to be critical, please try to remember that the RFC process is not meant to be a forum for personal attacks, and all should try to approach this objectively.

Why Comments are Needed (initial opinion of SB_Johnny)
I should start by saying that I think that this RFC process would be good for the community, especially when it comes to very prominent users (like myself) whom some might be shy to be openly critical of. The reason wikis work is because wikis -- by their very nature -- encourage those with something to contribute to do so, on equal par with the "experts", and I strongly believe that "anyone can edit" implies that "all are equal".

I've been taking some beatings lately, and I really do feel them. I've been accused of using my admin tools improperly, and of playing a central part in a harmful cabal. On good days, I just feel that those criticisms are completely off the mark. On bad days, I feel guilty.

I would greatly appreciate it if my fellow Wikibookians could give me some guidance on these points. Even if you think I've been fairly good at judging what's the right thing to do, I'd still appreciate guidance about how to do things better in the future.

Just a technical note: this page was created using Rfc-uc. That template needs refining, because we need a template that encourages constructive criticism in a step-by-step manner. User Conduct RFCs aren't worth doing if there's no hope of helping the user in question become a better Wikibookian, so the template should be aimed towards helping users help other users.

What SB_Johnny would like to see happen
I'd like to feel more confident about how I approach things, or at least know how not to approach things in the future.

User:Panic2k4's viewpoint
Conversations outside of any Wikiproject should not be the bases to form judgments, come to final conclusions or be used to gather support against a person that is not present or as a way to split or divide the community, not to help to cover actions or reinforce statement made by another user that wishes to remain anonymous or just lacks the backbone to commit to them himself. Any conversation or ideas expressed outside of the site should not be used to justify or serve as a bases to any on site action and mention of them should be actively avoided, they are not part of the public record, verifiable or even authenticated by the community or the project.

Wikibooks constitutes a social network of voluntaries, most are here to be productive and generate content, others may be here just to give an helping hand from time to time and some may even be making an extra personal effort to be able to participate on it, antagonizing, discrediting or in any way degrade or excluding users should be activity avoided, some of the actions may not constitute acting on bad faith but the result will be he exclusion or removing other the ability to participate, freely express opinions and contribute to the project's evolution. Communication and friendship among users is a good outcome of participation on the project, but using or even unwilling generating a split or even a group working in coordination to drive the projects evolution or removing opposing views or treat them as a barrier should be a topmost priority of any user involved on an active relations with other Wikibookians to avoid. It should be something to avoid to even give the idea that it is going on, this is probably an harder task if the level of activity is above normal and not directed on addressing the core objective (producing content) but on shaping the project evolution by policy or self promotion, may it be organized or not the result of even an uncoordinated movement of users on that single direction should be seen as problematic and endangering the project's future.

Adminitrative actions should never be based on single admin personal judgment, we are humans and prone to errors or bad interpretations, lacking a formal policy or guideline at least a informal gathering of opinions should occur (and stated on the project as a way to evolve into a formal decission and give similar resolutions consistency in the future), preemptive action should be also actively avoided, Adminitrators aren't detectives nor even cops, there must be a clear call for intervention to justify any Administrative action, all users are free to comment on another's actions but Administrators should be aware that some rights granted to them can indeed cause grave damage to a Wikibookian especially if they are not provided with a way to object or address any errors.

I have avoided specific examples on propose I will not use this forum to rehash past discussions or divergences, what is stated here is my viewpoint and probably part of the justification to some actions I have fought against in the past and will fight to block in the future, as for my opposition to the recent vote I again state that I don't think SB Jhonny was, is or will act on bad faith (if not I would take a direct action), but due to events my level of thrust in the user is low, I can't be more clear about things as I have been in the past, and in regards to this particular vote my comments are not directed only to the perception of danger but on how things evolve or seem to be evolving, I know SB Jhonny needed the tools recently but what gave me the urgency to object was that it wasn't the user that requested them, the motives or the reason given to request them were not the ones I expected and would support and since the exercise isn't isolated, I saw it under a different light that started long ago and recently on the voting of WIW, the people that activity promoted voting on a policy that was still under discussion and how it lacked the normal due process to publicize it (clearly stating 7 days limit for approval), a "cabal" like Robert has called it some time ago may not exist but a state were coordinated actions keep occurring in regards to policy and promotion of specific ideas is very disturbing to me, intentionally or not... --Panic 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Whiteknight's viewpoint
I disagree pretty strongly with much of what Panic has to say, although this should not be any surprise to people who know Panic and I. I won't take the time to elaborate on any of it here, mostly because i feel many of the issues panic brings up aren't on task with this RFC.

I don't feel that SB Johnny has abused nor misused his admin tools whatsoever since his promotion. Many of the issues for which there is concern center around SBJohnny's dealings with User:Panic2k4 and User:Robert Horning, which most users are at least marginally familiar with. Before I say anything further, I want to make it perfectly clear that there is animosity between Rob and myself, and there is also animosity between Panic and myself. Anything I say about these two users is likely tainted because of my personal viewpoint and should be taken with a grain of salt. In Johnny's discussions with both Rob and Panic, (Rob most recently), if things have turned ugly I think it is certainly worth strong consideration that it was not the fault of Johnny. It is perhaps not admirable to be baited into such fights, but it isn't completely inconceivable that it could happen either. Especially in his dealings with Panic, Johnny has shown significantly more restraint and patience than I and a few other people have shown. Whether Panic appreciates the effort, or whether he views it as simply a slower and more deliberate form of antagonism I suppose only Panic knows for certain.

It may be seen as suspicious, perhaps, that Johnny and I appear to be friends (or at least to be very friendly and supportive of one another), and that I have posted a glowing RFA nomination for him, and am posting a supportive comment here. The fact is that Johnny and I live in the same area, that we have had lunch together on one occasion, and that we speak together regularly via telephone. The telephone bit is mostly a matter of convenience because it is a local call and is therefore cheap (or free when I have the available cellphone minutes). I would say that I know Johnny as well or better then any other wikibookian, and it is because of my knowledge of him that I am confident in my positive reviews of him. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Herby's viewpoint
OK - I am part of this community although recently I have remained on the edge and my inclination is to stay there now but...

I do think that constructive ideas may come out of this type of process and for some time now Wikibooks has been deep in inertia. Policy discussion may be great for some but in the real world actions are required to move anything forward. Wikibooks seems stuck in discussion rather than action. Many years ago I ran a training session that addressed a similar problem in a very different environment.

I questioned what a climber should do when all four limbs are on the rock. For quite sometime the climber will be safe - however eventually he will be dead. The courage to make a move is required in order not to die. Some one reminded me of this very recently so it had an impact as an illustration on one person at least.

Why is this relevant? Because some of us live in a world where "hanging on" really is not an option and action (of almost any sort - particularly if it is potentially reversible - that luxury few of us have in the real world) must happen. In general I don't "do" policy (I haven't read much of it if I am totally honest) so if that makes me a bad sysop I hope someone will tell me about it. If I don't know what to do I ask (& expect replies - so folk who do not answer me will lose my respect). There are times I just have to get on with it and hope I get it right. I have seen in edit summaries and in logs comments that I see as being rather pointed and aimed at me - maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. To be helpful to others and to be constructive is what I have sought to do and looked for in others.

Finally why is this relevant to this page - there are many differences between Johnny & I but it seems there are many similarities - it appears to me that we act in the way we see as best at the time. I hope I get right - I know sometimes I get it wrong and hope to learn. I see Johnny as similar - not always right, not always wrong but always trying.

For your patience - thanks. For those of you who look for other agendas, I am sorry but there are none here. For those of you intent on looking for other meanings in my words, I haven't found them or sought to put them there. For the cabalists, you are right but I am the only member of my cabal and always will be. I don't have invested in Wikibooks the same as many of you so if I need to go I will (but the tools will be handed back). -- Herby talk thyme 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Horning's viewpoint
While I will openly admit that I have not been getting along with Johnny, I don't really understand the purpose of re-opening this festering wound in our community and holding this round of comments. I know Panic is trying to prove a point here by going through this process but I think it is largely unnecessary.

Besides the feuding flamefests on talk pages that I have engaged with Johnny over, we really haven't been fighting each other in terms of actual edit conflicts or even have engaged each other with wheel warring either. Quite a bit of bluster has been shown, but nothing substantive that I've seen that shows any real conflict. And while feelings can get hurt on the various talk pages, in some ways it is better that we get everything out in the open for everybody to see what is going on.

If Johnny refuses to respond to this RfC, I would actually support such action (or inaction). There is nothing that will change in terms of his status on Wikibooks, nor do I see any real positive outcome for any such discussion that was not already covered in the previous arbitration between Johnny and Panic. From my perspective, it perhaps would be better to encourage some disengagement and to allow some cooling off time for all of the emotions that have been vented lately. --Rob Horning 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Xania's viewpoint
I refuse to take part in such a debate even if it was initiated by the party concerned. We should address our issues directly with those concerned and not encourage a circus like this. Xania talk 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Resolution

 * This part of the RFC process should only be undertaken after at least one week, when we as a community have some sense of what we collectively think.